Simply simply simply outrageous!!!
Wait. Are you saying the outrageousness has been dumbed down? ;)
Just not as complex. ;-)
Actually, that's kind of true.... :-P
Has anyone attempted to convert the 1e Tomb of Horrors to 5e?
If so can they please provide any tips?
I am thinking of replacing the no save death traps with something less lethal. And perhaps adding more monsters.
Ive just bought the Volo's guides in a charity auction, can't wait to re-read them.
Also going through the van Richten's Guides in anticipation of curse of Strahd, the quality is excellent.
I agree with everything said about the settigs, it really was a golden age. The menzoberranzan boxed set remains one of my favourite products ever.
Also going through the van Richten's Guides in anticipation of curse of Strahd, the quality is excellent.
Ravenloft may have given us the dreck of guys like Baron Evensong talking about his alignment in-character... but the good stuff remains some of the best RPG writing I've ever experienced.
When it was bad, it was bad.
When it was good, it was GREAT.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone attempted to convert the 1e Tomb of Horrors to 5e?
If so can they please provide any tips?
I am thinking of replacing the no save death traps with something less lethal. And perhaps adding more monsters.
Why would you do that? The entire point of the module was to be nearly unbeatable. We used to use how people described their ToH experience to judge whether they were munchkins or worthy of our table.
Ravenloft may have given us the dreck of guys like Baron Evensong talking about his alignment in-character...That certainly wasn't in the original 1e version of the Ravenloft module, nor the 2e updated version, House of Strahd.
That's because Baron Lyran Evensong is nowhere in Barovia.
I'm referring to the entire product line.
I have thought of converting some of the old 1e and 2e adventures to 5th edition. Loved the host of settings they had back in the 90s (2nd edition), even if it did split the customer base. The focus on FR annoys me. "It's our most popular setting!" Well, yeah, since that was the only setting you really made any video games for, and the only ones you focused on during 3rd and 4th editions. I think Eberron would have been more popular if they would have made some games similar to the Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights games instead of going with that MMORPG made by Turbine.
Figuring out which adventure to convert is tough.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's because Baron Lyran Evensong is nowhere in Barovia.
I'm referring to the entire product line.
Yeah, I was thinking that NPC may have been in the horrible 3e version of the original module, and then I recalled that he was in the 2e sourcebook, "Book of Crypts".
Which is why I deleted my post mere seconds before you responded to it.
Guess I wasn't fast enough... Oops! :-(
I might be running an Astral Plane-focused session, so I'm going to go through my Planescape Monstrous Manuals for inspiration for some 5th Ed. conversion.
I already did some work on neogi, which are kind of Astral-adjacent...
|
For me it's all new stuff!
For an example, I got the AD&D 1e DMG reprint. I have no interest in the rest of AD&D because I've pretty much found the D&D for me (BECMI. Oh god why won't they do a reprint of the Rules Cyclopedia, why?), but a friend of mine said that it's a really good resource for inspiration.
He wasn't kidding. It's chock full of really good dressing for games. Like the random NPC personality trait tables, random dungeon room contents, and so on. I really love it for that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone attempted to convert the 1e Tomb of Horrors to 5e?
If so can they please provide any tips?
I am thinking of replacing the no save death traps with something less lethal. And perhaps adding more monsters.
Why would you do that? The entire point of the module was to be nearly unbeatable. We used to use how people described their ToH experience to judge whether they were munchkins or worthy of our table.
Fair point, I do want to preserve the feel of the original module as much as possible.
I have a couple of players at my table that were not even born when that module was first published and are not used to that style of game. They know of the module by reputation only. Mostly we play Pathfinder APs, so that is what they are used to. Any advice on how to handle my situation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I wrong, or is the ToH basically the players telling the DM what their characters are trying to do, and the DM telling the players how horribly their characters are dying?
Rogue 1: "I search the door for traps."
DM: "Your eyes fall upon the gaze of a miniature medusa that petrifies you."
Rogue 2: "I close my eyes and open the door."
DM: "Poison coating the doorknob poisons you to death."
Rogue 3: "I put on gloves and open the door."
DM: "There is poison coating the inside of your gloves and kills you to death."
Rogue 4: "I kick in the door!"
DM: "The door is really a mimic, bites off your foot, and you bleed to death."
Rogue 5: "I walk away from the door."
DM: "The ceiling collapses and kills you."
Fair point, I do want to preserve the feel of the original module as much as possible.
I have a couple of players at my table that were not even born when that module was first published and are not used to that style of game. They know of the module by reputation only. Mostly we play Pathfinder APs, so that is what they are used to. Any advice on how to handle my situation?
Considering how much the philosophy of game design has changed since then?
Treat it like a walk down memory lane, and don't make any of the thousand gruesome ways to die "stick" to anyone's character- people get invested in their guys, after all.
ToH can be fun if treated as a "Gary Gygax really hated some players" museum- for people reared on Paizo's kinder gentler approach to adventuring, it'd be pretty near impossible to take at face value.
Am I wrong, or is the ToH basically the players telling the DM what their characters are trying to do, and the DM telling the players how horribly their characters are dying?
Rogue 1: "I search the door for traps."
DM: "Your eyes fall upon the gaze of a miniature medusa that petrifies you."
Rogue 2: "I close my eyes and open the door."
DM: "Poison coating the doorknob poisons you to death."
Rogue 3: "I put on gloves and open the door."
DM: "There is poison coating the inside of your gloves and kills you to death."
Rogue 4: "I kick in the door!"
DM: "The door is really a mimic, bites off your foot, and you bleed to death."
Rogue 5: "I walk away from the door."
DM: "The ceiling collapses and kills you."
I only ran the module once and that was about 25 years ago, so it is hard for me to remember the specifics. My recollection is that it is very deadly, so your description is only a mild exaggeration. The hardest part will be changing the mindset of the players, this is a module that tests players more than characters, having a well optimised character is of little use.
Fair point, I do want to preserve the feel of the original module as much as possible.
I have a couple of players at my table that were not even born when that module was first published and are not used to that style of game. They know of the module by reputation only. Mostly we play Pathfinder APs, so that is what they are used to. Any advice on how to handle my situation?
Considering how much the philosophy of game design has changed since then?
Treat it like a walk down memory lane, and don't make any of the thousand gruesome ways to die "stick" to anyone's character- people get invested in their guys, after all.
ToH can be fun if treated as a "Gary Gygax really hated some players" museum- for people reared on Paizo's kinder gentler approach to adventuring, it'd be pretty near impossible to take at face value.
I want the experience to be as authentic as possible, so probably best to roll up disposable characters as a once off rather than sabotage an existing campaign.
I like the old 'save or die' modules. However, I rarely run them because it seems to me that most players these days don't. (Certainly the people in my group don't like them anymore).
I think the key to running an enjoyable Tomb of Horrors is for the players to want to play in a contrived deathtrap where the PCs are expected to perish.
I don't think there's much the DM can do to both preserve the original's feel and cater to people averse to dying when they fail an effectively unavoidable saving throw.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone attempted to convert the 1e Tomb of Horrors to 5e?
If so can they please provide any tips?
I am thinking of replacing the no save death traps with something less lethal. And perhaps adding more monsters.
Why would you do that? The entire point of the module was to be nearly unbeatable. We used to use how people described their ToH experience to judge whether they were munchkins or worthy of our table.
Fair point, I do want to preserve the feel of the original module as much as possible.
I have a couple of players at my table that were not even born when that module was first published and are not used to that style of game. They know of the module by reputation only. Mostly we play Pathfinder APs, so that is what they are used to. Any advice on how to handle my situation?
We did pregens, never used it in a campaign. It's the most old school of old school modules, I'd use it as a "history of the game" moment and use AD&D rules or download OSRIC, and play it straight.
We did pregens, never used it in a campaign. It's the most old school of old school modules, I'd use it as a "history of the game" moment and use AD&D rules or download OSRIC, and play it straight.
Good idea. Unfortunately I gave away most of my 1e stuff years ago. I was hoping 5e was similar enough that I could run the old stuff with minimal conversion.
I like the old 'save or die' modules. However, I rarely run them because it seems to me that most players these days don't. (Certainly the people in my group don't like them anymore).
I think the key to running an enjoyable Tomb of Horrors is for the players to want to play in a contrived deathtrap where the PCs are expected to perish.
I don't think there's much the DM can do to both preserve the original's feel and cater to people averse to dying when they fail an effectively unavoidable saving throw.
I think you are right. It just wouldn't be the same without the crazy traps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
5th Edition has the old school "1st & 2nd Edition Feel" with the rarefied game mechanics of 3.5 & PF without being as finicky with rules bloat.
Probably the best word that I use to describe 5th Edition is elegant.
I don't know what levels ToH is, but at least at low levels, character creation is REALLY quick, especially if you use the Standard Array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) and average hit points per level.
Maybe make some 3 by 5 cards for the equipment given out by your class and your background. Since magic items aren't required to thrive and survive, you don't have to worry about Wealth By Level.
You might even be able to make decks of race, class, and background to randomly (and quickly!!!) create characters.
An hour or two of prep work doing that can re-fill the party after the DM slaughters everyone.
To be honest, the ToH always sounded like an unmitigated grind of DM capriciousness and spite to me, but the idea of playing a dozen random PCs over the course of an evening sounds like it might actually be fun.
To be honest, the ToH always sounded like an unmitigated grind of DM capriciousness and spite to me
Since a lot of it is not even "save or die," but just "die," that is a fairly accurate assessment.
If I were to run it in 5E (although I agree with houstonderek and would suggest an AD&D clone) I wouldn't use skills or feats. One thing that could easily get 'lost in translation' is the requirement to listen to room descriptions and then explore based on that. A series of perception/investigation rolls followed by saving throws versus calamitous things is going to miss the feel of the original, in my opinion.
I'd probably also make short rests nearly impossible and/or limit the amount of healing available through healing surges, second wind and such.
AD&D characters were pretty fragile and I think that's a big difference between 1st and 5th edition - 5E characters are pretty hard to kill, in my experience.
I've never played ToH or even read it or flipped through it.
So I know nothing about it. I've only heard it is death trap after death trap after death trap. So what I've heard might not even be accurate.
But if you do use 5th Ed., removing short rests will hinder some classes more than others. For example warlocks might only be potent for a single encounter and not be able to contribute much thereafter. Fighters and monks would have to "nova" a lot less often than designed.
It is a series of death traps, and there are clues to help the players negotiate their way through. It is quite a compact well written adventure in my opinion. Suitable for experienced players with characters in the level 10-14 range.
@ Steve Geddes, I think your suggestion to limit short rests is a good idea. If they tarry too long they risk demons attacking them (which I believe were in the original module anyway, just for a different reason).
|
|
I recall reading somewhere that Gary basically made the Tomb of Horrors to spite his players after they complained that he was too easy on them.
E: Just remembered, the supposed followup to this story was that his players knew him too well and basically beat the dungeon on their first try, which to me was always a really funny story.
Another theory I've heard is that the Tomb of Horrors is not really meant for actually inserting into a long-term campaign, but that it's basically a precursor to the "tournament module," where basically groups of players would be playing the adventure at the same time and the group who made it the farthest in the dungeon/found the most treasure/something would win at D&D forever?
But yeah, I actually took part in the Tomb of Horrors on a lark at a convention a couple of years ago. The DM was amazing but what little I saw of the dungeon itself, it wasn't simply deadly, it was just mostly... really dumb. I mean, yeah, given its origins (if either of the two above accounts are true) it was really made to test the players, not their characters, because a lot of it is simply trying to call Gygax the game designer's bluff (and sometimes double bluff) as to which of the three doors in front of you will actually let you proceed and which contain NO SAVE KILLED BY SNAKES
Having said that, I could see it being run as a fun little diversion in the "Let's just play this dumb dungeon" style, maybe using Dungeon Crawl Classics where everyone just makes a huge bunch of useless level 0 peasants as their characters, but I wouldn't actually ever use it in a campaign containing characters my players actually care about.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, the ToH always sounded like an unmitigated grind of DM capriciousness and spite to meSince a lot of it is not even "save or die," but just "die," that is a fairly accurate assessment.
It was specifically created FOR Gygax's players, you know, guys that came up through the wargaming ranks and played a game with story elements. They didn't care if their characters died, they cares that their brains could outsmart Gygax's brains. The guy that played Robilar just threw his orc army at the thing until he got to the end.
It was a different time. D&D was just a game back then, death was expected at one point or another, and a lot of the best moments (for people not emotionally invested in an imaginary avatar represented by a piece of paper) were goofy, silly deaths. FBG sold a crapload of all of the Grimtooth books for a reason, after all.
Don't project modern sensibilities onto Gygax's AD&D. The players back then were a different breed until non-wargamers started to get into the hobby bigtime.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aww, Grimtooth! :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never played ToH or even read it or flipped through it.
So I know nothing about it. I've only heard it is death trap after death trap after death trap. So what I've heard might not even be accurate.
But if you do use 5th Ed., removing short rests will hinder some classes more than others. For example warlocks might only be potent for a single encounter and not be able to contribute much thereafter. Fighters and monks would have to "nova" a lot less often than designed.
Like I said, it's the oldest school of the old school modules. The entire thing is based on how carefully the players can navigate the tomb. Reckless power gamers die quickly, since there is almost nothing to overpower. People who just like to roll dice and not think about much die quickly, it's a thinking person's adventure. People who stock up on ten foot poles, spikes and hammers, and all of the old school goodies, go slow and steady, and never rush into stuff eventually have their souls sucked by the demi-lich at the end, since, invariably, they almost never have the right spells memorized.
If you run ToH straight, short rests, etc, will mean nothing. Most of the traps and stuff just kill you if you're not cautious. The hard part of running it in 5e is that the game, while it gives a nod to AD&D, isn't AD&D. They still have DCs, and a host of mechanical things that a die roll and not your brain will resolve.
Seriously, the only way to run it and get the full feel is to actually run it in AD&D. Everything from 3.0 on, even 5e, is written with modern sensibilities in mind, especially character mortality. AD&D (and OD&D) were written for a war gamers, and they didn't mind death as much. AD&D 2e and beyond were written for a completely different audience, with completely different expectations from the game.
I guess a kind of bad analogy would be trying to recreate the Roman chariot races, but with APCs. The drivers are way more protected from mistakes made in navigating. ;-)
I was going to run a 1st Ed campaign this year, set in Mystara, but it turned into a Pathfinder campaign. There was too much to convert. There was also some grumbling about how much harder it was to create certain character classes in 1st Ed and max levels, etc...
I would be amused by a 1st Ed conversion of Golarion. Thinge were so much more... final in 1st Ed. As others have echoed, it really only bears a passing resemblance to 3.5/Pathfinder. I think the thing I really miss are the feats and skills. We may have gone too far in the other direction (with too many feats) right now, but eliminating them entirely was a problem as well.
I would like to use the magic/leveling system from 1st Ed alongside the weapon expertise system from Mystara (Basic DnD). That, I think, would make for an interesting combat mechanic.
|
|
I was going to run a 1st Ed campaign this year, set in Mystara, but it turned into a Pathfinder campaign. There was too much to convert. There was also some grumbling about how much harder it was to create certain character classes in 1st Ed and max levels, etc...
I would be amused by a 1st Ed conversion of Golarion. Thinge were so much more... final in 1st Ed. As others have echoed, it really only bears a passing resemblance to 3.5/Pathfinder. I think the thing I really miss are the feats and skills. We may have gone too far in the other direction (with too many feats) right now, but eliminating them entirely was a problem as well.
I would like to use the magic/leveling system from 1st Ed alongside the weapon expertise system from Mystara (Basic DnD). That, I think, would make for an interesting combat mechanic.
I started an AD&D campaign a while back, but the table didn't seem to be feeling it. With the modern versions of the game defining everything about your character on the sheet, having to actually think things out and not just roll a d20 to resolve EVERYTHING seemed like a chore to them. So, I just let the game die, I wasn't having fun. :-(
Edit: I'd play that, by the way. Sounds like a fun time. AD&D 1E and BECMI (Rules Compendium) are my two favorite iterations of D&D.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I was about 11 years old when I got ahold of the Thieves World box set. It was the first time I dealt with any system aside from D&D, and it felt like unearthing the Rosetta Stone.
It's funny. I started RPGs with B/X D&D, so I always conceived of dungeon traps being dealt with by a rogue's, ahem, thief's find/disarm abilities. The day I realized that 0e D&D had no class with trap finding abilities, the intricate trap design of ToH, and particularly Grimtooth, suddenly made sense to me. "Lightning bolt trap? I stand on the rubber ottoman, not the leather one, and push myself to the middle of the pool of water, where I jump to the wooden table, not the metal one!"
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the secret door in the goblin stronghold in RotRL's first installment really brought home my problems with 3x games. My character tracked the goblin boss to the secret door, KNEW there was a secret door, and I rolled a three or something to "find" the secret door.
In AD&D, I would have just started describing everything I did until I found the latch. In 3x, I rolled a three, and there was nothing to be said after that.
Needless to say, I prefer games where logic and deliberation trump a stupid die roll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having players actually think things through, instead of just rolling a d20, would be so nice. Going through a dungeon (hell, even having dungeons again) with 10-foot poles, 50+ feet of rope, chalk, and all those other miscellaneous items in the equipment tables that no one ever uses anymore. People get annoyed/bored/angry about dungeoncrawls anymore. I never see dungeons or dragons much anymore. Hell, it is usually just the same few monsters in everything.
I have never played Tomb of Horrors. I have seen pictures from the book, though, and heard the stories. I actually think it would be something fun to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
[grognard] What with all the minis and flip-mats these days, no one even maps the dungeon anymore. And if you ask them what route they're taking out of the dungeon, they just get all defensive and say, "Well, of course my character would know the way out, he remembers how he got in!" [/grognard]
Me too. I mean, I was overstating the case, but I can remember mapping to be sure of the layout, and making notes on the map so you'd know how to avoid the acid pit trap or whatever, and now these darn kids all expect to "hearth out" once they've reached the end of the "instance."
We're doing RotRL in 5Ed, and we haven't been mapping, and I think it's because the areas involved are just too big for graph paper. Maybe if we were told what scale to use (1 square = 5, 10, 20, 30 feet) and where to start on the paper.
It's a little bit TOO TotM, and not enough grid.
I think the secret door in the goblin stronghold in RotRL's first installment really brought home my problems with 3x games. My character tracked the goblin boss to the secret door, KNEW there was a secret door, and I rolled a three or something to "find" the secret door.
In AD&D, I would have just started describing everything I did until I found the latch. In 3x, I rolled a three, and there was nothing to be said after that.
Except, maybe, "I take 20"?
But there are cases where that is an issue. If you had a negative Perception (or Search) modifier and the DC to find it was >= 20, you would have been stopped there. Of course, not finding the way to open the door is different from not knowing there's a door there. That's why there's hardness and hit points for walls.