Editing Chivalry & Sorcery (section)

====Reception====
In the October 1983 edition of ''[[White Dwarf (magazine)|White Dwarf]]'' (Issue 46), [[Marcus Rowland (author)|Marcus Rowland]] gave the improved production values of the second edition a 10 out of 10, but found various aspects were still overly complex: "Overall, character generation in ''C&S'' is still extremely complicated and might take inexperienced players several hours, especially if they make the fatal mistake of working in the wrong order... Skill acquisition in ''C&S'' is almost indescribably complex and involves at least three distinct systems." Rowland did admit that some of the complexity allowed for unique characters. "Probably the best feature of these rules is their attention to detail... expressed in such minutiae as the table used to develop the exact culinary skills, and... tables for Eye and Hair color." Rowland concluded by scoring the complexity of the game 10 out of 10 and its playability only 6 out of 10, and expressed reservations about the suitability for new gamers: {{blockquote|I cannot recommend this game to inexperienced referees or players, but anyone with some knowledge of roleplaying games who is looking for a complex system for a prolonged campaign will probably find ''Chivalry & Sorcery'' ideal. If the rules were slightly better organized and the set gave more aid in character generation and setting up campaigns, I would not have these reservations.<ref name=wd46>{{cite journal|last=Rowland|first=Marcus|author-link=Marcus Rowland (author)| date=October 1983 |title=Open Box...|journal=[[White Dwarf (magazine)|White Dwarf]]|publisher=[[Games Workshop]]|issue=46|pages=12–13}}</ref>}}

Paul Mason reviewed ''Chivalry & Sorcery'' 2nd Edition for ''[[Imagine (AD&D magazine)|Imagine]]'' magazine, and stated that: {{blockquote|''Chivalry & Sorcery'' mistakenly attempts to compete with the AD&D game in terms of detail – a hopeless task which can only produce a fragmented and complex set of rules. As a reference work, and as a source of ideas for incorporation into other games, Chivalry & Sorcery is still excellent, but I doubt it will shake its popular image as a cult game on the fringes of the hobby mainstream.<ref name="Imagine12">{{cite journal | last = Mason |first = Paul | title =Game Reviews | type = review | journal = [[Imagine (game magazine)|Imagine]] | issue = 12| pages =13 | publisher = TSR Hobbies (UK), Ltd. |date=March 1984}}</ref>}}

In the April 1984 edition of ''[[Dragon (magazine)|Dragon]]'' (Issue 84), [[Ken Rolston]] found the overhauled rules of the second edition were still too complicated, saying: {{blockquote|The game was revised to broaden its appeal, but the presentation still shows problems, and the audience is still limited, because of the bulk and detail involved. This game is committed to comprehensiveness, at the expense of comprehensibility... ''C&S'' is still the most difficult and time-consuming FRP system on the market, when played at a level that fully exploits its virtues.}}Rolston warns that even the revised edition still is not meant for newcomers and part-time players: {{blockquote|This is the wrong product for the beginning or casual FRP gamer. For the intermediate gamer, it may be useful as a supplement and sourcebook. But as a complete campaign system, the virtues of ''C&S'' are only fully realized in the hands of the superior gamer — one who’s serious, sophisticated, dedicated, and familiar with medieval history, legend, and fantasy literature.<ref name=dragon>{{cite journal|last=Rolston|first=Ken|author-link=Ken Rolston| date=April 1984 |title=FRP's gilded chestnuts: The older they get, the better they become|journal=[[Dragon (magazine)|Dragon]]|publisher=[[TSR (company)|TSR, Inc.]]|issue=84|pages=66–67}}</ref>}}