Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deadguy" data-source="post: 73202" data-attributes="member: 2480">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&amp;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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deadguy, post: 73202, member: 2480"] 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 [i]too much[/i] detail in a game. You aren't aiming for it to [i]be[/i] realistic, you are aiming for it to [i]feel[/i] 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 - [b]Land of the Rising Sun[/b], 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 [b]Shogun[/b]. [/QUOTE]

Verification