Do you Read all the books?

[Glyfair]

I'm not sure if I've read the 3.5 books from end-to-end. I haven't read the Monster Manual from cover-to-cover (although I've read the non-monster descriptions). I also haven't read the spell desciptions in the Player's Handbook unless I needed it.

However, I perioically pick a book up and reread a section or two.

 

[tek2way]

I read the 3.0 PHB and DMG. They were okay. I haven't been able to sit down and read the 3.5 books cover-to-cover. This stems from the fact that they're revisions, and also because the 3.x books are really dry reads. I would like to finish reading them, though, if only to say I have. Back in the day, I had no problem reading the 2nd edition PHB and DMG. Those were well-written, even if the rules weren't 100% clear. (I never quite got a grip on how Non-weapon Proficiencies worked, until around 2002, when I went back and read it, just for kicks. Sadly, I 've not yet convinced anyone to play 2nd again yet.)

I *am* reading the DMG2 cover-to-cover, though. What I've read of Chapter One (Running a Game) is already going to affect my game, beginning with the next session.

As for the question of needing to have them memorized to be a good DM, I say no. Knowing them front to back can't HURT, but I personally tend to just use little post-it note tabs to mark the sections I'm going to (or likely to) need in the next session. Some things, such as the XP chart, character wealth by level, and traps, I find useful all the time.

Hmm... now that I think about it, I *do* know just about all of the Player's Handbook, cover to cover, though. (I've basically memorized the chapter listing, so I know WHERE to look, even if I can't quote it verbatim.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

I have a game designers' kind of mindset, at least, in that I *adore* reading these rules, and noting the subtle and overt ways that they shape how I play the game, and analyzing how I can tinker with them to get subtlely and overtly different kinds of game experiences.

Yes, I like to, say, know how to stat out an entire town, and will read and try to understand the implications of pretty much every table. And how that plays into the world the PC's are supposed to be part of, and how I can change that to make a different kind of world, simply by changing some percentages or one die roll...

 

[palleomortis]

I never was the kind to stick completely to the rules. I HAVE to change somting, otherwise I am doing the exact thing 50 bazillion other people are.

 

[dren]

Yes, the PHB more than once.

The DMG section on combat rules on a continual basis, as my intrepretation always seem to be off from the players, so I want to refamiliarize myself with the rules every 3-4 weeks, especially if I have an NPC or monster that will use a particular feat or combat maneuvre. If it avoids in-game problems, believe me, it's worth my time.

 

[Darkness]

Core rulebooks - kind of, yeah. Apart from large parts of catalogues of all kinds (monsters, spells, magic items, equipment), which I don't read all at once.

Everything else - depends on my needs and also how much time I can spare to read stuff beyond my needs.

 

[Elephant]

I've read through most of the important sections of the PHB - especially things like the combat chapter, XP rules, etc. Stuff like all the classes, all the equipment, all the spells...those are more like reference sections. I've glanced over all the classes and done a lot of reading IN the equipment section, but it's usually in the context of looking something up.

The DMG is primarily a reference. I've read through some of the sections, and I have a vague goal of reading through some of the sections more closely (like the miscellaneous stuff after the magic item creation rules), but mostly I look specific stuff up as needed.

Monster Manual...that's purely a reference!

 

[jsewell]

Just "Textbook". Also "admirer" and "otherS"

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Yeah, I've read both all the way through.

 

[demiurge1138]

I read all of my D&D books cover to cover. It's fun!

No, really, it is.

Demiurge out.