How often do you read a rulebook through?

[Crazy Jerome]

QFT. I find the survey odd. I'm sure I have read most paragraphs in my AD&D DMG and my 3.5 PH at least a half-dozen times, but I can't say that I've ever read them from cover-to-cover.

I suppose I should not have used the word "through", as it strongly implies "straight through". If you buy a new book, jump all over the place, but read pretty much all of it in a short period of time, I'd count that as reading the whole thing through. Sorry for the confusion.

Also, I'm trying to be fair in my groupings in order to see how to better word them. I'm pretty extreme on this question. Since January, I've read Burning Wheel Gold about 1.5 times, Dragon Quest at least twice, and the Rules Cyclopedia a full time, with some partial rereadings. That's nowhere near the first time for any of those systems, and I'm not playing any of them at the moment.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Depends entirely on the nature of the game and the way the book is written.

An old World of Darkness book, for instance, is a cover-to-cover read. It's written to be read that way. While not on the level of enjoyability of a good novel, it sets scene, establishes mood, evokes images, and doles out information a little at a time so it can be absorbed and apreciated. On the other hand, trying to look up a specific bit of information in those books was a nightmare.

A D&D book, OTOH, I will never read cover-to-cover. I'll read complete sections of it, like a combat system, or the spells my character can cast at his current level, but I won't read it cover-to-cover. In fact, as a player, I'll intentionally avoid sections that I don't need to know. Why, if I'm playing a Cleric, should I read wizard spells? It's wasted effort, and the game will be more interesting if the wizard's stuff is a surprise to me. As a DM, of course, you familiarize yourself with everything to some extend. But even that's not necessarily cover-to-cover. In 3e, I don't need to know every spell, just the ones of the PCs know, and those of a level and type the opposition might have access to. In 4e, I don't need to worry about a specific power at all until it comes up, I just need to know how to handle conditions, durrations and so forth, and how to read a power.

 

[Tallifer]

I read only the portions of the rules which address my question at any particular time.

I would much rather spend my actual reading time with a Doctor Who novel. And my D&D time playing, not reading.

 

[pemerton]

Generally when I buy a new rulebook I will read most if not all of it, although typically not cover to cover.

Some books I return to and read or re-read many times (parts at least, if not all): AD&D books, B/X, the Rules Cyclopedia, Tunnels & Trolls, Runequest, Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling have been the main culprits here over the years.

My partner likes to draw, and she often spends time watching youtube videos and the like where drawing instructors talk through tips and techniques. And it's not just to improve her own drawing (although that is part of it) - she takes pleasure in reflecting on and understanding the activity. My approach to RPG books is much the same. I don't read them for the evocative prose (although some have it). I read them to try to better understand their mechanics and approach. Sometimes I will come across an idea or a technique I can apply to my own game. But often it's just out of an interest in RPGing as an activity.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I have read a few RPG books cover to cover, especially the first PHB of a new edition to get the whole picture. I then reread parts to put hit together in my head.

But after that, I usually skim the new books I get and do nto read any of them cover to cover, though I read it all eventually.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I highly recommend that people read their books all the way through because it would actually help to eliminate a good bit of the "this game is broken" speech.

 

[Balesir]

I highly recommend that people read their books all the way through because it would actually help to eliminate a good bit of the "this game is broken" speech.

I'm afraid if something has a rule pertinent to it hidden away somewhere other than where it's described (except general rules that cover all spells, say) I regard that as an issue with the rules layout, not with my reading of the rules.

It's a matter of organisation and clarity. 4e I find excellent for this; there are some sections you must read - they describe how all the other parts should be read and how they fit together. The rest, however - especially things like power descriptions, magic items and feats - you need study only as and when they become relevant.

 

[erleni]

Cover to cover once. Then I just look at them when I need.

4e books are the ones I read less after the first time, as the structure is clearer and the rules more consistent and easy to remember. Previous editions were a collection of many different mechanics so it took more time to memorize them.

 

[steeldragons]

Does looking at all of the pictures count?

I kid. I kid.

Well, partially. The artist in me does like to take in the visual elements first and oo and ahh at them (hopefully) getting my imagination all sparked up for a good fun experience. Then, back to page 1.

At least one good read through from cover to cover. After that, it's re-read this section and that, jumping all over for the sections, classes, races, what have you that interest me and/or then, again, as needed. After all of that is said and done, he book is "reference" material to look things up as necessary/that apply in play as the game is going on...which I always hope is not very often.

Once I've done a read through or three, once character creation is complete, I much prefer NOT to "have to" look anything up so as not to disrupt play/immersion.

So I am hoping that, while not written "down" for a 10 year old, the material in the PHB is simple enough to grasp with only one read through, and I can know what my (the player's) side of the game will entail without having to go back to the PHB over and over...unless its character creation time.

In short, it should be fun to read and/or peruse out of game. I should not think "ugh! I have to go check that again? I hate looking in that book. What was that little fiddly side rule for X?" With "modularity" being the buzzword for 5e, I am confident (or at least hopefully optimistic) that once a group decides, "These are the modules/options we're going to incorporate", that will not be the case.

--SD

 

[Ratskinner]

For me, it depends greatly on the rulebook in question. However, the sterility of the rules will help to reduce it a lot.

For instance, there are some indie games I have that I must have read 20x by now, and rarely play. I reread them because amongst the interesting illustrations of their rules, they contain insight into game design and sometimes the genres they are emulating. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever read my 4e books all the way through (maybe the MM), in spite of having run it for almost two years. There is just no need or reward to doing so. The 4e rules are a very compact structure, and the rest of the book tends to be a database output of powers or magic items or whatever.

That being said. I'm not sure how much I'd want 5e books to be written for the purpose of reading them through. I suppose if its because they are so amazingly well-written with insight on every page and few mechanical bits. That'd be awesome for re-reading, but maybe not so much for new players, or for use in play. However, if we are to be treated to database output, I would prefer it to be more flavorful and tasty to read.

EDIT/PS - Check that, the DMG and any similar books/chapters should be written with really good advice and insight and be something that young DMs would want to read repeatedly. That's were to put the flavor, because the DM has to evoke it at the table. Give them plenty of examples and warnings, even let the prose wax purple, if need be.