How often do you read a rulebook through?

[delericho]

Once when I get the book. It hasn't happened yet, but if I found that I didn't get a good handle on the game from that single read-through, then I wouldn't be interested in bothering to learn the game.

Actually, I read all of my RPG books through once when I first get them, with the sole exceptions of spellbooks, magic item books, and other books of "bits".

If a long time has passed between my first getting a book and me later running the game, I'll read through the rules again before that first session. This tends not to apply to D&D, but I have read the rules for Serenity, Mutants & Masterminds, and Shadowrun 4th Ed twice each.

 

[Mercutio01]

Cover-to-cover usually twice, and then use indexes/TOC/page number references after that. The first time I'm reading to understand the game. The second time I'm reading to figure out how it all works and to begin brainstorming how I'd like to use it. After that it's normally a reference book where I look up key information that I need. And that's generally true of big name and indie games alike.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

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.

You can't blame the rules layout because it's still your fault you didn't read it. Even if the book isn't setup the way you want it, it is still your responsibility to read the rules.

If you run into the back of someone while you were texting on the phone, you can't blame the person in front of you because they stopped.

 

[fjw70]

I have never read a Rulebook cover to cover. I just skim and read a section here or there.

I don't find rulebooks all that interesting. The rules can be interesting, but not the books.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Quite the opposite. The more closely you study a system, the more of its holes you'll find.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Although I have read most of my 4e books most of the way through, I agree with the general thrust of this. Even with the non-database aspects of 4e, like the finer points of conditions or Athletics checks or whatever, can just be consulted when needed.

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.

Makes sense, although hopefully not too purple.

if we are to be treated to database output, I would prefer it to be more flavorful and tasty to read.

Whereas I'm happy for database output to be presented compactly and well-formatted. What I like about the 4e power, monster, trap etc writeups is that, most if not all of the time, they give me a good feel of how the thing will actually work in play - because they make the mechanics (and especially the mechanics that really affect the ficiton, like forced movement, keywords etc) clear.

I'd like it if D&Dnext could emulate that. Not every edition has.

And on the flipside of that, I don't want flavour that is misleading in light of the mechanics. To pick some particular easy examples: Moldvay Basic D&D gives me Hercules and Merlin as examples of a famous fighter and magic-user respectively, but there is no way in the play of Basic that I will get adventures remotely approximating Greek or Athurian Myth. The magic-user level title are also misleading - a first level MU is not a medium (s/he cannot speak with or conjure up the dead), and a second level MU is not a seer (the only divination s/he has available is Detect Magic, Read Magic and Read Languages).

 

[Balesir]

You can't blame the rules layout because it's still your fault you didn't read it. Even if the book isn't setup the way you want it, it is still your responsibility to read the rules.

If you run into the back of someone while you were texting on the phone, you can't blame the person in front of you because they stopped.

And those two examples are very alike, in that I have a simple choice available should I not want to dedicate the required attention to the task:

- if I don't want to concentrate on driving while driving, I can simply choose not to drive

- if I don't want to study obfuscatory roleplaying rules as if they were a mystic text in order to play the game they descibe, I can simply choose not to play that game.

One of these two choices I am perfectly relaxed about making.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Depends on the book. AD&D, Paranoia (original), Blue Planet, and Shadowrun I'm happy to read multiple times. Other books I'll read once then use them as a reference.