PDA

View Full Version : Tomb of Horrors-Play it in 3.5 or 1st Edition?



GreyMantle
2010-06-01, 09:24 PM
Sooo...

[Long set-up is long]

My group's current campaign just ended in essentially a TPK. It was very political and did not have a lot of classic dungeon-crawling or even fighting.

We've decided, as a quick break, it might be fun to do something completely different, and I suggested playing the Tomb of Horrors to them. After a bit of description, they decided it might be entertaining, and at the very least it would be something different.

(Note: the group as a whole is fond of puzzles and traps and such besides combat, so I'm thinking the specific style of the dungeon will not be especially abhorrent to them. If the situation seems to merit, I might add some random encounters every so often.)

I had originally intended to use the 3.5 revision WotC put online, probably with core-online for a bit of a retro feel, but then I hit upon the idea of actually running the adventure with 1st edition rules.

All of us started D&D with 3.5, but some of us have played Baldur's Gate and other 2nd Ed games. I also have access to the three main books and the original adventure, and I've read through them all vaguely thoroughly.

My question to the collected wisdom of this board is this:
For a game that will probably be a one-off, would it be worth it to run Tomb of Horrors in the original version as opposed to the 3.5 revision?
That is to say, would the (possible) added enjoyment and retro flavor be worth the difficulty of six players learning the 1st edition rules? None of them are stupid, but none of them are rules masters, either.

Thank you for any advice you might deem applicable to this situation.

The Glyphstone
2010-06-01, 09:26 PM
From what I understand, you don't actually need to know the rules to play 1E Tomb of Horrors, because so little of its traps actually relate to the rules - they're all variants of "Open the door: Read Gary Gygax's mind or die, no save".

Lapak
2010-06-01, 09:29 PM
The idea of the module is far more suited to 1st edition play, certainly. And since out-of-combat play in 1e is rules-light 'the players tell you exactly what they're doing' and the module lays out how to adjudicate different actions they might try, you should be able to get them rolling along quickly. Most of the rules differences are combat-related, and there's actually not a whole lot of combat IN the original module.

I'd go for it, I think.

Though one of the things that struck me when I first read the module is that I didn't see any way that the pre-gen characters could actually HURT the demi-lich...

EDIT: I wouldn't go that far. Suitably paranoid players CAN survive the 1e Tomb, especially if they know when to cut their losses and when NOT to explore something.

The Cat Goddess
2010-06-01, 09:38 PM
Though one of the things that struck me when I first read the module is that I didn't see any way that the pre-gen characters could actually HURT the demi-lich...

Well... The idea is that the thief uses the gems you find to kill it, which is why the Gargoyle Statue is there... to keep you from having enough gems.

2nd edition works fine for Tomb of Horrors.

The 3.5 version is weak.

lyko555
2010-06-01, 10:16 PM
keep in mind the 3.5 will still meatgrinder ppl if they dont play intelligently

Agrippa
2010-06-01, 11:38 PM
The idea of the module is far more suited to 1st edition play, certainly. And since out-of-combat play in 1e is rules-light 'the players tell you exactly what they're doing' and the module lays out how to adjudicate different actions they might try, you should be able to get them rolling along quickly. Most of the rules differences are combat-related, and there's actually not a whole lot of combat IN the original module.

I'd go for it, I think.

Though one of the things that struck me when I first read the module is that I didn't see any way that the pre-gen characters could actually HURT the demi-lich...

This little gem from Tv Tropes shows how it can be done.


•Crowning Moment of Awesome: At one GenCon, one team actually succeeded in the adventure by using one of the no-saving-throw instant death traps against Acererak. "I put the crown on the demilich's head while my buddy taps it with the wrong end of the scepter."
◦Made doubly awesome by the fact that the tournament's DM called in Gary Gygax himself for backup, and Gary admitted that it would work, and ruled that Acererak instantly died. First prize! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TombOfHorrors)

In 3.5 WotC made it so you can't take the crown out of it's own chamber.

Afgncaap5
2010-06-01, 11:50 PM
I just played through the 3.5 version and enjoyed it. I would've won, too, if I'd just played selfishly. But no, I gallantly stood with the rest of my team, standing until the death, instead of trusting my instincts to run away at the end of every turn.