Books: Front-to-Back or Reference Material

[Eye Tyrant]

I'm curious, do the majority of ENworlders read their RPG books straight through like a typical novel, soaking in every minute detail, do they just flip through picking up the important bits and that which interests them, something in between, or something altogether "Other"?

I ask for two reasons. The first is that I am a flipper, or reference type and have a hard time remembering all the freakin' meticulous details sometimes. I am attempting to get better at this and figured that if I read all the books front to back I meant glean a little more from them (but this is daunting as my collection is pretty big). Also, it seems that the folks I know that know the rules "inside out" would probably fall into the category of reading through an entire book before using it, and I just want to see if my assumption is correct... Or something like that

 

[diaglo]

i use most of my d02 books as dust collectors.

my OD&D booklets i use for ideas. front to back, upside down, left to right, and diagonal.

 

[scourger]

I read the core books (PH, DMG & MM) cover to cover. I've never understood how someone can run (DM) a game without reading the core rules.

I've given up reading supplements cover to cover since I do not want a bunch of new rules (crunch). I now mainly read a supplement just for the setting information (fluff).

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

What I did when I first got the 3.0 books was start making characters. I made characters of all races, classes, levels, dual class, triple class, monster characters- everything. You get a pretty good feel for the rules when dealing with all different types of characters, as the rules for D&D generally apply to- well- characters. The major portions of the books, I read in a totally nonlinear fashion. I read through the combat section, the XP section, the spells, and the Magic Items. After a few sessions, I was a bona fide attourney-at-rules... Semi-nonfiction and "cover to cover" just don't fit together for me. I took what I needed, and left the rest for the newbies.

 

[EricNoah]

It would have to be a pretty special RPG book for me to be able to choke it down cover-to-cover. Some of them read like stereo instruction manuals. When you need clear concise rules, that's great.

 

[Voadam]

I read the 3.0 PH cover to cover. It's a good thing too since the first copy I got was missing 32 pages in the combat section and I was able to exchange it quickly. I've read portions of the 3.0 DMG and 3.0 MM as needed (and lots of references to the 3.5 srd) but neither all the way through.

I do read a lot of my rpg books cover to cover. I always do when I do a review but also I rotate others into my normal reading. I have a ton however and some I just flip through to the parts of particular interest (feats, monsters, spells, classes) when I first get them and plan on reading in depth later at my leisure or when I have need for it in a particular game or project.

I just finished reading the last of Book of Fiends last night. If I hadn't read it through wholly I probably would not have caught the smith type devils I'm now planning on using in an upcoming game.

 

[francisca]

i use most of my d02 books as dust collectors.
.

You should find a good home for them, like my place!

 

[Crothian]

I do both, I read them cover to cover and reference them bit by bit

 

[DaveMage]

I read adventures cover to cover.

The only non-WotC non-adventure I have read cover to cover was Oathbound: Domains of the Forge.

The rest I just take bits and pieces.

 

[Wombat]

I rarely read rulebooks straight through, though I usually get around to reading the whole of those that I am planning to use. I started to read the PHB beginning to end, but found myself almost immediately cross-referencing through various sections of the book.

Might also explain why I like The Dictionary of the Khazars