...maybe it isn't as obvious as "from front to back."
How do you read an RPG book? The organization of some books downright sucks. I know it's silly to generalize too much (feel free to name specific games), but for me: I almost always look over the character sheet first, then the table of contents. If the basic task resolution isn't described early, I do read that part first. Then character creation. After that, I'll usually read it in the order prescribed by the author.
Anything you skip or skim on first read? I skip the fiction the first time, sometimes I can never bring myself to read it. I'll usually gloss over vehicle rules, or things like spell lists until I think I "get it" with a game. Those are reserved for second reads.
I mainly design my own rulesets, so I look at all games from a sort of utilitarian/theft-level.
Like you, I look at the task resolution early. I want to see how broad, flexible, and how much room for growth and differentiation it has.
Secondly, I look for how well rounded the ruleset is and how much of the rules (% wise) is dedicated to what areas of the game. Lots of gear and items descriptions is a big plus, as is evenness in different types of skills and abilities. If I see 60%+ of the skill/ability descriptions relating to 'within combat' skills (as opposed to social, exploration, creation, interactive, artisan, etc) I put it down immediatly.
I treat spells and the magic system similarly, if the game has magic. I am looking for how the rules frame the world and fit the players into the world of the game.
Cover to cover. In the order it has been laid out. That way I can bitch about the logic of the layout ;)
Front to back, but I don't always pay attention to all the fiddling things such as Feats or Talents. Or even all the combat options.
Seanchai
I skim through the book first as I look at its organization, table of contents etc and get a sense of what it might be about. Then I start reading carefully, following the text and the (see page XX) mentions.
I sort of skim around, try to figure out the basic mechanic and skip an just refer to stuff as and when I need it. I doubt I've ever read an entire roleplaying game (outside the most minimalist one).
Oddly the one section I do often read properly (and often first) is the GM advice section. Even if I disagree with the authors approach, I'm still interested to read the different ways adventures and campaigns can be structured or ways to alter the pace or capture a specifc mood.
Cover to cover first, though skipping anything I already know (GM advice in a d20 game, say, or mechanisms that are derived from something I already play). Then once more as I go through playing subsystems myself -- roll a character, run a small fight, and whatever else the system "does". Then I yell about the shitty index on the internet.
- Skip foreword.
- Skip "what is roleplaying" (if any).
- Skip any introductional fluff.
- Skip all fiction.
- Read character creation rules.
- Read core "how to do stuff and kill thing" rules.
- Read the rest if and when it's germane to my game.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;414743- Skip foreword.
- Skip "what is roleplaying" (if any).
That's the first two things I look for. I don't care much for forewords, unless they're included, in which case I read them first. But "What is Role Playing", man, that I want to see, and am disappointed if I'm not getting it. Understanding what the author(s)/designer(s) mean(s) by "Role Playing" with his game helps me understand where the text's going much better. Plus, I have a dislike of games that just don't give a fuck about newbies.
This is why the new Red Box was extremely useful to me in "getting" Essentials D&D.
Read character creation stuff.
See if I can make something fun.
Read front to back.
Re-read rule elements.
If I make it through all that without getting overwhelmed, or disgusted.
I run it.
I generally skim through the book first, just to get an overall feel for it. Then I sit down and read, skipping stuff like "What is roleplaying?". If there is a spell section, I'll read the spell names, but not the entire description, unless I know I'm going to be playing or running the game in the near future.
Quote from: Benoist;414753That's the first two things I look for. I don't care much for forewords, unless they're included, in which case I read them first. But "What is Role Playing", man, that I want to see, and am disappointed if I'm not getting it. Understanding what the author(s)/designer(s) mean(s) by "Role Playing" with his game helps me understand where the text's going much better. Plus, I have a dislike of games that just don't give a fuck about newbies.
I don't have anything against those things
being there, I just don't get any utility out of them personally.
Quote from: Insufficient Metal;414786I don't have anything against those things being there, I just don't get any utility out of them personally.
It's fine by me. Just pointing out what I'm looking for with those is all. :)
Quote from: Benoist;414788It's fine by me. Just pointing out what I'm looking for with those is all. :)
Yet another reason to skip my games, then. You won't find it.
I'm not interested in how the designer thinks I should roleplay. More precisely, I am
actively hostile to the designer telling me how to roleplay. I'm also not interested in telling others how to roleplay.
I read the reolution bits. I read chargen. I read any other bits that interest me, rules, tools, or setting.
I skip all fiction, any fluff that isn't usable in play, advice, and other designer wank-offs.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;414811Yet another reason to skip my games, then. You won't find it.
I'm not interested in how the designer thinks I should roleplay.
I know this, Clash. Yet, if you were to release that game about the Holy Land, I would give it a look. Just sayin'... ;)
Quote from: flyingmice;414811More precisely, I am actively hostile to the designer telling me how to roleplay. I'm also not interested in telling others how to roleplay.
We have a different take on this obviously (and you know this already). Reading bits like "What is role playing" explains to me how the guy who wrote the game sees role playing himself, and whether what *I* understand as role playing is compatible with that take or not (it's a matter of degrees, not either/or). Then, I'm aware of what the guy is doing in writing this game, and can more easily identify what needs to be changed, and how, to suit whatever my buddies and I want to play.
Quote from: flyingmice;414811I skip all fiction, any fluff that isn't usable in play, advice, and other designer wank-offs.
Awwwww man that's my favourite stuff to write. Particularly as I write comedy games.
I make two or three characters, then read task resolution and combat, make another character, read about the main equipment.
Then I'll read any mini game crap like high speed chases and computer hacking if they aren't more than a page or two long. I don't bother with the rest of the book unless it comes up in play and seems like a problem.
My finished book is like 360 pages, and over 300 of the are character and equipment.
Quote from: Benoist;414753That's the first two things I look for. I don't care much for forewords, unless they're included, in which case I read them first. But "What is Role Playing", man, that I want to see, and am disappointed if I'm not getting it. Understanding what the author(s)/designer(s) mean(s) by "Role Playing" with his game helps me understand where the text's going much better. Plus, I have a dislike of games that just don't give a fuck about newbies.
This is why the new Red Box was extremely useful to me in "getting" Essentials D&D.
That's an interesting viewpoint, and one I don't tend to consider.
Honestly, with most games I'm exposed to, I tend to think it's silly for the author to assume that their game is going to be the first game a newbie is exposed to.
Even still, after 16 years of GMing, I like to read GMing sections, without fail...so what the Hell do I know? =)
Quote from: Benoist;414816We have a different take on this obviously (and you know this already). Reading bits like "What is role playing" explains to me how the guy who wrote the game sees role playing himself, and whether what *I* understand as role playing is compatible with that take or not (it's a matter of degrees, not either/or). Then, I'm aware of what the guy is doing in writing this game, and can more easily identify what needs to be changed, and how, to suit whatever my buddies and I want to play.
Understood. When I'm reading the bits I do read, I am already mentally pulling out stuff I don't want and substituting other things I do want.
-clash
skim chargen.,combat,skills,magic (this is done @ LFGS as well)...skipping all 'fluff', then front to back,still skipping most/all padding, while pausing to make a few char.
Vehichles,equipment & setting materials are the lowest priority.
:)
Quote from: Benoist;414753This is why the new Red Box was extremely useful to me in "getting" Essentials D&D.
I think it's useful for any game to lay out "here's what we expect you'll be doing" or "this is what this was designed to do" from the designer. I think that's the reason a lot of people consider certain games "broken", whereas the designer may have been running the game for years perfectly fine -- the designer doesn't include enough information about how the "game" is supposed to work. He's not actually giving you the full "game", just the skeleton of what he uses to run his game.
Monte Cook was asked by the Walking Eye peeps if he thought running 3e was time consuming, and he answered that it really wasn't, because he only noted the things that mattered, and that in actuality, 3rd Edition was worse off for not having more information about how the game should be run and leaving it to "mastery" -- something he regrets. Basically, all those sub-systems, magic item creation rules, NPC creation rules, Skill Checks, etc, etc, were all just supposed to be guidelines for NEW DMs, not veterans of AD&D, and that once you got the feel for how the game flows, you can just wing it (sounds like a certain manifesto about D&D rules, hmm). To which TWE peeps were just like :eek:.
I think the communication between what the designer expects is crucial when designing a game, and I think leaving it out and having the rules act as carte blanche is sometimes a huge mistake, and in the case of 3.x, you sometimes end up with a culture so divorced from the designer's expectations of play that people can't help ranting about how a game doesn't "work" properly. People were meticulously crafting NPCs whereas the one of the lead designers only writes down maybe 3-4 stats for an NPC that he thinks will work and just goes with it.
Quote from: Peregrin;414851Monte Cook was asked by the Walking Eye peeps if he thought running 3e was time consuming, and he answered that it really wasn't, because he only noted the things that mattered, and that in actuality, 3rd Edition was worse off for not having more information about how the game should be run and leaving it to "mastery" -- something he regrets. Basically, all those sub-systems, magic item creation rules, NPC creation rules, Skill Checks, etc, etc, were all just supposed to be guidelines for NEW DMs, not veterans of AD&D, and that once you got the feel for how the game flows, you can just wing it (sounds like a certain manifesto about D&D rules, hmm). To which TWE peeps were just like :eek:.
I confirm. This is true. Not only do I know this from the man himself, but if you actually bother to read the DMG, it's all over it, repeated over and over again. It's like most people don't even bother to read the text and go straight for the rule or table on the page. Well, no wonder everyone's going apeshit about "rules-as-written" nowadays!
I wish they had a page near the front that said that in big, bold letters. It would have saved me a few arguments with rules lawyers.
Front to back. But I freely skim the 'fluff' if it can't grab me in the first few lines. Much like a newspaper article, if the fluff passages don't grab me, I move past them quickly. I want to dig into the crunch. Good lay-out and solid support charts are a bonus. A good table of contents and through index is a major bonus.
Skim chargen. Skim the setting info. Read task resolution and the rest of the rules. Begin feeling like I'm not sure what the game is supposed to do, and look for something on that (such as a sample campaign or adventure design). Read the setting and adventure design sections. Read the rest of the GMs advice. Read the monsters/adversaries section. Read the sample adventure if there is one. Re-read the rules a bit.
If I'm planning to run it, skim chargen a second time so I feel Like I can explain it to people, and then skim the skills and spells lists.
Never read fiction, and in the rare occasions there are designer's notes, read those first.
I pretty much read the whole thing. The exceptions are if there's some stupid self-congratulatory foreward (unless it seems funny, or if I'm reading for a review), and worthless game fiction (and at this point I've given up on ever finding any game fiction that wasn't worthless).
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;415402I pretty much read the whole thing. The exceptions are if there's some stupid self-congratulatory foreward (unless it seems funny, or if I'm reading for a review), and worthless game fiction (and at this point I've given up on ever finding any game fiction that wasn't worthless).
RPGPundit
OWoD Book of Nod.
Quote from: Cranewings;415421OWoD Book of Nod.
I love that book.
Depends on the intention.
If I'm planning on playing or running the game, I'll read the relevant core book(s) cover to cover. Try to make a basic character, rereading the relevant sections. Reread sections relevant to gameplay (combat, etc). Try to find a way to break the mechanics, if possible. Continue reading various sections until I have at least page numbers memorized, if not the text itself, and ensure that I'm familiar enough with the layout that I have a decent chance of finding something I don't remember off-hand.
If I'm reading for purposes of expanding my RPG horizons, I skim cover to cover, then reread sections I found particularly intriguing.
I skip ahead to the part that the author is most proud of. Usualy it's pretty clear from reading the covers and the intro what that is.
Then I scan that topic for sections that are unusualy lenghty or brief. A very long subsection indicates the author is obsessive over the subject, either because it's his favorite subject or because something went horribly wrong in playtesting. A very short subject tends to have errors of omission. Both are good places to look for bad writing.
I also like to look at rules for falling since those are a good indicator of if this is a game that simulates life, adventure, or if it's an exercise in numerology. Same applies to modeling illumination.
Then, I scan the whole book for madlib designing. Lists of halfbaked banialities like:
Fire spell
This spell shoots a ray of fire that does 1d6 damage.
Doom spell
This spell shoots a ray of doom that does 1d6 damage.
Neurosurgery spell
This spell shoots a ray of neurosurgery that does 1d6 damage.
If it passes those tests then I grade the game as worth looking at further. I try to establish the domain of important metrics and then read over the systems from front to back, or if its a game with an unfamiliar theme I read the fluffy bits.
Quote from: Cranewings;415421OWoD Book of Nod.
No.
RPGPundit