Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have played and enjoyed Chivalry and Sorcery for lo, these many years. I found the original (or version 1) a great source, but unplayable as a game. Version 2 was much better, but, as I never refereed it, I'm not sure how much labour the GM had to put in to make it work. Version 3 was quite different: again, some great ideas, but the numbers didn't always work, particularly in combat. (Perhaps it wasn't playtested enough.)

Can anyone give me some feedback on C&S4 The Rebirth? I'm looking for facts (such as whether the magic system is more like v1/2 or v3, whether a simple combat can be resolved in less than an hour, and how clerical miracles compare to mages' spells), but general impressions would be welcome if they come from experience - even just which was your favourite. I'm not expecting it to be The Perfect System, I just wonder if it's worth spending the time getting to know.

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 7 down vote accepted

C&S Version 2 was basically a reprinting of Version 1. The original typeset and weakly bound books were not holding up and FGU saw a chance to revamp the game without much more effort than repackaging it as three seperate books - one the game system - two the combat system - and three the magic system. they packaged all three in a pretty box with a weak drawing of a knight and his damsel (or sorceress). The box held up as good as the version 1 books.

C&S Version 3 was the first real rewrite of the game mechanics. Version 3 was a really good system but lacked publishing power - I think Highlander Designs put it out. It added the first real skill system - Skillscape, I think. They had some good support books especially the Beastiary.

C&S Version 4 was a second rewrite of the ruleset. Played Version 4 for many years with good success. The combat system was cumbersome but realistic. The Magic System was more workable than version 1/2 (although I like version 1/2 better. Just something about the work you had to put into being a Wizard in that system made it fun.)

Overall, Version 4 was the most refined system of the four. Three had the best support material. But verison 1/2 will always hold a place in my heart. It was raw and the ruleset was limitted, but that fed the imagination. The rule limitations let the GM make the decisions and that seems right.

Early C&S was made for the Medieval setting with a Tolkien flair. Playing it, you got the feel of being in middle ages England/France, something you can get, but typically do not with D&D. Version 3 continued that feel but eliminated the Tolkien-esque feel and went more the medieval feel.

Sadly, a lack of support matierial and a lack of time on my part to come up with adequate source for gaming sessions made me move my group to Pathfinder. The support material for PF is unbelievable. My group would love to move back to the C&S ruleset though.

share|improve this answer
Good overview, Matt. Welcome to the site! –  Brian Ballsun-Stanton May 2 '12 at 18:31
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.