Play without owning rules books?

Don't think that there are any games I would fall into in this category. Many of the games I've played, I played because I owned them and was able to convince others that it was worth playing.

At one point, Hero was an exception because I was waiting for the BBB to come out in Hardcover as my own book was destroyed from use and poor binding but I had owned the book, just not as long as I would've enjoyed.

Ah, SLA Industries. I haven't owned that book because I was waiting on the 2nd edition to come out, wasn't DMing, and had a simple character. Good stuff being the drugged up dude with the chainsaw sword. Ah, "Mr. Jack"... where are you and your blade "Sweet Ivory" now?

For the most part, players should own or have access to the rules. The GM is there not to provide the rules but to use them to tell an entertaining story. Between coming up with NPCs, maps, puzzles, and a host of other responsibilities, I think it would be unfair to add "teacher" to the list.

For those with the time, bless you. I just don't consider it part of my responsibility unless I'm teaching a fresh new crop of gamers how to play.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

A few, if you count convention one-shots, but none that I played in an ongoing game.

I'm definitely the type of person who MUST have the manual, whether it's an rpg, a computer game, or even just the owner's manual for a toaster. (I have a file folder of the manuals for EVERY piece of electronics, appliance, etc. in our house. How's that for geeky?)

The more damning question, of course, is how many corebooks I own for games I've never played. :heh:

Carl
 

OD&D - way been when I was first introduced. It took me about a year to get my own.
Vampire - 3 sessions and decided I didn't like it.
Exalted - last night was my first time and had a blast. I'll be getting the core book in time.
Traveller - I think we got one session in when the GM decided to move to Chicago.
Tales of the Floating Vagabond - don't ask......
D&D 3.5 - I recently received the PH & DMG as gifts after using the SRD for 9 months, but I still don't have the MM
Millenium's End - It was fun, but as with Traveller, the GM moved - this one to DC.
Cyberpunk - the books belonged to my g/f, so I had unlimited access if that counts


I think that's it.
 

OD&D
CoC
D&D 3.0 - I started playing a couple of months before 3.5 was due to be released so held off on buying for that reason.

With Paranoia as a GM I tend to prefer that players don't have the rules, but with D&D I prefer it due to the complexity and number with 3e.
 

Oh, I'm not sure if I should include 3.5 D&D. I don't own any of the core books but I use the srd and even bought the CMG one for the monster stat blocks.
 

I think the only ones I have played this way were MERPS (UGH!) which I had photocopies of the required pages for my PC and Space:1889. Both games only lasted a few sessions.
 

Most of them. In fact today I started a Castle & Crusades game and I don't own its books; also I'm playing Call of Cthulu, so that makes it two games I don't have them.
And my friends and I sometimes play OD&D, I being the only one to have the rules.
 

GURPs - man I hate that system, anyone good at math can break the hell out of it!
Cyberpunk - that was fun.
Shadowrun - now I own it, but then I didn't.
Aberrant - eh
...that's about it.
 

3E D&D. I played for most of that first campaign leeching off of the PHBs of others.
3.5 D&D. I only have the SRD and that will never change, because 3.5 is (IMO) 3E with all the patches repairerd but by breaking everything that wasn't broken to begin with. Note that this is only my opinion based on my own gaming preferences, not an attack on the quality of the revision. That's for rant threads. :)
 

I'm a lightweight; I've only played D&D 3.5 without the books. Though, I'm a bit of a cheat 'cause I had the 3.0 books and I printed off some relavent areas of the SRD. But, I did not own a D&D 3.5 book until long after I had played in games that used that ruleset.

JediSoth
 

Remove ads

Top