Chivalry & Sorcery vs Dungeons & Dragons

[Winterthorn]

Just a few hours ago I learned that a local store near where I live has stocked up on a large series of Chivalry & Sorcery books--about 10 different products IIRC. Wow, just like that.

Well before D&D 3E came out, I picked up C&S 3rd Edition (I actually possess dusty copies of the 1st edition from the early '80s ), looking for something to rejunvenate my interest in FRPGs. It was a nice product at the time, but it had problems--especially the combat system with those action points--THAT really discouraged my friends and I.

So, since it's been re-released in competion against the d20 trend, this has prompted some questions tonight:

1) Have you ever played any edition of C&S?

2) What did you like and/or dislike about it?

3) If you know of it rather well, did it/does it inspire your interest as background material for OD&D, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, and/or D&D 3E. In other words, have you borrowed from it?

4) Do you have any opinion concerning the lastest edition of C&S? (I'm thinking of procuring a book or two...)

I've only played C&S 3E (I ran it for my friends actually), and many many years ago a friend at highschool incorporated C&S 1E material into his OD&D campaign. That experience got me hooked on RPG's in general ...

For life.

With respect to C&S 3E, I found the combat system most tedious to adjudicate, my players groaned at it, but we liked the PC generation and the historical medieval feel it had--the one aspect I miss in D&D. I particularly liked the way they made, in C&S, a profound distinction between the magic of mages, and the magic of priests! (I don't remember their terminology right now.) There were some good ideas "in them thar rulebooks".

Funny, I've completely forgot I had some C&S stuff So, maybe there's some prestige material, new equipment ideas or spells and critters to mine from it

So. Your thoughts folks?

Cheers,
-B.

 

[BluSponge]

1) Have you ever played any edition of C&S?

Nope. I own the 3rd edition cores Highlander came out with and have seen some of the old 1st ed stuff. I made a few characters -- that was enough for me.

2) What did you like and/or dislike about it?

I didn't care much for character creation -- which says a lot as I loved Dangerous Journeys and all its warts. But where the core system in DJ was very simple, C&S's skill system was a lot like 3e, with specific rules and situational modifiers for every skill. It also didn't help that when the screen came out it was barely readable. OTOH, I LOVE the GM's Companion. Its one of my indespensibles, right up there with the 1st ed DMG and the DJ cores.

3) If you know of it rather well, did it/does it inspire your interest as background material for OD&D, AD&D 1E, AD&D 2E, and/or D&D 3E. In other words, have you borrowed from it?

Everything on social status, feudal campaign management, ranks and titles, fortifications, etc. Never hurts to have those details in a reference on hand. I also use the codes of chivalry therein for my own game.

4) Do you have any opinion concerning the lastest edition of C&S? (I'm thinking of procuring a book or two...)

I haven't seen the LATEST edition, though I'd love to get my hands on the elf and dwarf books. The knights book sounded good too. But if the GM's material is comperable to the Highlander Press books, then its a crime that every DM doesn't own a copy for their own reference. 90% of the material in the GMs book is statistical and designed more for reference and information than for rules, so there's nothing to stop you from using it in your DnD campaign (it works for my LA game just fine). And you're right -- it can definately help put the "medieval" flavor back in DnD. I'll say it again: EVERY DM should own a copy of the GM's book for C&S!

Tom

 

[Winterthorn]

Yes!

OTOH, I LOVE the GM's Companion. Its one of my indespensibles, right up there with the 1st ed DMG and the DJ cores.

Well, you can be proud of me then. I just took a moment to dig out my copies of C&S 3E and found out I own a copy of the GM's Companion too! And indeed, I'll keep it aside for support material for my Kingdoms of Kalamar (D&D 3E) campaign.

I wonder what other stuff people have dug up to support their D&D games?...

 

[ColonelHardisson]

A small suggestion: you might want to rename the thread, and replace C&S with the full name of Chivalry & Sorcery. The reason is, I'm a going-on-23-year RPG fan, and still it took me a while to remember what C&S stood for. You might get more replies that way.

I never played C&S, but I have seen some of the rules, mostly in some adbentures. The system never really caught my interest enough to buy the game itself.

But, mining C&S for material for a D&D3e campaign is a sound idea. I've gone back and found stuff I can use something from everything from TORG to Empire of the Petal Throne to Shadowrun, and most notably HackMaster.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

1. I've played all editions

2. The things I like are the campaign detail, and the magic system. I've always found the religious section to be weak.

3. Absolutely, my current campaign has characters in it who were converted from C&S 3e

4. My opinion on the current edition is too biased to be of use to you I'm credited as one of the authors on the cover and receive royalties for each copy sold.

 

[Ace]

I liked 3rd edition C&S except for the action point based combat, UGH.


C&S is pretty complex in char gen and in play.

Also if you like Forgotten Realms style fantasy you won't like C&S.
The game goes very heavy into real medievil enviroments with lots of detail.

As a few people here have mentioned the GM's guide is really good, I am told the Knights Companion is also good.

 

[Winterthorn]

O.K. I'll try to change the thread title. Thank you for the suggestion, Colonel H.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I played in a few original C&S games and ran one for a while.

Hated it.

1. It was tied intimately into a feudal setting

2. There seemed to be exceptional rules and charts for everything

3. Combat was way complicated

4. Magic was way, way overpowered (the various "basic magic, manipulating fire, earth, water air with various combinations of attach, detach etc" were nicely written but allowed horrific damage to be generated easily.

5. I created a "solitary hex master" with a legitimate charisma of about 32 - and Cha was the prime stat for shm's. The system was quite open to abuse.

So speaking personally, I found nothing inspiring in it, and nothing to commend it.

This isn't to say that many people didn't derive great enjoyment from it - they did. I believe Lee Gold (of Alarums and Excursions fame) did a sort of japanse RPG version based on C&S for instance.

I never saw any later generation versions of C&S, and couldn't comment on them. My views are entirely based on the first edition. It seemed about that time that C&S came out as a "more complicated D&D" and Runequest came out as a "rethought from the basics RPG". We went the Runequest route.

Best wishes

 

[Deadguy]

I never really got a chance to play Chivalry and Sorcery. I first came into contact with it in its first edition format, just as second edition came out. But I could never find the players willing to play it.

And if I am honest I can see why. Its design principle was to try and include all rules that might be needed by a particular class, or for a particular type of action. But rather than the more recent approach of providing a general mechanism for resolving tasks, Chivalry and Sorcery has table after table after table, so that you can calculate your precise percentage chance of succeeding the task. As one potential player pointed out - it's fine to talk about the different ways in which a Ranger character might go about freshwater fishing. But do we need a table that allows him to calculate his precise chance to engage in 'trout-tickling' (I kid you not!)? I can't imagine actually running the game using the 2nd edition rules proper - you would forever be looking through the books for a particular table and then calculating out your percentage chance. In a way, C&S did teach me that you can have too much detail in a game. You aren't aiming for it to be realistic, you are aiming for it to feel realistic - and they aren't the same thing!

That said, I think you can mine the game for ideas for a mediaeval type game - the authors have done much of the basic research you'd need to do if you wanted an authentic mediaeval setting.

Oh, and yes there was a feudal Japanese version of the game - Land of the Rising Sun, though I cannot for the life of me remember the author's name. I recall it well, because again I used it for ideas when I ran the alternative, the excellent Shogun.

 

[Blacksburg]

The author of Land of the Rising Sun is/was Lee Gold. It did the best job of explaining the first edition magick system. I never ran it as a campaign, but I ran the first edition (Red Book) and the second edition extensively in the early 80's. When it restarted in the nineties, I bought a couple of books, but wasn't impressed.