First published 5/2/2002; last edited 1/5/2005; published to the reviews blog 2/13/2007

Pros: Great use of the small supplement form; good production quality; fun material
Cons: Could use better editing; some slow history
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
(more…)

First published 9/19/2002; last edited 1/5/2005; published to the reviews blog 2/13/2007

Pros: Detailed descriptions; useful items; inexpensive
Cons: Lack of variety; lack of NPC and story material
Rating: 2.5 out of 5
(more…)

First published 5/21/2002; last edited 1/5/2005; published to the reviews blog 2/13/2007

Pros: Interesting characters
Cons: Lack of plot hooks and information; focus on the wrong things; filler
Rating: 2 out of 5
(more…)

First published 10/6/2001; last edited 1/5/2005; published to the reviews blog 2/13/2007

Pros: Interesting background and characters
Cons: Wasted space; inconsistency; plot holes; focus placed on the wrong things; designer bias; binary outcomes
Rating: 2 out of 5
(more…)

First published 10/6/2001; last edited 1/5/2005; published to the reviews blog 2/13/2007

Pros: Sensible, consistent, fun, well-considered
Cons: Some designer bias in places; use of in-voice prose to describe factual information
Rating: 3.5 out of 5
(more…)