Netbooks, supplements, and all types of lovely stuff

[Nick the Nevermet]

Hi.  This is a split from the Taveruun thread, which is beginning to sprawl as much as the country it is about.

Mike has suggested the idea of making a netbook for Taveruun, and Jake has colored himself interested.  Because I want the Taveruun thread to continue being about the setting of Taveruun, I'm making this thread to discuss matters involving the creation of supplements, be they on Taveruun, other countries, religion, or whatever.  I'm going to rant out my opinions on the subject, and you can feel free to give your thoughts or critique mine.  I'm not very attached to my proposals, so my feelings will not be hurt if you point out some horrible flaw in my thinking.


Another Thread Revisted
A while back, I posted a thread in the RPG Theory forum about the role of supplements.  My ideas are based on some of the things that popped up in that thread.  I always screw up links, so I'm not going to link to it.  Just do a search for my name or 'the role of supplements' in the RPG Theory forum.  It'll pop up.

The reason why I started that thread was I wanted to work out a 'correct' way to publish supplements for a game.  I think we can all agree that some supplements can be very, very good, but there are some games on the market that have been crushed by the weight of their own supplements.  One of the pitfalls that emerged in the thread was that supplements can, over time, shift the original style of play of a game.  There was a suggestion that supplements shift things to gamism, but I'm less than convinced.  Anyway, the point was that good supplements (and good supplement lines) support the original play encouraged in the original game.  They can focus on a particular piece, but good supplements don't change the agenda or overshadow the core book.


Disclaimer about fancy-shmancy language
I'm going to use some terms from Ron's GNS articles.  I don't pretend to have perfect insight into it.  It is, however, a good way to organize one's thoughts on roleplaying matters.  I will only use it as far as it serves that purpose in this thread.

TROS Core Book: The Starting Point
Before we can talk about supporting the style of play encouraged in the book, we have to identify what that is.  Now, this probably is nothing new at this point, but it is worth mentioning again.  This is just my view, so disagree if you want.  I'm not saying this is the only way to play, or that I know what Jake was doing.

Roleplaying is about exploration.  There are 5 basic categories for exploration in an RPG: character, color, mechanics, setting, situation.  If you need definitions, read Ron's articles near the bottom of the article page.  IMHO, the category that is most central to what TROS is about is character.  We've talked about this before on here: TROS is about character's motivations, beliefs, passions, hopes, dreams, etc.  It is about what drives him onwards and how his heart and soul fuel his physical actions.  That's not the only way to explore characters, but that is to me the "TROS way" for character exploration.

All the other facets of this tie into this.  The setting gives character's things like cultural identity and religious belief.  Situations test character's beliefs and force them to prioritize what is most important.  The color is all about making "Life and Death Choices."  And the mechanics support everything through a general attention to strategy and through the spiritual attributes.  Ron describes TROS as a sim-Nar hybrid, and I agree, but how game/sim/nar TROS is when you play it is a bit more malleable than the exploration of character thing.  As written, a player character always has some purpose and direction and the player is rewarded for finding out what lies down that road a ways.

So What Does that Matter?
This matters for putting together the information that would go into a supplement.  Ron somewhere criticized the fact that some games accidentally confuse 'fiction in a non-novel format' with 'supplement.'  I think this is an incredibly important point to keep in mind if we are going to start putting together supplements (be the free netbooks, for-sale netbooks, or anything else) on setting information.

I'll use my stuff on the Komas Province of Taveruun as an example of what I mean.  If that was to be written up as a part of a supplement, I would want to highlight the motivations this setting suggests for characters.  Komasans are drenched with issues involving both nationalism and religion.  On the subject of nationalism, many people would have very strong opinions on how much they are part of Taveruun, how much their heritage is from Cyrinthmeir, and how much they are their own people.  The fact that the entire culture of this province deals with this question encourages Komasan characters to also deal with this question.  Likewise, on religion, are the characters Valleyfolk or Citymen?  Are they strict Church members, or do they deal with the Higher Folk?  Helenian Gods?  Esauln?  (*gasp*) Thayrism?

Good setting information (for TROS) should be setting information that makes people think about what a person thinks, believes, and would be willing to die/kill for. IMHO, other games should have different standarded to judge setting information.

Aside From That
Besides my abstract babbling, there are some other questions about supplements:

1) free or fee:  Is additional setting information free for download off TROS' website?  Or are they PDFs with a small charge?  If they have a price, who gets the money?  Are supplements all products of Driftwood Publishing, or are they independent things (a la the mini-supplements for Sorcerer)?

2) Grouping and Consistency:  What is the goal of these supplements?  If someone creates a netbook for Taveruun, what other countries 'should' have netbooks?  The important ones?  The cool ones?  The ones in Mainlund?  When is a country deserving of sole attention, and when should it be part of a regional book?

Those are my thoughts at the moment.  My apologies for being long-winded.

[Darren Hill]

Hmm. Looks like I'm going to disagree with most of what you've said. Sorry about that :)

One of the pitfalls that emerged in the thread was that supplements can, over time, shift the original style of play of a game.  

I wonder how much power a setting supplement has to override the style of a group of players and GM? A setting will come with a particular style (because it is, after all, a setting), but whether the players actually play in that style is a whole other question.

I'm familiar with the concept that games with lots of supplements are somehow inferior to games that have fewer supplements, due to some notion of the purity of the original material, or maybe due to a rejection of the direction of the game's metaplot if it has one. I don't buy this - I think that games with more supplements - even if all those supplements are sub-standard - provide more choices. It is entirely up to the group (or GM maybe) as to whether to take that extra stuff onboard.
If a supplement takes you away from the play style you want, don't use it - or use the bits you like and ignore the bits you don't.

Nor do I necessarily agree that good supplements must encourage the original kind of play suggested in the core rules. New supplements might come with different kinds of play styles, which might very well be just as good - only different.

Good setting information (for TROS) should be setting information that makes people think about what a person thinks, believes, and would be willing to die/kill for. IMHO, other games should have different standarded to judge setting information.

That is a very good thing to include - but there's nothing special about it being suitable for TROS. Any game's setting material should provide that kind of information - far too many don't.

2) Grouping and Consistency:  What is the goal of these supplements?  If someone creates a netbook for Taveruun, what other countries 'should' have netbooks?  The important ones?  The cool ones?  The ones in Mainlund?  When is a country deserving of sole attention, and when should it be part of a regional book?

Those countries that attract people to write about them are the ones that should have netbooks. Far too many netprojects fail because people are too ambitious. So I'd caution against expecting the enthusiasm of two people writing (very good stuff) about Taveruun to kickstart a momentum towards the other nations. Just concentrate on what you're doing at the moment, and wait to see if anything happens with the others.*

Having said that, it would do no harm for Jake to have some kind of official policy regarding fan-created material. Maybe something like: "you can create what you want, and put it on the net for others to share (so long as it doesn't repeat excessive amounts of material from the rulebook). It's your world, and it's not endorsed in anyway. If I like what I see, I may approach you about creating official material, or incorporating an edited form into official material."

* Edited to add: I just noticed in the other post you mentioned an interest in doing other nations yourself (with possibly Brian and Mike) - well, in that case, ignore my doom and gloom. I look forward to it.

[Nick the Nevermet]

Hmm. Looks like I'm going to disagree with most of what you've said. Sorry about that :)

Oh, drat ;)

A setting will come with a particular style (because it is, after all, a setting), but whether the players actually play in that style is a whole other question.

Oh, I quite agree.  It's just that, IMO, if we know that all setting information comes with style embedded in it, as you say, then it is something we should be conscious of and try to direct.

I'm familiar with the concept that games with lots of supplements are somehow inferior to games that have fewer supplements, due to some notion of the purity of the original material, or maybe due to a rejection of the direction of the game's metaplot if it has one. I don't buy this - I think that games with more supplements - even if all those supplements are sub-standard - provide more choices. It is entirely up to the group (or GM maybe) as to whether to take that extra stuff onboard.
If a supplement takes you away from the play style you want, don't use it - or use the bits you like and ignore the bits you don't.

ok, this was my fault.  I apologize for not being clear:  I am not saying that games with tons of supplements always are bad.  All I'm saying is that depends on the particular case, and I'm sure we both could think of a few RPGs that put out several dubious supplements.  Likewise, I'm sure we can both think of games that seem to consistently put out really cool products.  The statement that 'some games have better product lines than others' I think is a relatively safe comment.  The talk of netbooks just made me want to bring up this discussion in relation to TROS.

I agree that even a less than stellar supplement can give new ideas to a group.  But so can supplements for other games, or even non-RPG material.  I don't think it is too arrogant or oppressive of an idea to suggest that a line of supplements should have an conscious pattern to them and what they try to do.  This leads to questions like "what could this supplement contribute to playing the game?"  This question becomes even more important the more limited one's resources are.

Nor do I necessarily agree that good supplements must encourage the original kind of play suggested in the core rules. New supplements might come with different kinds of play styles, which might very well be just as good - only different.

Hmm...
I will agree that it is possible for a supplement to successfully do what you suggest.  However, I cringe a little bit when I hear about it because, IMO, it is a difficult thing to do.  People like a given RPG for specific reasons.  Changing those reasons, and the rules that are related to them, is a tricky gamble.

Now, I'm not saying there is 1 right way to roleplay any given game.  But the rules and other given material in any given game suggests a certain style, a certain feel, etc.  The more a supplement messes with that core, the more I would, as a general statement, be wary of that supplement.

Few games are only core, however.  Any game will be composed of more or less central information.  Shifting around the more peripheral information, I think, would be interesting.  I mean, in the past, people on this forum have discussed using TROS mechanics in the old Dark Sun setting, for Star Wars, and even to run a superhero campaign.  It is possible for all that to happen, IMO, because whether the PC is a fencer or a caped crusader is not central to using TROS.  What is central are the strategic choices characters make in life & death situations, and why they make them.

Other games have different cores.  While you could theoretically use RIFTS for a campaign about the inner conflicts characters have about morality, that isn't really what the game is about.  A supplement that tries to do that would have a lot of work on its hands.

Good setting information (for TROS) should be setting information that makes people think about what a person thinks, believes, and would be willing to die/kill for. IMHO, other games should have different standarded to judge setting information.

That is a very good thing to include - but there's nothing special about it being suitable for TROS. Any game's setting material should provide that kind of information - far too many don't.

My point is that different games may value setting information for other uses more.  An example:  Dunjon is another RPG here at the Forge.  It's built purely for the joy of dungeon-crawling, and it is very good at it.  A setting book for Dunjon would have very different priorities on what kind of setting information was most important.  The fact that a game has character motivations as a lower priority does not mean it is necessarily inferior.  It could just have different design goals.

Having said that, it would do no harm for Jake to have some kind of official policy regarding fan-created material. Maybe something like: "you can create what you want, and put it on the net for others to share (so long as it doesn't repeat excessive amounts of material from the rulebook). It's your world, and it's not endorsed in anyway. If I like what I see, I may approach you about creating official material, or incorporating an edited form into official material."

If people here keep ranting about Taveruun and other things like that, then I suspect he'll write something like that up.  Just a guess though; I certainly don't speak for Jake.

[Darren Hill]

Oh, I quite agree.  It's just that, IMO, if we know that all setting information comes with style embedded in it, as you say, then it is something we should be conscious of and try to direct.

No argument there. personally, I tend to think of setting books as more style-free. They may come with a built-in style but the GM imposes his own style on them, and the play group will modify that themselves.
A stronger case for your point can be made with adventures, and to a lesser extent game mechanic supplements where effect on play might not be easly anticipated.
But on the whole, I doubt I've ever seen a game's 'style' survive the reinterpretation of a GM and then the play-group without being heavily modified for that group.

The statement that 'some games have better product lines than others' I think is a relatively safe comment.

Agreed. :)
But what makes one product line better than another? I personally don't much care for D&D, but it's adventure supplements do tend to remain extremely true to the style of the original game and are therefore good supplements.
A Game like Ravenloft, and maybe Wheel of Time, drastically changes certain aspects of game play and game style, and produces a better style of play for me. Another GM I know considers WoT and D&D to be different but equally good - but they definitely encourage different game activities.

I don't think it is too arrogant or oppressive of an idea to suggest that a line of supplements should have an conscious pattern to them and what they try to do.  This leads to questions like "what could this supplement contribute to playing the game?"  This question becomes even more important the more limited one's resources are.

I agree wholeheartedly. But I still think it is legitimate if a given supplement tries to take the game in a new direction.

My point is that different games may value setting information for other uses more.  An example:  Dunjon is another RPG here at the Forge.  It's built purely for the joy of dungeon-crawling, and it is very good at it.  A setting book for Dunjon would have very different priorities on what kind of setting information was most important.  The fact that a game has character motivations as a lower priority does not mean it is necessarily inferior.  It could just have different design goals.

It's true I'm coming it this from more of a mainstream perspective, but I can't envisage how a supplement that sets out to be a 'setting' book could not be greatly diminished by not including information on how the people of that setting think and the sorts of things they believe. (Those things might be tailored to the paradigm of the given game world/system, but they have to be there to some degree - what else is a setting book, after all?).

Hope I'm not being too pendantic! :)

[Nick the Nevermet]

Oh, no, not too pendantic.  I'm not completely sure if I follow your argument, though.  If I am reading you correctly, it sounds like you are saying I'm 'overthinking' this too much.  I'm overstating differences and over-emphasizing a focused program.

Is that what you're saying?  Am I missing anything?

[Darren Hill]

Oh, no, not too pendantic.  I'm not completely sure if I follow your argument, though.  If I am reading you correctly, it sounds like you are saying I'm 'overthinking' this too much.  I'm overstating differences and over-emphasizing a focused program.

Is that what you're saying?  Am I missing anything?

Or maybe even pedantic :) (What did Jake say about my spelling...)
Yes, that may well be what I'm saying. I think a setting book, by virtue of it being a setting book, pretty much ought to include the kind of things you want to include. Different games may have different styles, but that shouldn't make a whole lot of difference to something called a setting book. Essentially, what I take away from what you've been saying can be boiled down to:

"We want to write a setting book. We have two goals: giving the players more information with which to get their teeth into characters of a given nation, and staying true to that nation description (and the feel of the world) as described in the book."

That to me is pretty much what any setting book should do. Hopefully, I haven't misrepreresented your words too badly :)

Admittedly there are supplements that don't succeed in one or even both of those goals, so having a devotion to quality is a good thing.

[Mike Holmes]

I won't get too involved with this here. It's really a Theory issue, and doesn't affect TROS directly other than the proposed supplement.

But I will say this. What you're saying, Darren, that the materials in the book will not affect style, is problematic. Have you read the System Does Matter essay in the article section above? Because you sound like you really disagree with it. Is that the case (in which case we're going to have to disagree), or do I misread you? Setting presentation is systematic.

In any case, the question is really all moot. What we ought to do is to create supplements that do support the style of play that TROS demands. Nobody is against supplements. They are against supplements that are made that conflict with the original game's ideals. That's easy enough for us all to agree on, right?

So the question becomes not "are supplements a good idea?" but "how do we make a supplement a good idea?" That is, how do you make a supplement that helps out a game of TROS.

What I'd say is that it ought, like it's parent game, do some things that other systems do not. For example, I think it would be a mistake to simply do nothing but present dry facts. Nick has it right in that you need to look for the dramatic hooks that are available for characters. But not just in terms of characters that come from a place.

One of the difficulties of having characters who are traveling in a game such as TROS is that often their SAs are all about stationary things. Destiny: To Rule Braxonia means that the character in question will be difficult to remove from Braxonia. Or, rather, it's harder to come up with stuff that impacts this SA, the further from his home he gets. Passions for particular people nail characters to the spot as well, often. You get my point. There are ways around these problems, but for the purposes of the supplement it seems to me that there are ways to present the material in such a way as to provide the sort of hooks to which SAs can be latched.

This is why I presented all the characters in the one entry with PC Hooks. These were meant to be the sorts of things that would crash into your more common and generic SAs. I got a pretty girl in there for the "Drive: Find True Love" character, or the one with the Lech flaw. A little of something for everyone.

Anyhow, my point is not that I know best how to do this. I'm fishing right now as well for the mode of presentation that will best feed into the game. But as long as we're looking for it, I think we're on the right track. So, the real usefulness of this thread, if it's to have one, seems to me to be in discussing how to make the supplement "right". At least that's my opinion.

So, that all said, what innovations for presentation can people help us out with? What do you want to see from a TROS supplement, other than just flat setting info?

Mike

[Darren Hill]

But I will say this. What you're saying, Darren, that the materials in the book will not affect style, is problematic. Have you read the System Does Matter essay in the article section above? Because you sound like you really disagree with it.

I haven't read that article (I don't know where it is) but I am a firm believer that style Does matter. I think, for example, that people playing D&D have their game style influenced in a different way than people playing, say, Amber.

But I think supplements are far less influential, especially the specific example of a setting book for reasons already mentioned.

One of the difficulties of having characters who are traveling in a game such as TROS is that often their SAs are all about stationary things. Destiny: To Rule Braxonia means that the character in question will be difficult to remove from Braxonia.

Yes, this is a concern of mine too. But I think that while a typical TROS campaign has PCs with specific goals from the outset which may tie the players to a specific area, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've run a game of Chivalry & Sorcery for 6 years (off and on) centred on a single barony. You can get a lot of game depth that way, and I suspect many of the genre materials TROS draws from are localised.
The standard model of PCs being roving adventurers isn't going to work too well in TROS unless the PCs have SAs and story hooks that encourage it.

[Mike Holmes]

Check out the link at the top of this page that says "articles" (and the others too). Good stuff, IMO.

But I think supplements are far less influential, especially the specific example of a setting book for reasons already mentioned.

I can buy that. Especially as you point out, the "ignorability" of the material.

Yes, this is a concern of mine too. But I think that while a typical TROS campaign has PCs with specific goals from the outset which may tie the players to a specific area, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I've run a game of Chivalry & Sorcery for 6 years (off and on) centred on a single barony. You can get a lot of game depth that way, and I suspect many of the genre materials TROS draws from are localised.
The standard model of PCs being roving adventurers isn't going to work too well in TROS unless the PCs have SAs and story hooks that encourage it.

I quite agree. But that means that supplemental material is only useful as far as it hits a locality. That argues not for a "Taveruun" suppliment, but a "Longstone" supplement.

What I'm proposing is finding ways of making travel something that the GM can get away with on occasion. As an option. Allowing a little more "sweep" to the story, and making more of the material useful to each game. Make each area "grabby" in terms of needing the PCs, and you make it easier to rationalize going there.

Anyhow, I agree that the most effective way to have a game with travel is to have the players make characters with SA's like Drive: Wanderlust. :-)
Something to think about in chargen.

Mike

[Darren Hill]

Check out the link at the top of this page that says "articles"

What a strange place to put it. Oh yes, it's obvious now. ;)

I quite agree. But that means that supplemental material is only useful as far as it hits a locality. That argues not for a "Taveruun" suppliment, but a "Longstone" supplement.

It depends on the size of the locality. My example was a barony, but even for that to work, I need to know something about the country to which that barony belongs, and I also need to know a fair bit of detail on the neighbouring baronies and lands. I may need to know about neighbouring nations - for example, the island nation whose warriors frequently raid the coast, or other lands whose trade my local barony needs for survival.

What I'm proposing is finding ways of making travel something that the GM can get away with on occasion. As an option. Allowing a little more "sweep" to the story, and making more of the material useful to each game. Make each area "grabby" in terms of needing the PCs, and you make it easier to rationalize going there.

I think a good way is, not necessarily appealing to the pcs, but appealing to the world in which the players live. Then the Gm can make those links and you don't need to rely on good SA choices by the PCs.
For example, an area far from the pcs is known to have a famous shrine to the major religion.
One of the PCs has a paramour, and that paramour either decides or is forced to go on a pilgrimage to that place. If the pc had a faith, it would be easy to come up with a hook to get him to want to go himself. And so on.
Where the player's SA have objects that aren't completely controlled by the player, it's possible to encourage them to travel. Or for that matter, if the pcs are tightly integrated into the game setting, having rolls as knights, musketeers, merchants, or whatever, then they can be directed to travel - and SAs can be used as a guide to create a journey that is meaningful for the characters. I think it's best if doing so does still contribute to the ongoing story back at their baseline setting.

Coming up with good story hooks is definitely to be recommended, but I think travel should always be for a good reason, rather than just because the players are adventurers, and that country over there sounds interesting. So having some discussion about how to adapt SAs, character life situations, and especially campaign events to give them reason to want to travel to strange places, or to give their lieges, lovers, and other contacts, a reason to want to involve themselves in more distant places is also good.

[Mike Holmes]

Excellent thought. So it's not the PCs that are hooked by setting elements, but the story that moves with the world. Yes, that's great.

So, basically, what we should focus on hardest is the interactions of the polities and powers. Such that once hooked, the player's story will just get caught up in the stream of events, and the action will move from place to place.

This is really neat because it avoids the problems of Metaplot. That is, the PCs are not following the overall events themselves, they are following their story as it gets dragged from place to place.

That's...inspiring. Anyone else think so?

Mike

[Poenz]

First I want to make it clear that I think what you guys are doing, fleshing out these areas and "growing" the setting, is great.  But my response is the same as it always is when I see a good campaign setting: it's interesting, it's fascinating --and it's not for me.  So why am I in this thread?  I'm glad you asked...

When I first started researching TRoS, apart from being very intriqued by the system, I saw that the two or three supplements that were being were going to focus on more general resources: OBaM, TFoB, etc.  It played a part, albeit a small one, in my decision to buy the game.  The reasoning is that these are tools that will help facilitate creating and populating the GMs own setting.  This becomes important when you're trying to pitch a new rule set to an existing group like mine: of the six of us, four are potential GMs, and all of the GMs like to use their own settings.  So I can say to these guys, "Look, their focus is on resources to help you with your own setting," and I immediately get their attention.  

Which brings us to what some of us, and we may be WAY in the minority here, want from our supplements: general resources.  I'd love to have things like, say, a "Duchy" supplement that focuses on how to set up a dukedom and what sorts of internal and external problems could be expected in that environment, both from the perspective of being the duke, and being the duke's man, right down to being the runaway serf looking to make his way in the world.  And you could run that kind of resource down to "City" and up to "Kingdom" or "Empire." For individuals, I can see "Priest," "Knight," "Courtier," "Outlaw," "Sheriff," etc.  Not as anything like a "class" book, but just exploring the potential of those tropes and how they can be used in a setting.  This is where the Lure of Gold supplement seemed to be heading, and I was glad for it. It becomes more about "polities and powers" in general, and more about helping both your GM and your players to start thinking in those terms for their SAs and story hooks.  For what it's worth, I can also see supplements such as this being more attractive to folks browsing TRoS from other game systems.  

So what I guess I'm trying to get at is that for me, when it comes to supplements, it's color, character, mechanics, and situation-- rather than setting-- that matters.  I could see these as great resources for writers as well—which fits into the whole TRoS as Narrativist game idea as well.  I wholly applaud the direction in which this thread seems to be moving, and I'm hoping I haven't gone off on a tangent.  If I have, let me know and I'll pull this into a new thread.

~PO

[Nick the Nevermet]

This is really neat because it avoids the problems of Metaplot. That is, the PCs are not following the overall events themselves, they are following their story as it gets dragged from place to place.

That's...inspiring. Anyone else think so?

I do.
But then, that was probably assumed at this point :)

[Nick the Nevermet]

So what I guess I'm trying to get at is that for me, when it comes to supplements, it's color, character, mechanics, and situation-- rather than setting-- that matters.  I could see these as great resources for writers as well—which fits into the whole TRoS as Narrativist game idea as well.  I wholly applaud the direction in which this thread seems to be moving, and I'm hoping I haven't gone off on a tangent.  If I have, let me know and I'll pull this into a new thread.
~PO

No, you haven't gone off tangent.  I started this thread to talk about what kind of supplements would be good.  Your post certainly is all about that.

For me, a good supplement blends a lot of those areas of exploration together.  IMO, bad things happen when a supplement dryly focuses on one and only one thing.  Now, different kinds of blend can be good.  From my posts, I'm sure you can tell I like the idea of blending it all into setting, which then gives great launch-pads for character and story.

But other things would work too.  I would love to see a religion supplement, for example.  TROS is a world drenched in faith & belief.  A supplement, even if it only deals with the the Church, paganism, and Thayrism (i.e., 'what's found in Mainlund') would have great possibilities.  (I also have a deep seated interest in what you call the 'duchy' book, but I'm gonna be quiet because I can't write them)

[Lance D. Allen]

This is the second mention of the Lure of Gold in a rather short while. The first mention being my own.

I have to add my support to supplements like this. I've always loved books that contribute to character types. As much as I hate set-up character classes, character archetypes are different. They allow an easy way to get into the game by giving an initial (or ongoing) focus, but they don't restrict options. So the idea of "kitbooks" for lack of a better term, is one I like. I see TFoB, SatF and TLoG as kitbooks. They further explore specific areas of a game, and give new ideas and options for characters and character types, without restricting.

And as much as I love Weyrth, I also prefer supplements that are not setting dependent. Which is not to say that I am against the Taveruun supplement. I will probably get it, either way... I just don't think I'll get much use out of it, personally.