Do you read books?

[shadow_archmagi]

That is, do you USE your game books, or read them? When you buy Sandstorm, do you think "Okay, going to read through this tonight" and then go through it from start to finish, or "This will be a good source of environmental rules for our current quest through the desert. Maybe next time my character levels, I'll take a look at the desert themed feats" and then flip to the part you need and skim?

[supermonkeyjoe]

Wow you know i've never really thought about that, I remember I used to read new game books cover to cover when I first got them, now I tend to skim them and only read the more interesting or relevant parts in depth.

In fact tonight I'm going to start actually reading my game books properly.

[Ravens_cry]

Before I actually got into D&D properly, as in actually play, I used to take source-books out from the local public library and read all the cool fluff descriptions and art, occasionally trying to understand the cryptic statistics.

[Shadowknight12]

I don't read books. I dissect them for the things I can use and then off they go, locked away in oblivion until I need their neglected corpses again.

I got so much flak in the WW forums for saying I didn't read the fiction of the nWoD books. It was mob mentality, full on. Apparently the short fictions there are one of the greatest works of literature known to mankind and not reading them makes you a heretic worthy of death. Painful, hideous death.

I may be exaggerating a little.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I tend to read them cover to cover. There's two exceptions: D&D 3.5's Tome of Magic, because I couldn't stand the Shadowcaster or Truenamer, and Exalted 2e, because I just haven't got around to finishing it, for some reason.

[Lord Loss]

I usually read them from cover to cover. I've read all my D&D books from cover to cover, although I'm not done Tome of Magic, which I got recently-ish. I haven't got around to reading the Truenamer stuff.

[GeekGirl]

When i get a new book, I read it cover to cover usually twice. I can generally retain the information after that, at least the basics. So after that I just skim.

[Ravens_cry]

I don't read books. I dissect them for the things I can use and then off they go, locked away in oblivion until I need their neglected corpses again.

I got so much flak in the WW forums for saying I didn't read the fiction of the nWoD books. It was mob mentality, full on. Apparently the short fictions there are one of the greatest works of literature known to mankind and not reading them makes you a heretic worthy of death. Painful, hideous death.

I may be exaggerating a little.

I agree with that. I like the basic mechanics of the Storyteller system, but the World of Darkness as written has fairly little interest to me. Too oppressively "We're So Dark, We Puke Shadows" for my tastes.

[NikitaDarkstar]

I admit that I honestly only read what I need/am interested in at the time. I love to read, but I don't have a head for numbers and crunch so I skim through whatever book catches my fancy, go "that looks neat, maybe I should try it sometime." and then usually end up forgetting about it until I want/need it again and go "I know I've seen it somewhere... some city/magic/melee/whatever book!".

I'm horrible I know.

[Luzahn]

I don't read books. I dissect them for the things I can use and then off they go, locked away in oblivion until I need their neglected corpses again.

I got so much flak in the WW forums for saying I didn't read the fiction of the nWoD books. It was mob mentality, full on. Apparently the short fictions there are one of the greatest works of literature known to mankind and not reading them makes you a heretic worthy of death. Painful, hideous death.

I may be exaggerating a little.

This attitude is only acceptable when 40k is concerned.

[Shadowknight12]

I agree with that. I like the basic mechanics of the Storyteller system, but the World of Darkness as written has fairly little interest to me. Too oppressively "We're So Dark, We Puke Shadows" for my tastes.

Agreed. It didn't help that the one piece of fiction I did read completely (because it was recommended to me) was the one from Legacies: The Ancient (Mage splatbook), and it left me feeling all the wrong kinds of disgusted and horrified. It wasn't the Silent Hill kind of disgust and horror, it was the "there is a person defecating in my front yard!" kind of disgust and horror.

This attitude is only acceptable when 40k is concerned.

Har har hardy har har.

[Scarlet-Devil]

All of the (many) D&D books I own were promptly read cover to cover, with few exceptions.

[Sdonourg]

I read books, some books I read partially, some from cover to cover. Tome of Magic and Frostburn were very entertaining.

[Sipex]

I tend not to read them from cover to cover initially, just going over and reading parts in depth which catch my interest.

Later I'll read through it again but this time each section in detail.

[dsmiles]

Depends.

I've read every 1e/2e AD&D book (that I could get my grubby little mitts on) cover-to-cover. I was never really interested enough in 3.0/3.5/4e to do that with those books.

My TTWG books, I read frequently. My Warmachine/Hordes books and Malifaux books all have creases in the spines, and the one I've had the longest is only about 8 months old. As soon as the new IK RPG comes out, I'll definitely read that one cover-to-cover, and if there's ever a Malifaux RPG, that'll get read, too.

[shadow_archmagi]

I noticed (when searching for Dedicated Wright) That the Eberron Campaign Setting includes the word Dedicated a lot. I was thinking what lousy writing it was to use Dedicated on every page, and that that was one of the reasons I don't read books all the way through.

I copied the whole thing (I have a legit PDF) in Word so I could ask Word to find every instance of Dedicated (there's 65, if you're curious) .

This inspired me to copy-paste the entire thing into Wordle

Kinda neat to look at.

[Tyndmyr]

That is, do you USE your game books, or read them? When you buy Sandstorm, do you think "Okay, going to read through this tonight" and then go through it from start to finish, or "This will be a good source of environmental rules for our current quest through the desert. Maybe next time my character levels, I'll take a look at the desert themed feats" and then flip to the part you need and skim?

...Yes?

I love curling up in bed with a good sourcebook. I read through everything and trawl for things I can use. I skim if I have more books than I can read reasonably...until I can come back and read them. This is, however, quite rare. I read ridiculously fast.

[Knaight]

I read books cover to cover. That said, I don't buy supplement books that just add stuff as a rule, and not reading books cover to cover tends to leave you not knowing the rules of the game. The only exception is in D&D, where I usually skip large parts of feat lists, spell lists, whatever. That said, my D&D collection is pretty near nonexistent.

[Eldan]

I honestly find most 3.5 books supremely boring, really. Skimming, mostly, therefore. There are some I have read , usually the more fluff heavy ones, and I've also read a few books from other publishers cover to cover.

[Mordar]

I have, on occassion, bought books for games I full-well knew I would never play because I wanted to read them (Some of the In Nomine books, for instance) - either because I knew the author(s), style or fluff/content would be very engaging.

Most rule-books for games I do play, or expect to play, I read like primary research articles - look at the abstracts (chapter lead-ins) and pictures (art, tables, figures) to see what catches my eye, then review the sections that do grab hold of me...or those that actual game play leads me to need to know better.

Pretty pictures are always a plus, too!

- M

[Urpriest]

When I first get a book, I'll skim it for goodies, or if it's a new system for chargen. After that though, I generally curl up and read it. Or used to, don't get the chance to curl up with a new rulebook much these days. Sigh.

[Diarmuid]

I pretty much dissect them for useful bits, and disregard the rest. If I need a specific piece of fluff when building a character, or want to better understand someone else's character based on something I havent deemed "important" before then I'll read that section, but I certainly dont read them cover to cover.

[Dimers]

I don't just read cover-to-cover: I also re-read. Like, frequently. I do, however, skip a lot of fluff on the re-read if I disagreed with its direction the first time through. (As in, "Really? That's all you have to say about the motivations of a druid in this gameworld? Pfft. My Bible-thumping fundie grandma could come up with a better druid PC.")

Interestingly, I picked up the 4e DMG today (Borders' pain is my gain) and was reading it on the ride home. It's got much better advice for running games than any other gamebook I've ever read. That's definitely one to go back over a couple dozen times.

[KineticDiplomat]

I read the fluff first and foremost. Usually he char gen section as well, provided it is sufficiently fluffy. This is what typically peaks my interest in a game to begin with.

Then I look at the basics of the rules...not nessecarily memorize, but get a hang on the core concepts.

Then I refer to advanced bits as needed or aniticipated (If building a SR4 hacker, for instance, the matrix sections are going to get a heavy rules relook)

Honestly, I tend to think of the rules as a system to support the fluff, or a theme of fluffiness, rather than the fluff as a convenient housing for a bunch of probability management.

[Zarin]

When I pick up a new system I will at least read the core rulebook cover to cover, after that I usually skim all the supplements for anything relevant to the characters I'm playing or the campaign I'm designing. Of course there are some supplement books that are the exception in being either way too useful to simply skim, or way too interesting.

[Jude_H]

Typically, the enjoyment I get from reading a book is inversely proportional to the crunch:fluff ratio.

(Crunch in this case refers strictly to rules elements of the game. Fluff in this case refers to both fictional elements of a game, and discussion of why the rules were selected.)

So I enjoy reading books like Fear Itself, Wilderness of Mirrors, or Little Fears, where the bulk of the content is genre analysis, game design discussion or game mythos, but I hate reading D&D books, where the bulk of the content is specific penalties for exposure, or the mechanical bonuses from joining a certain Wizards Club.

[Welknair]

I don't read them. I study them.

[John Campbell]

Depends on the book, or perhaps its publisher.

WotC fluff is crap - usually poorly written, seldom accurately reflecting the mechanics, often neither sufficiently generic nor sufficiently specific to be applicable to the games I'm actually playing in, and not infrequently just plain stupid. I don't read WotC books; I pick bits of mechanics, like new feats or prestige classes, out of them. And actively disregard the prestige class fluff.

On the other hand, FASA books, back in the day, were full of awesome fluff. I own FASA sourcebooks, for both Shadowrun and Battletech, that have no mechanics at all in them, and I've read them cover to cover for entertainment. More than once. The fluff was well-written, atmospheric, and did a lot to develop the settings. And is probably one of the main reasons that both of those games, and settings, are still alive even though FASA's been dead for years.

Similarly, I've read through GURPS and WoD books, even though I don't really play either system, because the books were interesting reads even disregarding the mechanics.

[Acanous]

3.5 books have a specific format I think would benefit the world as a whole if it became standard. I flip to the index, and there's the chapters laid out by content, not just by number. If only math textbooks had been organized the same way, I might have been as good at trig as I am at algebra... Finding the tables and formula was always a bloody chore of looking through the exorcizes.

As it goes with DnD books, I check out feats first, then prestige classes, then spells. If they exist, I'll take a cursory look through the base classes, and then spend a couple minutes looking at the monsters, skimming until I see something particularly cool or deadly. All the while I run a check in my mind on weather the stuff in this book is sufficiently balanced to be allowed at the table, or is sufficiently cool enough that it can be passed despite being broken. (I'm looking at YOU, Book of Nine Swords!...Ok, so really I'm just looking at Iron Heart Surge, but that maneuver alone usually gets the whole book banned.)

I have a tendancy to skip over the fluff entirely, unless I'm really quite bored.
The other DMs I know fluff their own worlds independantly of the book fluff, and my players aren't the kind to seek membership in an organization, anyway. (Although I'd allow it. Heck, I tried to encourage it once, but they're still violent hobos who shoot first, and then second if they win initiative, then loot stuff. This doesn't go over well with most organizations.)

[Quietus]

I don't read books. I dissect them for the things I can use and then off they go, locked away in oblivion until I need their neglected corpses again.

I got so much flak in the WW forums for saying I didn't read the fiction of the nWoD books. It was mob mentality, full on. Apparently the short fictions there are one of the greatest works of literature known to mankind and not reading them makes you a heretic worthy of death. Painful, hideous death.

I may be exaggerating a little.

That doesn't surprise me. WoD inspires a very deep following in a relatively small subgroup. However, I do find that the fluff in the nWoD books does an excellent job of setting the appropriate tone for the stories that system is designed to tell. It may, in that respect, be of use to you.