Talk:Chivalry & Sorcery

Tannoth supplement
I moved these lines here from the "Third Edition" section of the article:
 * A project to fully develop Tannoth as a separate product under the leadership of C&S co-author Wilf K. Backhaus broke down in disagreement between some of the writers. This was due, in the main, to Mr. Backhaus's company not supplying maps and other ancillary material to help the authors fully flesh out their sections of the game world.

It was added with the edit summary of "Changes to the entry for Tannoth due to personal experience as one of the writers involved", but it needs a more verifiable citation than that to be suitable for Wikipedia. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The removal of material related to recent editions for copyright reasons
At several points in the history of this article editors have removed information about recent editions of this game, citing questions as to the legality of those editions. I've generally restored this information, however. Wikipedia isn't censored, which means among other things that we don't suppress information about a publication just because the publication happens to be illegal in some way. Wikipedia obviously can't host material that is itself a copyright violation, but information that is about a work that violates copyright can be perfectly legitimate content (see for example The Phantom Edit, or for a more RPG-focused example Deities & Demigods. List of books banned by governments may have some relevant examples as well). If the copyright status of some particular edition of the game is indeed dubious a good approach is to add information about the copyright dispute to the article. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the deletions seem to have been made from a single IP address in Canada. I have restored mention of the unauthorized edition to the article. Dogface (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it that it is now immutable religious dogma to pretend that the various unauthorized "editions" of C&S never actually existed? Dogface (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

When fan forums are reliable enough
It is not a violation of sourcing policy, as I understand it, to link to a "fan forum" post when one refers to that specific fan forum post in an article and identifies it as such in the article. Or is it the contention that the statement referring to "bogus" status for the 2009 version of C&S should be deleted in its entirety, leaving the trademark holders with no statement, at all? Dogface (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with the majority of forum postings is that the posts can not be verified to be from the official source. The only forums that can really get around this are company-owned forums which have built-in flagging of employee (ie: official company) statements.  Unless an official statement can be found from a reliable source, then yes - the mention should be removed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Ucucha 00:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Chivalry and Sorcery → Chivalry & Sorcery — Following the covers of the game the ampersand seems to correspond to the correct title. —Kintaro (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The better-known game has its ampersand. Tevildo (talk) 10:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Majoring Word Error Passes First Birthday
There was an error made at at 07:21, 27 August 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chivalry_%26_Sorcery&oldid=310320605 that is still in the article. The article says, "C&S was the first to introduce new concepts like critical hits or levels for monsters who have been occasions, for example, Rolemaster, or the new version of Dungeons & Dragons and open players on the outside part of campaign instead of confining them to a dark underground dungeon in the dark confines of the country." Apparently, something was intended somewhere between "monsters" and "occasions," but I don't know what. I'm rewriting this section so it makes sense; if anyone knows what info is missing, please add it and I'll be very grateful. Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Critical Hits and Monster Levels and Bias
The article says C&S was the first to introduce these; I'm not sure this is true. Anyone got their pre-1977 D&D books handy? Alden Loveshade (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I added citation needed. Also "Anyone opening the red book was first struck by the density and richness of information it contained."--this and other phrases could use some serious RW. Unfortunately, right now I don't have access to the game and am hesitant about making too many changes in my ignorance. Alden Loveshade (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nine months late, but better than never: According to the Critical hit article, Empire of the Petal Throne was the first game to include critical hits. Unfortunately, this is backed up only by a cite from that game's own rulebook, which might not be reliable.  It was, however, a very early RPG so if it had critical hits, it could very well be the first.  Its first publication preceded C&S by two years (1975).  The D&D white box original set (1974), "blue book basic" edition (1977), and first edition AD&D (1979) certainly did not have anything like a critical hit system (although one of the original set supplements might have had something similar that was dropped when the game was revised). 12.233.146.130 (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Monsters have been leveling up since Ken St Andre’s Tunnels & Trolls in 1975. Even more so in the “Monsters! Monsters!” variant published by Metagaming Concepts in 1976.

68.97.96.78 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Original research and excessive detail
Most of the article in its current form seems to be original research, aside from the lead section of the article and the "Reception" subsections for each edition. Basically every descriptive portion about any edition of the game (i.e. the portion of each edition's section aside from the "Reception" subsection) seems to be mostly original research/opinion, with zero citations to support it; in fact, the only citations anywhere in the article right now are in the lead and in the reception subsections, save for one citation by "Brittannia Game Designs and Maple Leaf Games Ltd (C&S Light and 4th edition)" in the "Editors" section. Speaking of which the "Editors" section is entirely unnecessary; information about the editors for each edition, if relevant, should be worked into the existing subsections for each edition. In addition, the section on C&S 1st edition is way too long and overly detailed in describing the mechanics and lore of the game, particularly in an in-universe style, on top of being mostly original research. The 1st edition section needs to be substantially trimmed down to only important/relevant encyclopedic information, and much of the article needs to have its claims supported and original research removed. V2Blast (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I attempted to improve the section on 1st edition's game mechanics, although I do not see much relevance out of what is left, especially since it is completely uncited, and does not provide much information about how the game is actually played. I will post the previous revision's text here, should anyone want to take a shot at rewriting it in a better way that I did, and perhaps actually citing some reliable sources:
 * Creating a character
 * Creating a character begins with the random selection of their race. Once race is specified, the player randomly draws "primary" characteristics, as well as size, weight, and astral sign. Characters also have seven Primary Characteristics: Dexterity, Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Appearance, and Bardic Voice.
 * Secondary Characteristics are derived from the primary characteristics and modified by the character's size and weight. They consist of Body points (BP, or how much damage their body can take before dying), Fatigue points (FP, or how much exertion their body can take before collapsing), Charisma (CHA, or leadership), Carrying Capacity (CC, how much weight they can lift or carry), Personal Combat Factor (PCF, fighting skill and proficiency with melee weapons), Military Ability Factor (MAF, or ability to command and direct an army) and Command Level (CL, or ability to lead an army).
 * Alignment in Chivalry & Sorcery is either selected or rolled randomly on a d20 (20-sided die) table and scored from 1 to 20. This corresponds to Lawful (1-7), Neutral (8-15) or Chaotic (16–20), with the number indicating a named level within that alignment (for examples: 1 is Lawful-Saintly, 11 is Neutral-Worldly, and 20 is Chaotic-Diabolical). The system is heavily influenced by the values and teachings of the Christian religion.[1]
 * The astral sign, accompanied by auspices (favorable, unfavorable or neutral), determines if the character is more or less born under a lucky star regarding their vocation. For example, the sign Leo is a good sign for warriors while the sign Scorpio is a good sign for magicians. This results primarily (but not only) in a gain greater or lesser experience in the tasks performed.
 * A character can also have one or more phobias or other mental illness.[2] Social status is important, and a random drawing determines the origin and social rank of the character. Finally, accounting for the characteristics, the astral sign, social background, race and natural inclination, the player decides what role the character will follow.
 * Magic
 * The magic system was created by Wilf Backhaus and inspired mainly by Real Magic by Isaac Bonewits. A magician's capability is defined by their Concentration Level (which depends on their characteristics, bonus astral and experience) which determines their Magic Level (MKL). The MKL determines what level of spells will be available (a new level of spells are available both MKL). The highest MKL a magician can have is 22 (as the 22 "Major Arcana" cards of occult tarot). On the other hand, the Personal Magic Factor (PMF) of a magician depends on its characteristics and its MKL and defines its ability to affect the world around them. In practice, PMF determines the scope and duration of spells and the number of volumes of materials used by the Magic User (see below on Magic Basic). Tendonofscreech (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2023 (UTC)