Though doing it Paranoia-style where each player has X number of clones could be fun, too.
...
I am so doing this.
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.Very well said. A few years back I tried running my group through the 3.5 update to the ToH; they went in very cautiously, aware of the module's reputation. But after they kept making skill check after skill check to discover and disable the traps, it very quickly became anti-climactic to the extent that everyone felt sort of disappointed.
I think a way around this is to set the DCs at a high level and then offer reduced DCs based on what the players attempt. So for example if the PCs enter a room with a weird mosaic pattern in the corner and try to check for traps in a general way the DC is 25. If they focus on the mosaic pattern in the corner of the room (where the trigger for the trap is located) the DC drops to 20 and if they puzzle out the riddle in the mosaic pattern and then check for traps the DC drops to 15. I am open to better solutions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't say I ever actually played ToM back when, but I'm pretty sure we just called our clones "henchmen." :P
|
| 1 person 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.
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.
I rolled first. And failed. Didn't know you could take 20 after a failed roll, or I was so in my feelings I forgot. ;-)
|
|
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 could never afford minis as a kid (and I coveted the entire Ral Partha line, trust me), so I even ran 3x TotM style (it's what I knew) until newer players used to (and in possession of) minis wanted to use the Chessex mat the way it was intended.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm probably just experiencing the difference between playing D&D at 10 and playing D&D 44, but I never get quite so in my feelings as I used to. 'Cause the olden times were objectively better, as I remember them through the lens of my own experience! :P
I think a way around this is to set the DCs at a high level and then offer reduced DCs based on what the players attempt. So for example if the PCs enter a room with a weird mosaic pattern in the corner and try to check for traps in a general way the DC is 25. If they focus on the mosaic pattern in the corner of the room (where the trigger for the trap is located) the DC drops to 20 and if they puzzle out the riddle in the mosaic pattern and then check for traps the DC drops to 15. I am open to better solutions.
I'd be inclined to just give it to them if they figure it out. The high DC Perception/Investigation checks should just be a "Hail Mary, we can't figure this out" sort of deal.
Or you could possibly set the DC lower, but hitting it just gives the players a hint of what to look for/do.
Honestly, if you're running ToH (or that style of adventure) as a one-shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to tell your players "Look, guys, this adventure was designed based around a completely different mindset and mechanics, and replicating those is essential to maintain the feel of the adventure. So just for this game, we're going to be using some house rules regarding search skills and hidden objects. Here they are..."
Good advice. Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I could never afford minis as a kid (and I coveted the entire Ral Partha line, trust me), so I even ran 3x TotM style (it's what I knew) until newer players used to (and in possession of) minis wanted to use the Chessex mat the way it was intended.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 have a few minis now, mostly for PCs, and I use the pawns from Clue and Master Detective Clue for Medium-sized and smaller monsters, poker chips for Large-sized monsters and plastic lids from cans for Huge and larger monsters.
I think its easier than using super-specialized minis. Especially a number of identical orcs or something.
In RotTL, we started using dice for monsters, mostly because we NEED "red 1 through 6, green 1 through 6, and white 1 through 6" when fighting 18 giants.
At level 5 or 6, we fought 60 ogres. We used terrain and cover and the Dodge action + spiritual guardians to survive. Well, the PCs survived. All our NPC allies died. But we had just met them.
We're horrible friends. :-P
I rolled first. And failed. Didn't know you could take 20 after a failed roll, or I was so in my feelings I forgot. ;-)
Except, maybe, "I take 20"?
Sure, and some GMs won't let you, although the entire idea behind taking 20 is that you shortcut the actual rolling when you keep trying until you roll a 20. Some things it makes no sense on, but searching isn't one of them, IMO. The time it takes to do the searching, however, could give the bad guy in your example plenty of time to make good his escape, so it's probably irrelevant at that point.
Honestly, if you're running ToH (or that style of adventure) as a one-shot, I don't think it's unreasonable to tell your players "Look, guys, this adventure was designed based around a completely different mindset and mechanics, and replicating those is essential to maintain the feel of the adventure. So just for this game, we're going to be using some house rules regarding search skills and hidden objects. Here they are..."
Or just play it using a system that isn't antithetical towards the style that the module/campaign is designed for.
Tomb of Horrors has already been converted to 5e by D&D Insiders.
(Link goes to Sage advice, which has the link for D&D Insiders; the latter requires a subscription).
It was the first thing my group played with 5e. We just used level 10 premades, and when one character died off, we picked up another one randomly from the stack.
Tomb of Horrors has already been converted to 5e by D&D Insiders.
(Link goes to Sage advice, which has the link for D&D Insiders; the latter requires a subscription).
It was the first thing my group played with 5e. We just used level 10 premades, and when one character died off, we picked up another one randomly from the stack.
Awesome, thanks mate!
I felt they did pretty good. It was certainly deadly. We used premade characters at 10th level (straight from WotC's website), and when one character died, another teleported in. We set t up like a contest, where all these characters were waiting for their chance at the treasures - moderated by Elminster. There were scrying mirrors so everyone who was waiting could see what was happening (represented keeping player knowledge).
I went through 6 characters just by myself.
Probably the biggest difference is that modern players likely don't think in the manner necessary to beat the module. When's the last time you saw a player dig in random locations to find the entrance? Or examine every last bit of wall to discover a hidden door? Players seem to just say "I roll perception" or something. Don't let them do that.
As a GM, I'd give away the digging. It's kind of ridiculous. But for the rest of it, if you want to roll percetion, be very specific about what you're looking at if you want a specific answer.
I want the old school flavour so that sounds perfect. I feel with Pathfinder it has gone too far the other way with everything based on game mechanics and the consequence of that is that the role playing and immersion tends to suffer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been going through my old Monstrous Manual for 2nd Ed, and I want to run a campaign where I use all of the Tony DiTerlizzi artwork!
I'm thinking of re-skinning 5th Ed. goblins for tasloi.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
DiTerlizzi is one of the few gamer types I kept on FB. He and Easley are my two favorite artists that worked on D&D.
DiTerlizzi on Planescape and Stephen Fabian in Ravenloft did a LOT to give those settings a distinctive feel- while DiTerlizzi's near-monopoly on Planescape art far outstripped Fabian's illustrations for Ravenloft, both let you know what you were looking at. The artistic unity of the settings was a nice little touch.
I was never a fan of DiTerlizzi's art. The brown watercolors made things look like they were placed in dirty toilet water, and the art style just wasn't pleasing to me. Not knocking on his ability, as he can draw rather well (hell of a lot better than me), just not my favorite. It was one of the things that detracted Planescape in my view.
Though I seem to be rather alone in my dislike of DiTerlizzi's art. Other than that, I liked a lot of the planar stuff they had in Planescape. A lot better than Ravenloft (not a horror fan).
With respect to 1e tomb of horrors it suggests if you have more than 5 or 6 players they only play one character each. That's right if you play with a group of 4 you are expected to each play two characters.
Apparently when it was first run in a 1975 tournament it was run 8 times over the weekend each with 15 players per game. They ranged from 4th to about 12th level (plenty of chance for trial and error as your party slowly died). I think people were able to play more than once. The two Friday night groups didn't get very far and the winner was in a Sunday group. IMO fascinating history of the game and miles away from the way it is now.( if interested read Increments comments in the ENworld thread "is tomb of horrors the worst dungeon of all time?" (Hint:it's not))
It seemed more player solving problems than character solving problems back then. My only issue is that after you've been playing a couple of dozen years in this style all your characters have a similar set of tactics when dealing with doors, corridors, chests etc. that's why I prefer the "my character searches the chest for traps (roll search skill)" rather than "my second level wizard who has never been in a dungeon in her life uses door opening method number 5 on this door because it's a double iron door in a decorated arch"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the topic question. It assumes there is a time I'm NOT going through my 1st and 2nd edition (as well as original and Basic D&D) stuff. That is a faulty assumption.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand the topic question. It assumes there is a time I'm NOT going through my 1st and 2nd edition (as well as original and Basic D&D) stuff. That is a faulty assumption.
Agreed. I am and I always have.
The first 3e campaign I ran was a conversion of the 2e adventure Night Below.
My current 5e campaign uses cauldron but includes a conversion of the basic adventure Nights Dark Terror (B10) and will have Dwellers in the Forbidden City (I1).