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.