|
Post by drskull on Aug 19, 2008 20:20:56 GMT -6
I've just been looking through my Chivalry and Sorcery stuff from the mid-eighties.
I spent my college years (83-87) GMing at least 1 C&S campaign per year, including 2 awe-inspiring Viking romps.
Reading through it now, I'd say that there is simply nothing better for making the PC's a real part of the fabric of the game world; and I wouldn't wish the character generation system on my worst enemy.
The crunch is beyond all words, and its jammed into a relatively small page count. Yet all the crunch actually is tied keenly into the fluff. A real wonder.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 19, 2008 20:33:39 GMT -6
Yet all the crunch actually is tied keenly into the fluff. A real wonder. Could you expound on that a bit? My memory of C&C (I owned it briefly back in '88-'89) is kinda fuzzy...
|
|
|
Post by cadriel on Aug 20, 2008 5:29:26 GMT -6
I've actually been curious about this game. How much stuff is there in C&S that can be stolen for D&D -- between fluff and crunch -- without going down the legendarily detailed route that C&S itself went? Monsters, spells, character types? Is there an edition it'd be worth tracking down for reference, or is it really just philosophically incompatible with OD&D?
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Aug 20, 2008 6:39:35 GMT -6
I've actually been curious about this game. How much stuff is there in C&S that can be stolen for D&D -- between fluff and crunch -- without going down the legendarily detailed route that C&S itself went? Monsters, spells, character types? Is there an edition it'd be worth tracking down for reference, or is it really just philosophically incompatible with OD&D? Well, I've developed an adaptation of the C&S magic system for D&D, but everybody tells me it's too much work (I think that's missing the point ). There is a fair bit that can be taken from C&S, not the least of which are the rules for stronghold construction - MUCH more detailed than D&D and frankly quite well done. There are also some rules about warhorses and rules for monsters in combat (basically giving different sizes of claws, teeth, etc. - really only usable if you are using the differential weapon damage rules from Greyhawk). We also had some discussion about C&S here: odd74.proboards76.com/index.cgi?board=oldschool&action=display&thread=712
|
|
|
Post by drskull on Aug 20, 2008 8:47:19 GMT -6
I'm most familiar with the second edition.
I would say that the most easily adapatable stuff for D&D would be the equipment lists. There is a huge list of all sorts of goods and services that makes a good reference. Also, the GM advise is pretty neat, and I realize now has had a huge impact on my GM style for all these years.
You might also use the Social Status tables, rules for making a living at just about any imaginable occupation and social condition.
Character types would be less easy. For example, instead of Fighting-men, a feudal campaign would see the following: Knights Sergeants (professional cavalry) Pettite Sergeants (militia cavalry) Men-at-Arms (professional infantry) Yoemen (rural militia) Town Militia Whether it would be profitable to break down fighting men into these different types in OD&D is highly doubtful. One really interesting old-school thing, however, is that these "Classes" of fighting men are NOT balanced. If you are born into the right social class (by random roll) you are eligible for some, but not others, and some are just simply better than others (Knights are better than everyone else, men-at-arms are better than yoemen etc).
The one class that might make a good OD&D PC would be the Merchant-Adventurer. These are men who travel for the purpose of trade and have some fighting skills, some thievish type skills, and can gain experience points based on trade profits.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 10, 2009 15:12:04 GMT -6
And here is a recently discovered, freely distributable version of the 1st ed. rules, edited by the authors. Pretty much the only change they made was an increase in the previously 5 pt.(!) type size... Chivalry & Sorcery 1st ed.I am so excited to read this!
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Sept 11, 2009 8:53:01 GMT -6
And here is a recently discovered, freely distributable version of the 1st ed. rules, edited by the authors. Pretty much the only change they made was an increase in the previously 5 pt.(!) type size... Chivalry & Sorcery 1st ed.I am so excited to read this! Have an exalt for this - I was going to scan in the original game and then make some copies for use by my gaming group. This is really cool!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 12, 2009 7:34:45 GMT -6
I'll toss an EXALT your way, as well.
I played a game or two of C&S back in the 1980's (with my friends who were into realism over playability) and I remember it as being very rules intensive, which is why I stayed with OD&D. However, I think I have grown a lot as a gamer over the decades and appreciate rules-heavy systems a little more even if I don't prefer to play them.
Thanks for giving me the chance to read this stuff again! :-)
|
|
arokh
Level 2 Seer
Posts: 42
|
Post by arokh on Sept 12, 2009 13:02:59 GMT -6
Wow, that's awesome, thanks for sharing that link! I have always wanted to check out the first edition of C&S, but never came across a copy. I'm going to have a fun time digging through that massive document.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Sept 14, 2009 10:14:55 GMT -6
My pleasure---I just think it's too cool that it's legally distributable! THAT'S old school! I'm thick into reading it right now and have lots of thoughts about it. I would, however, really, really love to hear some more discussion by those who've actually played it (badger, I'm thinking of you...) How much of the rules did you actually adhere to? How did the rules enhance or inhibit play? Did you emphasize the feudal element or the fantasy element, or find some sort of balance? Stuff like that...
|
|
bert
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 138
|
Post by bert on Nov 15, 2009 16:40:26 GMT -6
Thanks for posting the link. I too had been curious about C&S for many years, but never bought it back in 'ye olde days' sticking to D&D and Runequest.
The book is very old school in that it is incredibly disorganised, but I do like the way the whole effort links in with the real-world-ish medieval campaign the authors ran. Good bits are the medieval knightly feel in the jousting, running a fief, courtly love and getting hauled off to war by your leige lord, but it doesn't give enough detail on what the mere plebs in the party are supposed to be doing - presumably this was adressed in the later campaign books. I also like the ideas behind magic system, and the way it reflects the reality of the whole madcap gang of oddballs who claimed magic powers back in medieval times.
The bad side - it makes the ODD little brown books look like the epitome of rational exposition, it is disorganised and complicated and many bits are quite simply missing. Did anyone really use the cobat system as written? With some difficulty I created a character - a bastard son of a Baron's daughter and Troubador according to the excellent background tables, built like brick shirthouse but sadly ugly as sin and thick as two short planks - and pitted him against a gobilin or two and and immediately got lost in the welter of exceptions, special cases and tactical options.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 10, 2013 16:51:58 GMT -6
So, believe it or not, I just picked up a copy of the 1st edition C&S rules, plus the Swords & Sorcerers supplement, both in excellent condition, for a total of $20. This was at my FLGS, too, so even more surprising. I've just started reading it, but man, it's got some awesome ideas, and a great atmosphere. Haven't tried to make any characters, or run a combat or anything, so we'll see... Anyone know where I could find a character sheet?
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 11, 2013 8:07:32 GMT -6
This thread has me curious. I know I have C&S on a hard drive some where. Did the doc linked above have a coat of arms of a hawk with a red boarder on the cover page? Link is broken BTW. I'd like to look at the social status tables mentioned.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 11, 2013 8:38:13 GMT -6
It did indeed. The link was intentionally broken, actually. About a year after posting it, I was contacted by someone (I'm forgetting his name) who convinced me that, contrary to the book's introductory text, it had not been approved free public distribution by the authors. He asked me to take it down, so I did.
|
|
|
Post by derv on Aug 11, 2013 9:28:15 GMT -6
Ah well, it seems the age of public access to such things is coming to an end. The pendullum is swinging to private interests once more. Do you think you would have pursued purchasing C&S if you never would have seen the 1st ed doc Kesher? Just curious.
I did find it in the corner of my passport. I didn't remember it being such a beefy pdf at 338 pages. The fuedal context is very interesting. I think the crunchiness of the system had me shuffling it away into a corner of my hard drive. It has the same flavor as "Fantasy Wargaming" by Galloway (not sure if this is a fair assessment since I've only glanced over the doc).
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Aug 15, 2013 13:50:16 GMT -6
The size, as I understand it, is due to printing with a "normal" sized font. The original is, I think, 8-point?, in two columns. It definitely has a similar atmosphere to FW, though the mechanics are radically different. Interestingly, both have character horoscopes as a mechanically-relevant part of character creation...
|
|