Talk:Chivalry & Sorcery

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tannoth supplement 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The removal of material related to recent editions for copyright reasons 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  When fan forums are reliable enough 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Majoring Word Error Passes First Birthday 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Critical Hits and Monster Levels and Bias