Talk:Tomb of Horrors

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tomb of Horrors has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
February 2, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Books (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Greyhawk work group.

Not linked[edit]

The Acaeum clearly states that although modules S1 thru S4 were re-published as a super module, "S1-4 are rather cheap (and abbreviated) versions of modules that had no connecting plot or theme anyway." Hence I am removing the reference that the S series modules are linked. Wendell 23:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think this is too subtle of a distinction. In the mind of players they are linked, and I think that's what is important. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Nandesuka 00:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there is any problem. They weren't linked, while most modules preceeded by the same letter were. All they shared was the first letter. You can mention that all they shared was a letter in their code. Frecklefoot | Talk 17:55, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
Why would "players" think the modules are linked? The recommended character levels is widely different. I understand there are no common NPCs, and from my memory of S1 and S3 no linking theme or plot. Wendell 02:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I think players would think they are linked in the same way they expect Harry Potter I, II and III to be linked. They share part of their title. Frecklefoot | Talk 13:44, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Only S3 and S3 were linked - although all of the "S" series were created as stand alone modules, there are references in S4 to S3 - having DM'ed all of them and recently re-read them, this is the only connection. S1 and S2 were tournament modules that Gygax wanted to publish and make more money with, S3 and S4 were part of the same campaign. Timmccloud 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the plot description of it as a standard dungeon crawl is inaccurate. While it is a 'get the bad guy' quest, the obstacles are mostly traps and trickery -- There are almost no standard monster encounters in the entire adventure. What do others think about this? Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Free download[edit]

This article proclaims that "Wizards of the Coast released an updated version of the original module as a free download for Halloween 2005." I have been unable to find this version. Can anybody provide a link? — Itai (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, found it ([1]). Added a link to the the article, as well. — Itai (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Future ref[edit]

[2][3][4][5][6]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

google cache, hope this comes backSFSite reliable? Probably.influencedifferent version of influence - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peregrine. Since you seem more familiar with ToH than me, was this the module where you have to check a door for a trap and then check the trap mechanism for another trap, or was that the follow-up? --Kizor 17:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but you download an updated version of it here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I thank you. --Kizor 21:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

GA?[edit]

After Peregrine Fisher's post at WT:DND, I thought I'd mention a few things here.

  1. A longer plot summary could be helpful.
  2. What's the page count? (the infobox has a parameter)
  3. Can the blockquote be incorporated into the text itself?

Otherwise, looks good! Nominate whenever you're ready. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll expand the plot sometime, hopefully. It needs that, and a good copyedit, but I keep getting a little burned out right before the final GA push.
I think the 1978 one had 12 pages, and 30-40 pages of images. I've seen some non-reliable sources that talk about it. I think the page count changes from version to version. I'm looking at a PDF of the 1978 version, and it does have 12 pages. I can't tell exactly how many images, becuase it's scanned weird.
I'd like to keep the blockquote there. It's a little bit of flash that I thinks impresses reviewers. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Much better! :) Some more work, and it will be looking more like Dragons of Despair and Ravenloft (D&D module). :) BOZ (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
What do you think it needs?
I took out "which significantly updated the plot of the original" becuase it sounds like OR to me. Who's to say what is "significant"? I guess we could say "modified the plot" or maybe "expanded the plot" although I haven't read it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New one[edit]

[7] Not sure what it really is. I think it's a total remake. There was a revert just now that said Wizard sent out free copies of ToH. Not sure if it's this one or the old one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If I was wrong, I apologize for reverting! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You were right about it being unsourced, and after a bit of google searching, I still don't fully understand what this new ToH is. If I can find a better Wizards.com summary of it, I'd like to include it for completeness, though. At this point, I don't know what to add. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Nope, I don't know anything about that. I can ask around at ENWorld if you like; would be nice to be complete if we are able to ever take this one to FA. BOZ (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
That would be great if you would ask. I'm sure they'd know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Amazon says it's not out yet.[8] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try to do that in a few hours. My internet access has gotten pretty... weird. BOZ (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It's much closer to normal now. ;) Thread started. BOZ (talk) 02:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Got a few responses already! BOZ (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(redent) Nice work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's the problem, I know they're sending out a free conversion of the Tomb of Horrors, I got one in the mail last week. But Wizards makes no mention of it on their website. The DM Rewards page still lists Village of Homlet. I linked to a post on ENWorld by the guy who did the 4e conversion, Scott Fitzgerald Grey, but it got taken out and said citation needed. It seems to me that there should be a way to keep the source I linked to and say "if there is a better source, replace this." Because a message board post is the best source there is, and it's written by someone who should know. Rylon (talk) 19:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

74 vs 75 Origins play?[edit]

DnD [edit]

How do you know that it's 74 and not 75 in your edit "1974 Origins 1 convention." in Tomb of Horrors? Not that I don't believe you, but I took that article through GA so I watch it since then. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 9:55 pm, Today (UTC−7)

I was wondering if anyone would notice that, since I didn't mention it in my edit summary.  :) At any rate, it's on page 3 (Introduction section) of the Tomb of Horrors, version 3.5 (2005). It reads:
The original version of this module was first used for the official ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® tournament at Origins I in 1974. Next it was published as Dungeon Module S1 in 1981 using the 1st edition rules. The module was later expanded in Return to the Tomb of Horrors in 1998 using the 2nd edition rules. However, the original tomb was never actually updated—it was reprinted as it originally saw print. Now, twenty-one years after its first appearance, the original module is finally being updated to the latest incarnation of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® rules (3.5).

You can download the module here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:08 pm, Today (UTC−7)

So we know, and can make all dates match. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, forgot download link.[9] Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I just ran into something weird. According to the Intro to ToH 3.5, it says that it was first published under the code S1 in 1981. But as I write this, I'm looking at the cover of ToH 1.0 and is clearly shows a copyright of 1978. So, I'm not sure what WoC is talking about in the quote above, which also makes me suspicious of the 1974 date of Origins 1. Let me see if there is a way I can find out when the first Origins took place. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm changing the first Origins date from 74 back to 75. I can only guess that the quote above is a misprint, since the Origins Game Fair article says that the first one was in 75. I'll go ahead a post a question on that talk page, because the reference to the fist Origins is called "1974". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure myself (born in 73 and all that), but it wouldn't be the first time that DnD sources contradicted themselves or were wrong. I think sometimes they misremember or something. I've seen Gygax get a date wrong, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, well, it's not very helpful when the supposed reliable sources aren't all that reliable. LOL. Anyway, I changed the date back to '75 (even thought the edit summary says '74...doh!!!) and left a question on the Origins Wiki article talk page.
By the way, do you think that the two purposes I added in the second paragraph of the introduction to this article should be reversed? I think switching reasons 1 and 2 would make it read better, but I would like a second opinion. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe so. He play tested it before he released it to the fans, I think, but I'm not sure. Whatever chronology we think he took might be a good way to order it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)