# So, what is "4th Edition's Tomb of Horrors"?



## Maggan (Aug 14, 2009)

Clipped from WotC news:



> July sees the Demonomicon as well as the next super-adventure following Against the Giants: 4th Edition's Tomb of Horrors!




Does that mean they are redoing Tomb of Horrors, or doing something akin to Tomb of Horrors?

I'm guessing ... erm ... a remake of Return to Tomb of Horrors, mega-adventure style.

/M


----------



## fireinthedust (Aug 14, 2009)

Maggan said:


> Clipped from WotC news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Um, yeah!   Woot!   I hope so.   I enjoy playing in dungeons with traps and puzzles.  I think the mega adventure should have all of those.  I don't know a DM who'd want to run RttToH in 2e, as we never made it that far.  However, if I can find one for my regular game...

I think it'll be a 4e overhaul of the 2e module.  However, maybe they'll move the Tomb up a bunch.  It's mentioned in Open Grave, after all, as is Acererak.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 14, 2009)

fireinthedust said:


> Um, yeah!   Woot!   I hope so.   I enjoy playing in dungeons with traps and puzzles.  I think the mega adventure should have all of those.  I don't know a DM who'd want to run RttToH in 2e, as we never made it that far.  However, if I can find one for my regular game...
> 
> I think it'll be a 4e overhaul of the 2e module.  However, maybe they'll move the Tomb up a bunch.  It's mentioned in Open Grave, after all, as is Acererak.



That Acererak is a bit of an "adventure-slut" in 4E... As in, "He really gets around." He's allegedly appearing in this year's _Revenge of the Giants_, too!

I'm totally pumped for the Tomb of Horrors 4E! I've been asking for it since I first laid my eyes upon skill challenges!


----------



## Invisible Stalker (Aug 14, 2009)

I'd be happy with 4E versions of as many classic D&D modules as they can make.


----------



## kitsune9 (Aug 14, 2009)

Maggan said:


> Clipped from WotC news:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I had a really good time converting Return to the Tomb of Horrors to 3.0. I'm pretty sure that I'll look at the 4e Tomb and see if I can convert it Pathfinder. I do like those ubertrap dungeons.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 14, 2009)

Invisible Stalker said:


> I'd be happy with 4E versions of as many classic D&D modules as they can make.



Agreed. Adventures tie them game to its much better than mechanics ever could. I like that the end of the 3E era brought us some decent new and revisited adventures, and I like even more that 4E is continuing the trend with a Dungeon Magazine adventure path that continues from 3.5E's _Red Hand of Doom_, and that 4E's first super adventure revisits _Against the Giants_.

Awesome stuff, guys!


----------



## kenmarable (Aug 14, 2009)

Critical Hits also mentioned on Twitter that Tomb of Horrors is levels 10-22 mega adventure.

12 levels in 1 one book sounds like some serious XP crunching!!


----------



## Mistwell (Aug 14, 2009)

Between Open Grave, a bit of the Manual of the Planes, and a whole bunch in Dungeon and Dragon, it sure seemed like we already have most of a Tomb of Horrors adventure path.  I mean, are they just tossing all that stuff in there and then finishing out the rest?

Not a criticism, I want that adventure path! But, it looked like they were just doing it in bits and pieces here and there already.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 14, 2009)

While it didn't have the traps, 2E had the Dark Sun setting for humongous numbers of character deaths. Old Middle Earth Role Playing character trees were handy. It was awe-inspiring.


----------



## Rechan (Aug 14, 2009)

Wait.

From what I understand, Tomb of Horrors was basically 'Pick right or Left. You picked left? You die. You picked right? Okay. Pick right or left. You picked right? You die. You picked Left? Okay, on to the next coin flip..."

Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.


----------



## Betote (Aug 14, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Wait.
> 
> From what I understand, Tomb of Horrors was basically 'Pick right or Left. You picked left? You die. You picked right? Okay. Pick right or left. You picked right? You die. You picked Left? Okay, on to the next coin flip..."
> 
> Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.




Exactly my thoughts. I even recall (not sure if correctly) one of the preview articles for 4e putting Tomb of Horrors as the example of everything that was wrong from previous D&D editions.

Not sure how will Tomb of Horrors be under 4e's design philosophy, but it will definitely be something. Good or bad, that's not sure.


----------



## Cyronax (Aug 15, 2009)

I wish they make retcons/renewed 4e versions of the classic adventures a staple of DDI's Dungeon. I think a 4e version of the old basic D&D adventure of Rahasia (great for tactical use of teleportation zones and also the moral quandry of attacking dominated opponents) or the Veiled Society (great for showcasing skill challenge mechanics) would be fantastic for instance. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Aug 15, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Wait.
> 
> From what I understand, Tomb of Horrors was basically 'Pick right or Left. You picked left? You die. You picked right? Okay. Pick right or left. You picked right? You die. You picked Left? Okay, on to the next coin flip..."
> 
> Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.



I want to believe that over the course of a 12 level adventure, PCs will learn about most of Acerak's tricks long before they make it into the tomb.


----------



## kaomera (Aug 15, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.



Well, your recollections of S1 differ a lot from mine, but yes there where ways of ending up very, very dead after very few (if any) die-rolls. Like you say, that's not 4e's thing, so I'd expect to see things done differently. As this is described, it couldn't possibly be a direct transcription of the old Tomb anyway.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 15, 2009)

Betote said:


> Exactly my thoughts. I even recall (not sure if correctly) one of the preview articles for 4e putting Tomb of Horrors as the example of everything that was wrong from previous D&D editions.
> 
> Not sure how will Tomb of Horrors be under 4e's design philosophy, but it will definitely be something. Good or bad, that's not sure.




It really doesn't matter what's in the adventure. WOTC will sell it on name recognition even if its Tomb of Flowers.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 15, 2009)

Ah, dang it ExploderWizard, now I want to see the Tomb of Flowers. Some kind of Aztec-themed death trap.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 15, 2009)

coyote6 said:


> Ah, dang it ExploderWizard, now I want to see the Tomb of Flowers. Some kind of Aztec-themed death trap.




I don't want to give away too much but the BBE lich at the end was formerly a 17th level monk.


----------



## coyote6 (Aug 15, 2009)

Instead of instant death, the traps all capture the hapless adventurers. They are later sacrificed to bloodthirsty gods is gory rites.


----------



## darjr (Aug 15, 2009)

I ran my boys through the 3.5 tomb conversion (yes, still available at WotC for free).

They played a vampire and a were wolf.

The vamp would take point and get smashed into smoke a lot. Their fingers regenerating was a big hint that the sphere was NOT teleporting them.


----------



## Mortellan (Aug 15, 2009)

There's alot wrong with this idea. Most of it has been said already. Where's the horror in a mega-ToH I ask? The original did more to scare players in several dozen pages than an entire boxed set ever could, that's why its often imitated. Mind you I never liked the Return to's and the Expedition to's either. The more something is remade the less of the original feel it has. Where or what are the new classics?


----------



## Maggan (Aug 15, 2009)

For me this is very interesting because the original Tomb of Horrors didn't work at all for me and my group. For us it was boring, repetetive, unchallenging and a complete disaster*. Basically the type of module I don't have the skill to make interesting.

On the other hand, I thought the same about D&D4e, and I'm having a great success with the current Scales of War campaign. So a revisit to the Tomb of Horrors for D&D4e is very interesting to me, to see if an adaption to the D&D4e rules will enable me to run the module sucessfully.

/M

* Please, please, please take note of the "for us" part of this sentence.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 15, 2009)

We successfully completed Return to the Tomb of Horrors translated to 3E. We lost one character and had several close calls. The original tomb of horrors part of it, I cannot imagine being transcribed to 4E unless they want to give 4E some deadly teeth. It would be a shame to see this part softened or 4E-ized; that really was part of the charm.

As for the "Return to" part of the adventure, I could see this translating to 4E really well and would imagine that this would be the focus - with the inevitable "wuss-erizing" of the actual Tomb part.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## renau1g (Aug 15, 2009)

Yes it would definitely required some "wuss-erizing" to avoid telling players ok roll that 20, ok you're dead. I don't see a big problem with that, I had a similar experience to Maggan (hey Maggan, if you have any tips for stringing the Scales of War together in a less rail-roady fashion can you shoot me an e-mail to my username at gmail.com?) and am not a fan of save or die. If a PC dies in combat, cool, they accept that, but if they die because they fail a fort save, less cool. This is why I houseruled save or die spells in my games and we all had fun still...


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 15, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> We successfully completed Return to the Tomb of Horrors translated to 3E. We lost one character and had several close calls. The original tomb of horrors part of it, I cannot imagine being transcribed to 4E unless they want to give 4E some deadly teeth. It would be a shame to see this part softened or 4E-ized; that really was part of the charm.
> 
> As for the "Return to" part of the adventure, I could see this translating to 4E really well and would imagine that this would be the focus - with the inevitable "wuss-erizing" of the actual Tomb part.
> 
> ...




Does `wuss-erizing` mean making the Tomb more fun to playÉ  I ran the original 1E version and no one liked it.  They were just using the PCs fromthe book but the tediousness of checking every square milimeter of the dungeon combined with the fact that so many of the traps are simply a roll a die or die and hidden so well that no one could find them and everyone was bored about an hour in.  Fast forward to my 3E campaign 2 years ago and I ran the group throuhg ther TOH 3E - better but still felt like a long drawn out search fest.  never have a asked for and been asked for so many search rolls in my life.  At least we actually finished it this time though and defeated the demi lich (not Acerack just a minion of his - he did manage to mock and enrage the party though  ) at the end.

Heres hoping the 4E version can breath a little fun and life into this tired old adventure.


----------



## JeffB (Aug 15, 2009)

I'm all up for something that is more in line with the original. I was totally underwhelmed with the RttToH Boxed set (as I was with all the 2E "return to" adventures).


IOW- I really hope WOTC pulls a "dark sun" and goes back to the 1E version


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 15, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Wait.
> 
> From what I understand, Tomb of Horrors was basically 'Pick right or Left. You picked left? You die. You picked right? Okay. Pick right or left. You picked right? You die. You picked Left? Okay, on to the next coin flip..."
> 
> Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.



The 4e Tomb will have a mantra similar to the general 4e mantra of "Everything is Core".

Only, for the 4e Tomb, "Everything is Hardcore".


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Aug 15, 2009)

That was one adventure that was everything that was BAD about D&D, as others noted, ugh.
look, if you want to be open about it and say _"Let's have a slaughterfest dungeon romp, make 5 characters each!"_ ok! 
but otherwise, it just sucks for D&Ding...the 2nd ed mega-adventure tried to build on the entire lore, but failed as it was ok in parts, but disjointed, and keeping the original tomb in a proper campaign play style...*barf!*

Lots of deaths are only acceptable to most players when the know it's a fun "whack a rat a thon"  but it's not ok when they are doing a proper campaign arc.
Would "Temple of Elemental Evil" be ok if say oh the moathouse was like Undermountain, hm?

Please note, there's a HUGE difference between Acererak's booby-trapped tomb, and Dark Sun: in Dark Sun characters died mostly because their players were dumb, not because you had an arbitrary "save or die" booby trap 
Hey, in Dark Sun, characters can_ run the hell away_, or, learn survival skills or carry lots of water, or bribe templars rather than give them backtalk....where as _"Oops, you got disintegrated"_ merely for chosing badly isn't exactly the same, is it? hehe


Having said all that..if they worked more on the story of the creepy folk who built a cult aorund the Tomb, and Acererak's plans for apotheosis (becoming one with ALL undead), and his planar city lair (forget name of it off hand), hey..that could be fun


----------



## hailstop (Aug 15, 2009)

kitsune9 said:


> I had a really good time converting Return to the Tomb of Horrors to 3.0. I'm pretty sure that I'll look at the 4e Tomb and see if I can convert it Pathfinder. I do like those ubertrap dungeons.




It'll be interesting to see how they do it.  I've run into a bit of a problem converting the Mud Sorceror's Tomb to 4e...namely the 'traps' that are interspersed between any encounters.  It doesn't make a lot of sense unless the traps do massive amounts of damage.

This is mainly due to the fact that 4e got away from being an attrition type game to one where any individual encounter can be nasty.  The in-between encounter damage is mostly pointless except as a source of reducing healing surges...and in that case the PCs would just take an extended rest. So it's not really that big of a deal.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 15, 2009)

hailstop said:


> It'll be interesting to see how they do it.  I've run into a bit of a problem converting the Mud Sorceror's Tomb to 4e...namely the 'traps' that are interspersed between any encounters.  It doesn't make a lot of sense unless the traps do massive amounts of damage.
> 
> This is mainly due to the fact that 4e got away from being an attrition type game to one where any individual encounter can be nasty.  The in-between encounter damage is mostly pointless except as a source of reducing healing surges...and in that case the PCs would just take an extended rest. So it's not really that big of a deal.



To be fair, the original S1 isn't an attrition dungeon either, except for the teleport traps that steal all your equipment. Or rather it's a non-attrition dungeon that in some places gets confused and thinks it is. There's no time limit, nothing to prevent the 15 minute day, or the 15 minute week for that matter. Most of the traps are insta-kills IIRC however there are a minority that do low amounts of damage, like 1-6, which are completely pointless. On page 5, section 13, regarding such a trap, it is stated "a mere annoyance, but it erodes the strength of the party". No, Gary, it doesn't.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 15, 2009)

Mortellan said:


> Mind you I never liked the Return to's and the Expedition to's either. The more something is remade the less of the original feel it has. Where or what are the new classics?



Ah, someone who's interested in new adventures! I understand that, too.

3E had a few adventures that might deserve "classic" status now. _Red Hand of Doom_ comes to mind, since it's the origin of 4E's _Scales of War_ adventure path in Dungeon Magazine. I heard that the _Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde_ was good too, though I've never seen it myself. _The Sunless Citadel_ gave us Meepo, and the _Forge of Fury_ was pretty cool too. My group also played through the DD series, of which _The Sinister Spire_ was my favorite. There was also the free original adventures provided online, which I'm sure a lot of people used -- I've personally both ran and played-though the very first one (_The Burning Plague_) at least three times. (It was also the first adventure I ever ran, so it seems especially "classic" to me.) I also hear that Dungeon Magazine's _Age of Worms_ campaign was pretty good.

In 4E, we've already seen nearly a dozen official adventures available in stores, some of which are pretty popular. For example, _P1: King of the Trollhaunt Warrens_ just won an ENny. Also, probably half of the posters on this board have played through _H1: Keep on the Shadowfell_, so it's definitely destined to become a 4E "classic module". I'm sure there's been some other memorable ones in Dungeon Magazine, too.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 15, 2009)

Mortellan said:


> There's alot wrong with this idea. Most of it has been said already. Where's the horror in a mega-ToH I ask? The original did more to scare players in several dozen pages than an entire boxed set ever could, that's why its often imitated.



There was no horror in the original. The horror genre, when successful, takes time to make its protagonists real - to make you care about them. They have personalities and history and motivation. Not so with S1. This is old school play. It's a relentless treadmill of death. The players have a dozen PCs generated, they probably don't even bother to give them names. Your PC dies. So what? He didn't exist in any sense, anyway. Death is meaningless. It's a deeply videogame-y playstyle, reminiscent of learning a boss in World of Warcraft. The wipes don't mean that much, all you've lost is time.


----------



## SkidAce (Aug 15, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> That was one adventure that was everything that was BAD about D&D, as others noted, ugh.
> look, if you want to be open about it and say _"Let's have a slaughterfest dungeon romp, make 5 characters each!"_ ok!




That is why it was originally a tournament/convention module.  

We had fun with it.  The DM sent in clones of ourselves that had mental links to the clones outside..so we kept updated.  I think the cleverest player only suffered 2 deaths.

On a side note was when the clones completed the module and came out, there was a "difference of opinion" on who was the real character.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 16, 2009)

I don't really get the sentiment of "I hope they completely change it and remove all the save or die aspects!"

That's...sort of the whole purpose.

Yeah, you don't like it.  But a lot of people did.  And if you get rid of that, the Tomb becomes...just another dungeon.  With nothing special other then the fact that it shares the name of a radically different dungeon from older editions.

If you don't like that type of gameplay, don't play the dungeon.  Don't demand it be changed to fit your tastes


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 16, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> I don't really get the sentiment of "I hope they completely change it and remove all the save or die aspects!"
> 
> That's...sort of the whole purpose.
> 
> ...



Is the Tomb famous for being a dungeon full of traps, or for being an excuse for DMs to kill characters without explanation?


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 16, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Is the Tomb famous for being a dungeon full of traps, or for being an excuse for DMs to kill characters without explanation?




Mostly the second. I rarely hear people discuss it in the context of a simple trap-filled dungeon. Conversely, I almost _always_ hear people talk about it in terms of PC deaths. That said, it's a great convention scenario for that very reason.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 16, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Mostly the second. I rarely hear people discuss it in the context of a simple trap-filled dungeon. Conversely, I almost _always_ hear people talk about it in terms of PC deaths. That said, it's a great convention scenario for that very reason.



In that case, was that the intention of the dungeon: to be an excuse for DMs to slaughter characters?

Obviously it's lethality is a big part of the "mystique" of this dungeon, and thus a part of what made it classic; you were free to play it without expectations, other than the expectation of character death. But is that really where the potential of this dungeon ends?


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 16, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> In that case, was that the intention of the dungeon: to be an excuse for DMs to slaughter characters?




Kind of. Back in the day, if I understand my grognard friends correctly, convention modules were run as competitive affairs with multiple groups trying to assail a given dungeon, the goal of each group being to penetrate deeper into the dungeon than their opponents. The winner would receive some kind of prize. 

The easiest way to measure success for such competitions without resorting to complicated points tracking was simply to make the dungeons as deadly as possible. Then it was simply a matter of tracking of how far each group made it into the dungeon and how many characters they had left in their party when they made it there.  

This is why you rarely see the kind of arbitrary deathtraps characteristic of convention modules elsewhere.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 16, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> Kind of. Back in the day, if I understand my grognard friends correctly, convention modules were run as competitive affairs with multiple groups trying to assail a given dungeon, the goal of each group being to penetrate deeper into the dungeon than their opponents. The winner would receive some kind of prize.
> 
> The easiest way to measure success for such competitions without resorting to complicated points tracking was simply to make the dungeons as deadly as possible. Then it was simply a matter of tracking of how far each group made it into the dungeon and how many characters they had left in their party when they made it there.
> 
> This is why you rarely see the kind of arbitrary deathtraps characteristic of convention modules elsewhere.



Interesting stuff. It sounds like this now-classic module had pretty humble beginnings.*

Since we're engaging in the thought-experiment of deciding what the Tomb of Horrors should be in 4E, the most obvious question is how we should "open it up" to players, if we should at all. In the time since the original, Acererak has becoming something of an icon in D&D, and given that WotC plans on stretching this adventure out for twelve levels, they obviously think there's a lot of room to develop this guy, his machinations, and his dungeon.

*For some reason this reminds me of the story of the scepter that's used for official proceedings in the Alberta legislature: The official one used now is made from metal, and is what it looks like. However, the original scepter used in 1905 -- which looks nearly identical to the one used now -- had to be made in a hurry in order to be ready in time, and ended up being constructed from assorted junk including (IIRC) a brass bedpost and a toilet float-ball, all painted gold. If I remember the story correctly, that scepter ended up being used for quite a while.


----------



## DracoSuave (Aug 16, 2009)

So, Return to The Tomb of Revisited Horrors 2: The Tomb Strikes Back?


----------



## Pour (Aug 16, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> So, Return to The Tomb of Revisited Horrors 2: The Tomb Strikes Back?




I wish I had something more constructive to lend to this discussion, but hahahahahahahaha. I move that be the title with a huge explosion flinging Acererak's screaming skull into a close up.


----------



## the Jester (Aug 16, 2009)

Rechan said:


> Wait.
> 
> From what I understand, Tomb of Horrors was basically 'Pick right or Left. You picked left? You die. You picked right? Okay. Pick right or left. You picked right? You die. You picked Left? Okay, on to the next coin flip..."
> 
> Simply put the deathtraps were rather instantaneous. Doesn't seem to be in line with 4e's philosophy, given they nixed the save or dies.




I disagree with this. A smart, canny party _could_ make it through. I ran RttToH, no holds barred, and my pcs came through with, amazingly, flying colors. 

For the record, one of the big keys to their success was the diviner cohort of one of the pcs (this was in 3.5). My conversion of it took them from the high teens to the low 20s- it was the start of the epic part of my 3.5 campaign. (RttToH starts here in my story hour, if you're interested.


----------



## kaomera (Aug 16, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> Since we're engaging in the thought-experiment of deciding what the Tomb of Horrors should be in 4E, the most obvious question is how we should "open it up" to players, if we should at all. In the time since the original, Acererak has becoming something of an icon in D&D, and given that WotC plans on stretching this adventure out for twelve levels, they obviously think there's a lot of room to develop this guy, his machinations, and his dungeon.



I think that first of all, the threat of Acererak will most likely be expanded into a kind of adventure-path, with the actual dungeon only reached at the very conclusion. S1 started at the dungeon entrance because it was a tournament module (and most likely due to space constraints as well), but it was made clear (as with several other modules, White Plume Mountain in particular sticks in my head) that locating and reaching the tomb's location was no easy task. I'm hoping that when the PCs arrive there will be more incentive to actually deal with the place, in the AD&D module there was no real expectation by any but the most foolhardy and overconfident players that this was going to be an overall profitable trip, and aside from "He's powerful and EVIL" there wasn't much immediate incentive to destroy the demi-lich. (In fact I know of at least three separate parties where one or more PCs worked to convince the characters bent on destroying Acererak, mostly Paladins and/or LG clerics, to skip it - twice by uncovering "evidence" that he was gone for good, and once by encouraging a lesser BBEG to attack...)

ETA: I agree with Jester. The deadliness of the Tomb of Horrors is part self-perpetuating myth. The stories that have grown up around the Tomb encourage DMs to run it as deadly as possible, but played straight even the AD&D version was survivable if you didn't just charge in or get bored and pick fights or start messing with stuff you didn't need to. At least in my opinion / experience.


----------



## Doodles (Aug 16, 2009)

4e basically nullifies any interest one could have in running Tomb of Horrors.

The module is antithetic to the rules' set core design tenets. Anyone saying otherwise either hasn't played the real thing or is just completely deluded into somehow thinking that ToH was designed for special snowflakes, which it wasn't.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 16, 2009)

Doodles said:


> 4e basically nullifies any interest one could have in running Tomb of Horrors.
> 
> The module is antithetic to the rules' set core design tenets. Anyone saying otherwise either hasn't played the real thing or is just completely deluded into somehow thinking that ToH was designed for special snowflakes, which it wasn't.




I've played the original _Tomb of Horrors_ and think it could be done in 4e. Having said that, the end result would be different in terms of actual play, instead embodying the design philosophy of D&D 4e. Just as _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_ was vastly different than the original, embodying the design philosophy of AD&D 2e. 

I envision a D&D 4e _Tomb of Horrors_ as lacking binary "save or die" death traps, those features being replaced by the skill challenges and tactical combats of the current D&D edition. I further expect a D&D 4e version of the _Tomb of Horrors_ would have a detailed back story and heavy story elements, both of which were lacking in the original (but that were introduced in _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_). 

Such a module wouldn't be the same kind of module that the original was by any means. That's not exactly a bad thing, though — throwing together a bunch of one-dimensional death traps is pretty low brow dungeon design by today's standards. _Anybody_ can do this, as hundreds of fan-created modules prove. Even if somebody published a carbon copy re-creation of the _Tomb of Horrors_, I'm not convinced that it would sell very well today, for this reason.


----------



## Mortellan (Aug 16, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> I've played the original _Tomb of Horrors_ and think it could be done in 4e. Having said that, the end result would be different in terms of actual play, instead embodying the design philosophy of D&D 4e. Just as _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_ was vastly different than the original, embodying the design philosophy of AD&D 2e.
> 
> I envision a D&D 4e _Tomb of Horrors_ as lacking binary "save or die" death traps, those features being replaced by the skill challenges and tactical combats of the current D&D edition. I further expect a D&D 4e version of the _Tomb of Horrors_ would have a detailed back story and heavy story elements, both of which were lacking in the original (but that were introduced in _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_).
> 
> Such a module wouldn't be the same kind of module that the original was by any means. That's not exactly a bad thing, though — throwing together a bunch of one-dimensional death traps is pretty low brow dungeon design by today's standards. _Anybody_ can do this, as hundreds of fan-created modules prove. Even if somebody published a carbon copy re-creation of the _Tomb of Horrors_, I'm not convinced that it would sell very well today, for this reason.




You're probably right about that except for the fact the title Tomb of Horrors is now and forever gold. This mod to me is a catch 22. Wizards wants to capture the feel of the original ToH but can't due to their 'design philosophy' and WotC has to slap the name Tomb of Horrors on it  since the same 12 level mega dungeon in writing wouldn't generate a buzz or sell as well if its named the 'Crypt of Terror' for instance.


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 16, 2009)

Mortellan said:


> Wizards wants to capture the feel of the original ToH but can't due to their 'design philosophy' and WotC has to slap the name Tomb of Horrors on it since the same 12 level mega dungeon in writing wouldn't generate a buzz or sell as well if its named the 'Crypt of Terror' for instance.




Maybe. This would make the new module no different than _Return to the Tomb of Horrors_ in that respect, though.


----------



## LostSoul (Aug 16, 2009)

Doodles said:


> The module is antithetic to the rules' set core design tenets. Anyone saying otherwise either hasn't played the real thing or is just completely deluded into somehow thinking that ToH was designed for special snowflakes, which it wasn't.




There's no reason why you can't have a trap that says, "+19 vs. Will; dead" or "This is a sphere of annihilation.  Anyone who touches (no attack roll needed) it is utterly destroyed and can't be raised."  

The rules don't prevent it; it's the DM advice and culture around 4E that would be the biggest hurdle.

I for one hope they leave the deathtraps intact.


----------



## Wardook (Aug 16, 2009)

*Ahh Fond Memories*

I made it through Tomb a couple of times, but we used the infamous pig on a stick and had to go back to town every time the pig died. I don't know why we didn't buy multiple pigs? We also bought a cart to haul all our booty.

I would much rather see White Plume Mountain, Barrier Peaks, or Land Beyond the Magic Mirror. These modules were all very creative and pushed the genre. Don't have the time to convert them myself, but they would make my DnDi subscription worth the money if they were released there. So far it hasn't been worth the cash.

Most modules were run at cons originally, so were very deadly, but Gygax is infamous for save or die. D&D is based on wargames.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 16, 2009)

LostSoul said:


> There's no reason why you can't have a trap that says, "+19 vs. Will; dead" or "This is a sphere of annihilation.  Anyone who touches (no attack roll needed) it is utterly destroyed and can't be raised."
> 
> The rules don't prevent it; it's the DM advice and culture around 4E that would be the biggest hurdle.
> 
> I for one hope they leave the deathtraps intact.




Sphere is already in the DMG; so they might need it to call it something else. Am not sure I want a return to death saves, but perhaps something along a good deal of intial damage and perhaps ongoing necrotic enough to kill people in a round or two would do the trick.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sphere is already in the DMG; so they might need it to call it something else. Am not sure I want a return to death saves, but perhaps something along a good deal of intial damage and perhaps ongoing necrotic enough to kill people in a round or two would do the trick.



In 4E, there's hardly any damage effect more terrifying than losing a Healing Surge, or losing HP equal to a Surge.


----------



## kaomera (Aug 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Sphere is already in the DMG; so they might need it to call it something else. Am not sure I want a return to death saves, but perhaps something along a good deal of intial damage and perhaps ongoing necrotic enough to kill people in a round or two would do the trick.



You could use the Sphere from the DMG, leveled appropriately. Since many players will have heard of this trap (always been a problem, really) you could change it up by having a group of monsters enter the area as the PCs are studying the thing. Each holds a strange talisman, and as they approach the sphere starts moving up behind the PCs...


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 17, 2009)

Spacekase said:


> I
> I would much rather see White Plume Mountain, Barrier Peaks, or Land Beyond the Magic Mirror. These modules were all very creative and pushed the genre.




Now these three would make a kick ass campaign arc.  


I think I'm only 1/4 kidding too!


----------



## Holy Bovine (Aug 17, 2009)

Doodles said:


> 4e basically nullifies any interest one could have in running Tomb of Horrors.
> 
> The module is antithetic to the rules' set core design tenets. Anyone saying otherwise either hasn't played the real thing or is just completely deluded into somehow thinking that ToH was designed for special snowflakes, which it wasn't.




Ahhhh I warm my hands over the burning rage within you.  C'mon dude, ease off a little, eh?


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 17, 2009)

Spacekase said:


> I would much rather see White Plume Mountain, Barrier Peaks, or Land Beyond the Magic Mirror. These modules were all very creative and pushed the genre.




I wouldn't mind seeing new editions of White Plume Mountain and Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, but Land Beyond the Magic Mirror is practically the anithesis of creativity (mainly because it's just Lewis Carroll's seminal fantasy work statted up for D&D).


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 17, 2009)

Hey, folks. Back from GenCon, exhausted as all heck, and my feet are in more pain than I would think possible with a mere 10 toes and two heels. (I committed the cardinal GenCon sin of only bringing _new_ shoes with me. )

But I wanted to chime in on this. See, Andy Collins gave me permission to share one (and _only_ one) piece of specific information on the _4EToH_. And that is this:

The reason that it has such a wide level range is that it's _not_ a single, play-all-the-way-through-and-stop adventure, the way most published adventure products are. Rather, it's meant to be spread out throughout the length of a campaign, as an ongoing plot arc to which the PCs return time and again. For instance, they might play through the events of the first part at one level, then gain a handful of levels via completely uninvolved adventures*. Then, they experience something that draws them back into the ongoing plot, and go through the second part of the book, and so forth, learning more about the ultimate schemes and objectives of our villain during each step.

*I say "uninvolved adventures," but the DM can certainly choose to link them to the ongoing _ToH_ plotline if he wishes.

So ultimately, it's less a _single_ adventure than a number of linked adventures that form a recurring plotline, much like you'll see villains and plot points recur in a TV series. (The Shadow involvement in _Babylon 5_, for instance.)


----------



## fireinthedust (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm going to have to wade in and agree with the folks backing 4e ToH.  

RttToH was a long-time plan of mine to run.  I love the idea of trap-filled dungeons.  They're just plain cool.  I love puzzles as well as working with a team to overcome challenges.

I think the 2e version was fantastic, and I found it more interesting than playing through the Convention module.  I remember going through something like 6 doors with darts, and that with a 2e Drizzt clone, no trap-finder, no mage.  Reading over the traps, it was... well, not as challenging as it could have been, if the right resources were there.  
   Then there are the stupid pre-reqs: you have to be this class with this sword to harm the Demi-Lich?!  That's silly.  
    Not only that, but have you ever considered Grimtooth's in play?  Those traps aren't skillful, they're shooting fish in a barrel.  That's the original module as far as I'm concerned.

I think it's ToH's fault that Demi-Lich means Uber-Lich rather than "minor form of lich".  Ignorance-creep?  Confusion?

2e by Cordell was excellent.  I had friends who made it to the Brine Dragon, and loved it.  The traps, the frozen Moilian Dead, all that stuff.  That's the classic stuff.  

I think for a 4e module I'd prefer the trap-styles like from Dungeon Delves.  The Gnoll Sand Trap (4th level?) was excellent, and made for a fun encounter.  The filling-up-with-water room in one module I read (forget which one) is also a great trap.
     I don't care what they call it, but a massive dungeon filled with 4e traps would be my cup of tea.

Lethality in 4e:  well, there is a point there.  I don't think save-or-die is the answer.  The trick will be raising the stakes:

1)  threaten the treasure packets: if the PCs don't solve the puzzle, Godzilla eats the packet to be found.  This can be done also with NPCs (like the princess).

2)  Send them to a dangerous room via teleport if they fail; they have to fight their way through this new area, and either try again or keep on going.  Repitition is generally bad, unless they desperately want another crack at that blasted Medusa.


Anyway, if you want a convention module that really looks fun, check out the 3e Crypt of the Devil-Lich, by Goodman Games.  I think it's superior to the actual 12 pages of ToH, in terms of playability.  Most of their works are, really, and that was the intent.


----------



## doctorhook (Aug 17, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Hey, folks. Back from GenCon, exhausted as all heck, and my feet are in more pain than I would think possible with a mere 10 toes and two heels. (I committed the cardinal GenCon sin of only bringing _new_ shoes with me. )
> 
> But I wanted to chime in on this. See, Andy Collins gave me permission to share one (and _only_ one) piece of specific information on the _4EToH_. And that is this:
> 
> ...



That sounds like an awesome way to use a mega-adventure! I hope it works out as well as it sounds, I hope they keep it up, and I hope Mr Collins gives you permission to talk about more stuff!


----------



## Wardook (Aug 17, 2009)

Beyond the Mirror wasn't terribly creative, but wasn't your typical delve and was very memorable. I redid White Plume for 3e and my players loved it. None of them had played it before, most started with 2e.

Land Beyond the Magic Mirror is practically the anithesis of creativity (mainly because it's just Lewis Carroll's seminal fantasy work statted up for D&D).


----------



## jdrakeh (Aug 17, 2009)

Spacekase said:


> I redid White Plume for 3e and my players loved it. None of them had played it before, most started with 2e.




You could have saved yourself some bother.


----------



## Wardook (Aug 17, 2009)

jdrakeh said:


> You could have saved yourself some bother.




It was 3e, my first conversion as soon it came out, not 3.5. I actually liked 3e. I diverge.

Barrier Peaks will probably never happen. I would hate to see my party's Ranger with a laser. 

If this version of TOH is like past versions, the party's trapfinder is going to be kept very busy.

The returning idea is very good. The farther that we have gotten into 4e, the more I have become impressed with the developers.


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 17, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Hey, folks. Back from GenCon, exhausted as all heck, and my feet are in more pain than I would think possible with a mere 10 toes and two heels. (I committed the cardinal GenCon sin of only bringing _new_ shoes with me. )
> 
> But I wanted to chime in on this. See, Andy Collins gave me permission to share one (and _only_ one) piece of specific information on the _4EToH_. And that is this:
> 
> ...




Congrats Mouse. I am going to hazard a guess and say that being part of the team remaking ToH for the current and favorite edition of D&D probably made you quite happy?

I know I would almost have given my left nut, if I was a freelancer


----------



## Jack99 (Aug 17, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> In 4E, there's hardly any damage effect more terrifying than losing a Healing Surge, or losing HP equal to a Surge.




Ongoing damage equal to their healing surge! 
(semi-joking)

Anyway, while it does scare players somewhat, I am not a huge fan of sucking surges. It just makes for shorter adventuring days, unless the players are in a place where they can not rest. At higher levels, it get somewhat harder to interrupt them constantly while maintaining some semblance of realism (IMO; IME; ETC)


----------



## fba827 (Aug 17, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Hey, folks. Back from GenCon, exhausted as all heck, and my feet are in more pain than I would think possible with a mere 10 toes and two heels. (I committed the cardinal GenCon sin of only bringing _new_ shoes with me. )
> 
> But I wanted to chime in on this. See, Andy Collins gave me permission to share one (and _only_ one) piece of specific information on the _4EToH_. And that is this:
> 
> ...




That structure sounds a LOT like the adventure that came with the Wrath of the Immortals box set (back in the day) - it was 3-4 adventures, of different levels, that had connected plots and recurring themes.  I have to say, that was a very good structure since it wasn't heavy handed in plot focus (allowing it to be a primary or secondary plot line) and yet still allowed for enough connectivity to seem, well, connected all the way from low levels to high levels!

I'd take that over a concentrated "level X-Y" super adventure (it's all focused on the specific levels rather than something that is setup to be peppered over multiple arcs), and I'd take this structure over an adventure paths (which pretty much dominate the plot form start to finish, as they should -- that's what they're meant to do and it works for some but it's not always what i want)

My point -- i prefer this structure for published adventures, so nice to see it making a return.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Aug 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Ongoing damage equal to their healing surge!
> (semi-joking)
> 
> Anyway, while it does scare players somewhat, I am not a huge fan of sucking surges. It just makes for shorter adventuring days, unless the players are in a place where they can not rest. At higher levels, it get somewhat harder to interrupt them constantly while maintaining some semblance of realism (IMO; IME; ETC)



Might still be appropriate. Though I think "the character loses one healing surge at the start of his turn (save ends)" is more likely.  as others mentioned, the original ToH didn't come with a time limit, so just do your 15 minute adventuring days!

Of course, it doesn't really help the believability... I suppose they'll come with something better.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 17, 2009)

fba827 said:


> That structure sounds a LOT like the adventure that came with the Wrath of the Immortals box set (back in the day) - it was 3-4 adventures, of different levels, that had connected plots and recurring themes.  I have to say, that was a very good structure since it wasn't heavy handed in plot focus (allowing it to be a primary or secondary plot line) and yet still allowed for enough connectivity to seem, well, connected all the way from low levels to high levels!



Goodman Games' DCC-14 Dungeon Interludes was like this.  Linked adventures, not meant to be strung in succession, but with a single over-all story arc.

You can do the first adventure, go off and do a couple more, return to complete the next adventure in the Interlude, go off to a few other adventures, return, etc...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 17, 2009)

fba827 said:


> I'd take that over a concentrated "level X-Y" super adventure (it's all focused on the specific levels rather than something that is setup to be peppered over multiple arcs), and I'd take this structure over an adventure paths (which pretty much dominate the plot form start to finish, as they should -- that's what they're meant to do and it works for some but it's not always what i want)
> 
> My point -- i prefer this structure for published adventures, so nice to see it making a return.




I'm a fan of the format myself. I wouldn't want to see it become the _standard_--I think single concentrated adventures are probably more useful to more people--but I'd love to see it used more often.


----------



## davethegame (Aug 17, 2009)

There's the whole "death trap" issue, but I also wonder if the newer school design of skills vs. the old school method of player ingenuity with dealing with traps is going to come into play here. I'm interested to see what the design ethos of the traps and such is going to follow.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 17, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I'm a fan of the format myself. I wouldn't want to see it become the _standard_--I think single concentrated adventures are probably more useful to more people--but I'd love to see it used more often.




maybe it is just me and my crazy group...but I don't think 'skip' dungeons will work. I mean if you enter the tomb and get to room 8 at level 2, but rooms 10+ are ment for level5+ what happens whn the PCs keep going...or worse when they stumble onto the level 8 or 9+ area.

        there has to be a very good set reason to not keep going...and danger alone doesn't cut it (We have TPKeed due to stuberness before)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Aug 17, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> maybe it is just me and my crazy group...but I don't think 'skip' dungeons will work.




I didn't say the book contained only a single dungeon, did I? 

(Of course, I didn't say it _didn't_, either. I can neither confirm nor deny, etc. etc. My point is simply, make no assumptions as of yet.  There's a _lot_ about this book you guys don't know, and that cannot reliably be extrapolated based on the title alone, or on what you've heard.)


----------



## fireinthedust (Aug 17, 2009)

hmmm.... I hope it's a site-based series of dungeons rather than a narrative.

The problem with narratives is that you can't go back to them.  Once you've interacted with the NPCs, they're changed.  I, the DM, either develop them or they're dead, or they fade out.
     If the module is a single situation, there isn't the same umph.  An adventure path is great, but... narratives are formed '*By the Party's Unique Combination of personalities and actions*.  I couldn't really run Shackled City out of the box, ever, because I have no idea whether the PCs would take the bait for all the "episodes". 

Site-based adventures describe a location.  A dungeon filled with re-setting traps, for example.  A series of rooms the PCs have to go through to get to the treasure.

If it's going to be a ToH 4e, it is so important that it be a collection of the best traps 4e can pump out.  Like, a lot of trap rooms and conundrums.  An orb that summons 4 minions a round.  A room that locks its doors and floods with water.  Spiked walls closing in on a locked, skill-challenge door (4 more rounds, we need some successes!).  

I like Dungeon Delves.  I think it's a good product, and I've made use of it so far.  However, a bigger series of this is what I could really use.  The idea of a mega dungeon, to me, is more interesting and challenging than a narrative.  

I wanted out of Undermountain books in 2e a series of traps, not a set of empty maps.    While encounters are fantastic (and I like them), what I've enjoyed about some of the modules coming out (spider queen's enclave, for example) is just making the challenge that my players can get to.
   I can get them there, just set up the traps and monsters.  And even the treasure packets, frankly.

that, I think, would be my dream product: a complete conundrum setting for any heroes to get through.  Complete with riddles, challenges to evade (jump across the chasm), monsters lying in wait (that make sense, like summoned creatures, golems, etc.), and just tell me how to get the PCs there (and out again, I guess).


----------



## fireinthedust (Aug 17, 2009)

Or: a vault with a specific magic item at the end of it (like a Ring of Wishes), with graded challenges for the power of the item(s) to acquire.

I could have it, or them, spread around my setting.  PCs who want said item (a radiant item, a frost wizard's implements, the book of exalted deeds/vile darkness), would research it and go to the Vault.

1)  Xendrik vaults I can throw in
2) Vampire's tomb
3)  Wizard's books/staff, etc.
4)  Excalibur is hidden here (get by these challenges, etc.)

I think that would be useful too, just saying.  More useful than a whole Adventure Path I may not get through all the way before the players get new jobs or date/break up, or go to school/go on vacation.

Stringing them together is great, sure, but ToH has dungeon-crawl history to it.  A series of dangerous dungeons would be more useful.


----------



## Jhaelen (Aug 19, 2009)

Whatever they'll do, I can only hope it won't be remotely like the original Tomb of Horrors module because that was, well, horrible...

I used it as a campaign ending device and it did that job very well. No one was interested in continuing to play after trying to tackle this thing three times.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2009)

kaomera said:


> You could use the Sphere from the DMG, leveled appropriately. Since many players will have heard of this trap (always been a problem, really) you could change it up by having a group of monsters enter the area as the PCs are studying the thing. Each holds a strange talisman, and as they approach the sphere starts moving up behind the PCs...




There's probably the biggest hurdle right there to any update on the module.  Everybody and their mother KNOWS these stories.  Green demon face?  Floating skull with diamond teeth?  Been there, done that.

Every single trap will have to be redone completely to avoid spoilers.  They might be able to drop in Easter eggs from time to time, but the dungeon itself will probably only very loosely (as in they're both underground) resemble the original.



Mouseferatu said:


> /snip
> 
> So ultimately, it's less a _single_ adventure than a number of linked adventures that form a recurring plotline, much like you'll see villains and plot points recur in a TV series. (The Shadow involvement in _Babylon 5_, for instance.)




Very cool.  One of my favourite modules was A Hero's Tale  from back in the 2e days (gasp a GOOD 2e module) that featured ten or so short modules that you were supposed to sprinkle in throughout your campaign.  The modules were linked, but were not meant to be played back to back.  This is a groovy idea.

I hope they really start stretching their ideas for skill challenges here.


----------

