Re: (TFT) Comments on Chivalry & Sorcery

[Tim <rebl@swbell.net>]

Hi David. I remember those C&S gaming sessions. Loads of fun.
   
  I thought your idea to have an assistant GM was wise; it did speed up the gameplay. 
  As David's assistant, my job was to keep the combat flowing by doing the table lookups after the die rolls. Do you remember that big poster board we used, Dave? He had the idea to attach all the necessary combat tables to this big poster board (I seem to recall it was maybe 2'x3').  My job was to learn how to use it. With a little practice, I was able to quickly reference the various tables. It did speed up the combat.  
   
  My memories of C&S are of a complex system, but one that was full of depth. We did manage to tap into the depth pretty well, by combining the system with David's house rules. 
   
  My favorite memory of the system was the nuances of employing the "Great Blow" attack, which was devastating to an enemy - but also taxing on endurance. :)
   
  Tim

"David O. Miller" <davidomiller@verizon.net> wrote:
  Hey everybody. I own C&S (along with most of the supplements) and 
played it a little bit in college. It was the single most complicated 
RPG I have ever tried to run. The combat was extremely slow and I had 
one of the members of our gaming group (care to comment Tim?) help me 
to look up the percentages on the several charts needed to complete a 
round of combat. Meanwhile I was busy running the scenario and keeping 
track of the monsters and NPC's. If I had had to do it all it would 
have bogged down tremendously. By having an assistant GM we kept it 
going at a fairly good pace. We played a very typical, cliche dungeon. 
It was set in the ruins of a small dwarven underground city that had 
the lower level taken over by a dragon. The upper levels were full of 
orcs and a few other nasties. If I recall the internal logic of the 
situation worked pretty well and it was fun for the players to attempt 
to figure out some of the back story. It was very combat heavy but I 
never pretended that the scenario was anything else but that. After 
spending several gaming sessions to finish it we moved on to other, 
simpler games systems like RuneQuest. I sometimes raided the 
supplements for fun ideas but never returned to the rules. I found out 
later that many gaming groups did exactly the same thing. Now this is 
not to say that I did not like C&S. In fact I found it to be a blast to 
play. It was just very complicated and felt more like a wargame than a 
RPG. If I want "extremely" strategic rules I would rather sit down to 
play a wargame. I like my RPG's to move at a faster pace than C&S 
allowed.

--David O. Miller



On Feb 13, 2007, at 5:11 PM, Rick Smith wrote:

> I've also never played it but I have read that
> it had (in the earlier versions) a realistic and
> well thought out combat system. I have also read
> that it was slow to play that limited its
> acceptance. Many people who played it, used its
> extremely well researched background info & used
> home made simplified combat rules (or so I've
> read.)
>
> I tried to pick up some C&S for a little while
> on ebay but I didn't find any bargains & was not
> willing to pay a lot for it.
>
> Rick
>
> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 11:30, John Gfoeller wrote:
>> Interesting. It makes me want to research "C&S" ("Chivalry and 
>> Sorcery").
>> I never played it. Does anyone have any comments on it as a gaming 
>> system?
>>
>> -- John
> =====
> Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
> Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
> "unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"