When you first read up on a race...

[StreamOfTheSky]

I skip straight to the stats, then look at the flavor. Flavor is great and all, and I have read entire chapters start to finish in the Races of books, but you gotta know what you're working with. Cause too often, the fluff doesn't even match the crunch, which makes the fluff quite pointless. Like 3E saying elves make good wizards, when in fact mechanically they suck at being wizards worse than every other core race except half-orcs.

 

[Li Shenron]

If I pick up the corebook of an edition of D&D I am not familiar with, or another RPG, at the races section I go straight to the crunch to see how they've done the human, elf, dwarf and halfling mechanically, because I assume that more-or-less the fluff will be the usual.

But if I'm checking out new races from a splatbook, I care almost nothing for the crunch. For me a new race is useful as an addition to the whole setting, so fluff is all that matters. I hate the idea of browsing splatbooks for odd races just to get a miserable min-maxing bonus.... if I see that some of my player is doing that in one of my games, I'd rather just let him splat the bonus he wants over one of the core races rather than making room for a race that doesn't fit well in the setting.

 

[pauljathome]

Like 3E saying elves make good wizards, when in fact mechanically they suck at being wizards worse than every other core race except half-orcs.

Having a bonus in IQ and having wizard as a favoured class = suck?

Having proficiency in some useful weapons = suck?

While one could make an argument that humans are better wizards I really don't see how you can argue that dwarves or 1/2 elves are better.

Unless you really, really, really, really hate that con minus I guess. But that would just be silly

 

[El Mahdi]

When I first read up on a race...

I read the descriptions, culture, and flavor texts first. If it sounds interesting, then I'll look at the stats. When I look at the stats I look to see if they make sense with the description...in other words, if the mechanics match the fluff. If they don't, and I'm a little meh on the fluff, I'll give the whole thing a pass. If the description is something that really grabbed me, I'll definitely keep it around if the mechanics are also well supporting. If I like the fluff but the mechanics are bad, I might try to fix them for my own use.

 

[tuxgeo]

When I first read the description of the Shardmind race, I decided "that's not for me" solely on the basis of the fluff.

I'm not sure that I have even read the crunch for that race, even though I still have my copy of the book. I may have written down the racial attribute bonuses of Shardminds in a text file somewhere, but I couldn't quote even the constant attribute bonus (if it has one) from memory: with racial fluff like that, I don't even care what the crunch is because I won't be employing that race for any PCs I ever create.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Crunch first, fluff second. And I don't often go in for nuanced cultural descriptions and mating habits; because I can change the fluff how I want, and when it comes to pleasure reading I'd rather curl up with a good novel.

.... if I see that some of my player is doing that in one of my games, I'd rather just let him splat the bonus he wants over one of the core races rather than making room for a race that doesn't fit well in the setting.

Floating bonuses are win!

Unless you really, really, really, really hate that con minus I guess. But that would just be silly

Well Con is everyone's second-best friend in 3.x.

 

[Drowbane]

I skip straight to the stats, then look at the flavor. Flavor is great and all, and I have read entire chapters start to finish in the Races of books, but you gotta know what you're working with. Cause too often, the fluff doesn't even match the crunch, which makes the fluff quite pointless. Like 3E saying elves make good wizards, when in fact mechanically they suck at being wizards worse than every other core race except half-orcs.

This. First I see if the crunch is compatible with what I want to make, then see if the fluff is relevant. If not, I talk to the DM about how I am changing the Fluff (for obscure races, its rarely an issue).

Fluff is mutable. Then again, so is crunch

Having a bonus in IQ and having wizard as a favoured class = suck?

Having proficiency in some useful weapons = suck?

While one could make an argument that humans are better wizards I really don't see how you can argue that dwarves or 1/2 elves are better.

Unless you really, really, really, really hate that con minus I guess. But that would just be silly

Well...
1) Default elf gets +2 Dex, -2 Con
2) Variant Elf (sun, fire, and... one more) gets +2 Int, -2 Con, but that penalty to Con is more relevant than the +2 Int when you are dealing with a d4 HD. If one of those variants gives +2 Int without penalizing Con... that would be worth taking.
3) Prof. in weapons is worse than useless (for a Mage) as it encourages suicidal behavior in "noobs".

Humans: +1 feat (better than anything Elf gets), +1 skill.
Dwarf: Darkvision (better than anything Elf gets), +2 Con (can't overstate how awesome this is), -2 Cha (hey, don't make a Sorc!), other random stuffs
Halfling: +2 Dex, -2 Str (bonus on Ray type spells, penalty in irrelevant stat), size Small = +1 to hit, +1 AC (better than anything Elf gets).
Half Elf: sux
Half Orc: sux more
Gnome: Small like halflings, tough like dwarves, irritating as Kender (personal opinion ).

The more splat books you allow, the better Mage options you find... and I don't think any of the "winners" are Elven. Unless you don't mind the crippling -2 Con, which would be silly.

 

[Drowbane]

oops

 

[Argyle King]

If I'm not rushed for time, I prefer to read the entire entry. Then again, I'm also the type of person who will on occasion pull an rpg book from my shelf and read it for enjoyment. I've never even played 2nd Edition D&D, but I enjoy reading the Monster Manual for it.

 

[jbear]

I pretty much only play humans. But yes, my eyes tend to glaze through race descriptions until they get to the crunch. If the crunch is interesting enough to play an unfamiliar race I'd go back to the crunch and re-read to help give me ideas how to play the character.

As DM I prefer to read the monster descriptions in more detail as that helps me play the monsters in more interesting ways.