Do you read RPG books all the way through?

[avin]

GURPS, Vampire, Mage and Deadlands, yes.

From D&D: any Monster book I've found, even the crappie MM4E...

 

[Jhaelen]

Always.

I find it very important to have read everything at least once. But maybe it's just because of the way my memory works:
I always remember the fact that I've read something. I may not recall exactly where I read it or remember any further details but that's not really necessary. Knowing that something is spelled out somewhere usually suffices to find it and look it up again.

Having said that I find the 4E books make for a very tedious read. I've read laundry lists that were more exciting.

 

[Tetsubo]

It depends on the book. Some I do read cover-to-cover, others I just skim through looking for the crunch. The more original the work, the more likely I am to really dig in and read everything.

 

[hornedturtle]

Freshman year in college I got my first D&D books, the 3.5 core rule books. I sat down and over a few days had read the players hand book and dmg cover to cover, the monster manual I skimmed but I got a good idea what was in there. Pretty much every book I've gotten I have read cover to cover and sometimes more than once. The only stuff I've skipped was the setting information in the Eberron campaign setting, and that was just because I don't plan on on running anything in that world (that may change over in LEB).

Also I was expecting more of a spectrum in the poll.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

Very rarely. I've read some gaming books cover to cover that were so poorly written that I thought I wouldn't be able to play if I didn't.

I've read a couple of gaming books cover to cover that were just plain...evocative.

None of the core D&D books though.

 

[Voadam]

Also I was expecting more of a spectrum in the poll.

I thought about doing the poll by type of book but the categories would be a bit iffy on boundaries.

I was thinking of something like corebooks, monster books, modules, campaign setting, regional sourcebooks, splat books, topic sourcebooks, other. Of course you'd have questions like is the MM a core book and a monster book, are Arcana Evolved and Exalted both core books and setting books, is Slayer's guide to Trolls a monster book or a splat or a topic sourcebook, etc.

It also would not have drawn out distinctions I was not thinking of such as "White Wolf books yes but no D&D ones"

Keeping it a yes no with clear distinctions means most everybody is on the same page without debating category definitions.

The 50/50 split so far is an interesting result. I had no idea where people would come out.

 

[megamania]

1) Yes- read all the way through

2) use multiple colored high lighters. Colors represent ideas, facts, story hooks and make the book more colorful

3) often reread sections to better understand if I am using a chapter heavily.

4) on the side in pen write reference notes to PCs/NPCs and possible characters I want to create



yeah. I need a life.

 

[TerraDave]

Ever: yes
Often: not so much

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Maybe not the first time through, but before I play with info from a book, I will have read it cover to cover straight through. I like reading rules and crunch (I actually found the Hero 5th ed rulebook a fun read), so I enjoy that. If I tend to skim it is fluff (like all the 2 page region things in the RG Player's guide).

But yeah, if I use the book, it will be read. And probably had been skimmed, and hopped around in before that point.

 

[scourger]

1) Yes- read all the way through

2) use multiple colored high lighters. Colors represent ideas, facts, story hooks and make the book more colorful

3) often reread sections to better understand if I am using a chapter heavily.

4) on the side in pen write reference notes to PCs/NPCs and possible characters I want to create...

That's awesome. Reading, differentiated highlighting and margin notes. You love your hobby.