| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| marshmellow132802-04-04, 05:12 PM | I'm a person who loves gaming and who also has been assigned a research paper. So why not combine the two?? I'm looking for people's opinions on which game (D&D or Vampire: the Masquerade) is better in terms of fun, simplicity, realistic (as far as that can go in a world of magic or vampires) and just the overall system. I'd prefer comments with intelligence and actual backing behind the points rather than demanding D&D is better with having never heard of Vampire, thanks. |
| Seeker9502-04-04, 05:16 PM | D&D is better. (You're on the D&D boards. What else did you expect?) On a side note -- try a Google Search. There are lots of these "debates" (some of them balanced even!) online already. |
| The White Sorcerer02-04-04, 05:25 PM | All I have to say is this: I learned the basic D&D rules in about 5 minutes. When I ran into a new rule (such as attacks of opportunity and grappling) I usually understood it on first glance. I bought the Vampire rulebook over a year ago. The only bit I really understand is character creation. The basic rules (dice pools and such) are still a bit hazy. The more complicated stuff (like vampire powers and stuff) is still complete Hebrew to me. Ease of learning the rules, Vampire: The Masquerade VS Dungeons & Dragons; D&D would win with both hands duct taped behind its back, and with little pieces of duct tape covering its eyes, and Vampire can have a spear even. |
| Solaris02-04-04, 05:31 PM | I think that the White Wolf system is far simpler than that of D&D and much easier to learn. In D&D there are many more things to know, and many more cases to handle with their own special rules. Realism isn't to be found in either system -- every game makes the sacrifice of realism for a playable model of reality. No game system can be inherently more fun than another, since fun is entirely in the eye of the beholder. |
| DarkSoldier02-04-04, 07:36 PM | Originally posted by marshmellow1328 I'm a person who loves gaming and who also has been assigned a research paper. So why not combine the two?? I'm looking for people's opinions on which game (D&D or Vampire: the Masquerade) is better in terms of fun, simplicity, realistic (as far as that can go in a world of magic or vampires) and just the overall system. I'd prefer comments with intelligence and actual backing behind the points rather than demanding D&D is better with having never heard of Vampire, thanks. Fun D&D: It's easy to put some humour into a D&D game. VtM: There is little in the way of "fun" in a world that's rotten to the core. Simplicity D&D: Task resolution is 1d20 + relevant modifiers versus a DC; if your 1d20 and modifiers is equal to or greater than the DC, you succeed. VtM: Task resolution is a number of d10's equal to your relevant Ability + Attribute scores. Success is determined by how many dice are higher than a difficulty (generally 4 or higher). Realism D&D: Fantasy world, fantasy creatures, huge objects only do 5d6 damage if they fall on your head. VtM: It's the real world, but dark and oppressive, with evil creatures running everything behind the scenes. It's possible to die from a single gunshot. Overall D&D: If you like Conan and the like, it's for you. VtM: If you have more angst than the East Coast has snow, it's for you. How was that? |
| Kobold Avenger02-04-04, 08:34 PM | Originally posted by DarkSoldier Fun D&D: It's easy to put some humour into a D&D game. VtM: There is little in the way of "fun" in a world that's rotten to the core. All of recent Vampire characters in various Larp's have been ridiculous or silly characters, and only one of them was a Malkavian. Then again I don't take the game that seriously either. Besides most of the vampire larpers I know do play D&D as well. Perhaps the biggest point between the two is that D&D emphasizes combat. Vampire emphasizes roleplaying some more because of the game's themes, and the fact that the combat system sucks. |
| GuyMitochondrion02-04-04, 09:01 PM | D&D: A ten year old can learn it, and play it, and love it. In many aspects it has a "video game" like feel. It is simple and versatile, but is also unrealistic in many ways. D&D is a GAME and has a game feel to it. VtM: Should NOT be played by a ten year old. (Probably not even by a fifteen or sixteen year old if you ask me.) The system is more mature in most aspects, even without the setting. It is an adult RPG system and should be treated as such. |
| Geethree02-04-04, 09:48 PM | To digress a bit, what kind of research paper is this? I find it odd that an official paper (like for school) would be allowed a topic like this. |
| Koga:The ninja trick02-04-04, 11:19 PM | The Koga knew a girl who played V:tm.. From what The Koga has gatherd I wouldn't like it. 1. Too depressing. 2. Too much live action role playing. The Koga does not want that kind of temptation to kick the vampire dude I never liked in the balls then run away giggeling. XP Now assuming V:tm were a more table-top rpg, I may give it the edge on originality. But D&D still wins. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland02-04-04, 11:31 PM | My main complaints about each system (http://pub22.ezboard.com/fledgermaincomicsforumfrm2.showMessage?t opicID=20.topic) |
| Solaris02-05-04, 12:49 AM | Now assuming V:tm were a more table-top rpg It is. Entirely. My copy of Vampire: The Masquerade does mention alternate systems (Mind's Eye Theater) for live-action playing, but only as an aside. |
| Vix Damnul02-05-04, 01:55 AM | I got into DnD about a year or two before vampire, and palladium games before DnD. i got vampire something like early in its 2nd ed, so this is a long time back. Yeah, a long time for someone in their early twenties, i just wanted to lay out my background in gaming. Each system has merits and flaws, so saying one is inherently better than the other is a bad way to go, it's apples and, i dunno, beavers. Systems-wise, my money's on vampire for ease of rules. Everything is either an attribute plus a skill or skill-type thing, or using a specific side characteristic, roll them dice, count anything above a certain number, which can vary a lot. Creation is so mechanically simple, it takes no time at all. Emphasis is put on the personality, however, and that makes it take longer, but you get to plan your character out really well, and can tailor any character to the group's needs or your tastes. This is actually true of the entire product line from WW, except when it comes to type specific ability, like vampire vs. werewolf. Screw realism, people play vampire and DnD for escapist fantasy. That said, whenever i ran vampire, i pretty much never used their ubergoth worldview, i'd just run things pretty much like they are outside the window. However, to the degree that the systems depict a relatively realistic relationship between action and result, i'd say vampire, again, with the exception of the botching rules... someone who's really good at something can fail far worse at it than, say, cletus the slack jawed yokel (from the Simpsons, not making fun of rural folk). yeah, back on topic, aside from the odd botch, the White Wolf systems keep things more, i dunno, logical. My character picks up a gun, he's sort of skilled with it, he shoots bob, has a lot of successes, bob dies, even though bob is Mr. Universe, and in great shape. Or, if bob survives the initial shot, he's not happy, and has wound penalties, easy, quick, no calculation required penalties. Fun-wise, i've had a blast playing both, and have gamed til dawn multiple times with each. Then again, i've only ever played with friends, never through a store or organization. From my observations of such, those things ruin fun, despite how many people they may bring to the hobby. In my experience with people from either game stores or college clubs, i've noticed that those are the best ways to meet the people who will ruin the fun. Let's face it, we're a fringe group to begin with, and there are an awful lot of fat, stanky geeks out there, and just as many messed up goths that really think they're vampires. Seriously, i have yet to meet someone from a gaming club or store that HASN'T had a bad experience with one or both of those stereotypes, sometimes in the same person. i think both games have an image problem, and probably always will. Vampire players always get associated with cult killings, and dnd players are geeks. Of course, being a geek is part of who i am, and it's fun, but it's not who i am. Some day, mark my words, someone will kill over a monopoly game... actually, someone probably already has, but the monopoly man has had too many years to keep it covered. Despite how the above may sound, I like both games and rulesets a lot, and will probably fluctuate between which i prefer at a given moment for years to come. There's a lot i can do with DnD that would be hard to replicate with a WW game, and the other way round, too. Then again, i'll try other games and rules when they interest me. So, aside from this being way longer than i originally intended, i hope you can use this input to put together some more structured questions and goals, which you'll need if you want answers better than "dnd r0xx0rs, never heard of vampire" :D uh, yeah, almost forgot, unless i mentioned it already, i've never larped, nor allowed it when i ran games, i think it's pretty stupid, and a large part of the problems vampire has caused for people is because they ignore WW's guidelines about it, at least in my books, that say don't do it outside, with open windows, or any way or place where people who aren't involved will see, because they'll probably get the wrong idea, and cause headaches for all involved. Screw larping, gimme some dice, a table, some chairs, and a few friends, we don' need no steenkin' larping! |
| Korhal_IV02-05-04, 01:56 AM | Originally posted by Solaris It is. Entirely. My copy of Vampire: The Masquerade does mention alternate systems (Mind's Eye Theater) for live-action playing, but only as an aside. Yeah. :rolleyes: The combat system for V:tM is so clunky it practically forces you to run combat-less games, and then you might as well resort to LARPS, where you at least have the satisfaction of unleashing righteous rage on your DM with a wooden longsword in vengeance for making you play such a sad RPG. Personally, I think a more rewarding topic might be GURPS v. D&D, especially for a longer essay. GURPS is, as far as I know, the No. 2 RPG behind D&D. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland02-05-04, 02:02 AM | Oh dear, a combatless game :rolleyes: how terrible :rolleyes: just horrible :rolleyes: my god, you may actually have to talk instead of slaughtering your faceless enemies. :rolleyes: And who would want to do that? :rolleyes: |
| Capn Charlie02-05-04, 02:33 AM | Anyone who wants to play in a world where swords exist, and dragons beg to have them used on them. DnD fantasy is about the whole violent drama of it all. All the roleplaying is nice, but when anyone I know speak about the greates times it is epic combats. Whether a lightsabre, vorpal sword, or mass rifle are involved it still boils down to the fact that the human mind is drawn toward violence. Sure the other things are important, but there is just something primal that pulls a person towards conflict. Whether through heated argument or the violence that it equates. I thought Hamlet was great. But the things that really stick in my my mind are things like the clash of ringing steel and the screams of the dead and dying. The vicarious thrill of combat stirs my blood. But like a high sugar or caffeine snack, too much burns me out. I get all the amngst and dialogue I need in real life, when I sit down and pretend to be the dashing rogue, no matter how much fun the usual antics are, it just isn't complete without a rapier duel at the end. I believe it was said best in a comic I read, something like "Your ten siders can't save you now angst boy!" |
| Joe Gold02-05-04, 02:37 AM | For a more combat oriented game, I turn to D&D. For more talky, less smacky, I turn to Vampire. It isn't that Vampire is poor for combat (the first game played, we kinda killed Elysium), but the impression the books gave me is something like, combat... it happens or it doesn't. Your game could be about a clan war in the streets or manuvering to take over a rival company. D&D doesn't prevent you from role-playing and Bards seem to be there to show that combat doesn't have to be everything, but the idea of killing things to take their stuff to get more powerful to kill more things to... well, it is much more prevalent in D&D than in Vampire. What are you looking for, for this paper? Try talking to someone from Whitewolf, they do produce material for D&D too (Sword&Sorcery, I believe). |
| aldymnor02-05-04, 02:46 AM | Originally posted by The White Sorcerer All I have to say is this: I learned the basic D&D rules in about 5 minutes. When I ran into a new rule (such as attacks of opportunity and grappling) I usually understood it on first glance. I bought the Vampire rulebook over a year ago. The only bit I really understand is character creation. The basic rules (dice pools and such) are still a bit hazy. The more complicated stuff (like vampire powers and stuff) is still complete Hebrew to me. Ease of learning the rules, Vampire: The Masquerade VS Dungeons & Dragons; D&D would win with both hands duct taped behind its back, and with little pieces of duct tape covering its eyes, and Vampire can have a spear even. it's amazing how true the reverse of this is, back in 1990. D&D 2e was hard as hell to learn for newbies, which was my most of my friends preferred we play Mage: The Ascension, Streetfighter: The Storytelling Game, and Heroes Unlimited. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland02-05-04, 03:06 AM | wrong thread. Lo siento |
| SnowbearK02-05-04, 03:22 AM | Odd, I never had any trouble understanding either combat or resolution rolls in the Storyteller system... Then again, I had 2nd Edition memorized verbatim...Gurps, Heroes unlimited, Champions Fuzion, and even Blue Planet down pat. It's not that hard, really. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland02-05-04, 03:23 AM | Originally posted by Capn Charlie I believe it was said best in a comic I read, something like "Your ten siders can't save you now angst boy!" She also said 'call me 'Queen'.' Want to adopt that too? I make fun of everyone, doesn't mean I believe everything I write. If it did, I'd have some 'splainin' to do. |
| Capn Charlie02-05-04, 03:35 AM | The problem is that when you publish your work it no longer matters what you meant. It all becomes about what people read into it. I must agree about 2e. I must admit it was so shoddily put together that I ran to alternity when it came out. Some of the people I know never fully understood saving throws in 2e. And I must admit I am pretty sure I got them wrong. |
| Hengwrt Ellesmere02-05-04, 03:49 AM | I'm assuming you're asking about the World of Darkness vs. the D&D settings, rather than the mechanics. You could play in either world with either mechanic, though xd10 vs success (WoD) tends to be a little grittier than d20 vs DC (D&D). That is, d20 characters are a little more heroic while d10 characters are a little more vulnerable, and thus a little more tragic. As far as the settings go, Dungeons and Dragons was designed by a couple of old men to play adventure games with their kids and grandkids. While some of the artists and writers got a little out of hand with "adult" material in the 70's and 80's, the general atmosphere has always been that of adventure and exploration, exactly what the youth of the era needed as a result of their "free space" being taken over by parking lots and shopping malls. D&D has been through several editions (read ownerships), some of them more aware of their audience than others. The current developers, Wizards of the Coast, are very much in tune with the demands of both young players and their parents, having produced both Magic: the Gathering and Pokemon. As a result, they walk a fine line in keeping their material cutting edge enough to entertain a young teen audience and tame enough not to offend their parents. They also leave enough room in their material for older players to expand the game to fit their more adult tastes. The World of Darkness, on the other hand, was never intended for children, or even young teens. The earliest editions were advertised as Adult, and while later books lacked that label on the cover, they have always contained warnings on the copyright page. On a more abstract level, exploration in the World of Darkness is not into the dark dungeons or forests of adventure, but into the dark night of the soul of the character. Players play characters that are already far more powerful than their surrounding environment (being vampires, werewolves, sorcerers, ghosts, or immortal fae), but they only grow more powerful by overcoming their own internal conflicts. They are also subject to a sense of impeding doom that could crush them at any moment, either through beings more powerful than themselves, or simply the end of the world. The World of Darkness owes its existence to D&D, the latter being the first tabletop roleplaying game, but D&D owes a great number of players to the World of Darkness. In my gamemastering heyday, I owed all my male players to D&D and all my female players to World of Darkness. The girls got into Vampire because of the cool angst, but after a while, they just wanted to have fun. The World of Darkness is on a schedule, regulated by the publication of novels and campaign sourcebooks, and it's set to end this year. My suspicion is that White Wolf, its publisher, is making more money through open gaming license d20 material than through its own d10 franchise. Maybe we'll see it resurrected as a d20 Modern setting. In any case, I still have my old books for when my children reach their teens and need an outlet for their angst. Heng |
| Hengwrt Ellesmere02-05-04, 03:55 AM | Just wondering, is this a high school or college paper? Or a graduate student thesis? Or are you a professor writing a book? Hengwrt |
| The White Sorcerer02-05-04, 04:47 AM | Originally posted by Korhal_IV where you at least have the satisfaction of unleashing righteous rage on your DM with a wooden longsword in vengeance for making you play such a sad RPG. Wrong. In Mind's Eye Theatre LARPs, you're not allowed to have any weapons whatsoever. Heck, if your character owns a pack of chewing gum, you're propably only allowed to have a piece of paper with "chewing gum" written on it. You must use index cards for every single item, except for clothes. |
| Mr. VanderMeer02-05-04, 05:22 AM | I love both D&D and Vampire. (I must be weird, because it is often expected to love one and hate the other.) It's the prefect combination if you get to be in two games. Unfortunately, I'm only in one game (D&D) so I don't get to play V;tM much. |
| Solaris02-05-04, 06:15 AM | Originally posted by Korhal_IV Yeah. :rolleyes: The combat system for V:tM is so clunky it practically forces you to run combat-less games, I strongly disagree. The combat system is fun, fast, and lethal. One game of Vampire I played in had all the player characters being vampire hunters in the employ of the Church, and there were some of the most memorable combats I've had in over 20 years of gaming. |
| Solaris02-05-04, 06:28 AM | Originally posted by Mr. VanderMeer I love both D&D and Vampire. (I must be weird, because it is often expected to love one and hate the other.) This could be a modern viewpoint, perhaps held by those who have come to gaming in the midst of all this d20 homogeneity. Over the years I've played many games with many different settings and mechanics, and enjoyed each game for its merits. But I grew up in a roleplaying environment where systems were designed for settings, while the d20 crowd seems to like squashing settings into a system. Some people on these boards won't touch anything that isn't d20, and that kind of prejudice could be at work. Or, I suppose, it could be some kind of childish attempt to feel good about oneself by putting others down. Personally, I like both D&D and Vampire. And Marvel Superheroes, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Cyberpunk, and Star Wars (pre d20), and Call of Cthulhu (pre d20), and BESM (pre d20), and Stormbringer (pre d20), and Legend of the Five Rings (pre d20), ... |
| Spongly02-05-04, 07:44 AM | Originally posted by Solaris This could be a modern viewpoint, perhaps held by those who have come to gaming in the midst of all this d20 homogeneity. Over the years I've played many games with many different settings and mechanics, and enjoyed each game for its merits. But I grew up in a roleplaying environment where systems were designed for settings, while the d20 crowd seems to like squashing settings into a system. Some people on these boards won't touch anything that isn't d20, and that kind of prejudice could be at work. Or, I suppose, it could be some kind of childish attempt to feel good about oneself by putting others down. Personally, I like both D&D and Vampire. And Marvel Superheroes, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and Cyberpunk, and Star Wars (pre d20), and Call of Cthulhu (pre d20), and BESM (pre d20), and Stormbringer (pre d20), and Legend of the Five Rings (pre d20), ... I agree - and a good list of games at the end there. Stormbringer - that brings back memories. I got into that shortly after Runequest (still the best fantasy RPG there was, in my opinion). And Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles! Did you ever play Ghostbusters? |
| Mister Mayhem02-05-04, 08:36 AM | You won't get a balanced answer on these boards (well, you might, but the odd one or two that appear will be drowned out in cries of "Heretic! The Holy D20 is the only way to play!" - often from those who have never played anything else). Of course, conversely, if you ask the same question on a VTM board you will likely be told that D20 is the way of the powergaming Roll-player, and that nobody who actually wants to roleplay would consider *not* using the sacred pool of ten sided dice. But in truth, they are both good, for different reasons. They are both massively popular, too. If one were genuinely superior to the other in every way, as some people would like you to beleive, the other would be a tiny minority game that you have never heard of. (Even that isn't a true measure, of course, since "Underground", a tiny Minority game that you have never heard of, is superior to both D&D and V:TM, ;) ) |
| Mr. VanderMeer02-05-04, 09:13 AM | This could be a modern viewpoint, perhaps held by those who have come to gaming in the midst of all this d20 homogeneity. Maybe that's it. Seeing as how I've gone through several World of Drakness games, several editions of D&D, Marvel, Top Secret, Twilight 2000, villains and vigilantes, Warhammer RPG, DC Heroes, Mechwarrior, Star Frontiers, Shadowrun, Starcraft, Gurps and many more RPG's in my career I have noticed that many different systems can be fun to play. Don't get me wrong, I am actually happy that now, with the d20 system I can play different games using the same system. It makes life easier. But I would hate to see diversity completely gone. I wonder though if a vampire d20 game would work? (Well it doesn't really seem to matter anymore as the Time of Judgment has begun in the World of Darkness.) |
| Tzor02-05-04, 09:35 AM | I’ve played 1E AD&D, 2E AD&D as well as 3E D&D and now 3.5E D&D. I’ve also played VtM since it came out, and briefly explored VDA as well as the Werewolf book. (Note: I think it is proper to use a colon in the White Wolf abbreviations. But since that gives the Dark Ages a very big grin, I’ve avoided that here.) Based on this experience I can guess that most 3E players would hate VtM. The White Wolf game literally comes from a different era in gaming. It should be seen in its proper place somewhere between 2E AD&D and 3E D&D in terms of development. It should also be seen within the context of the evolution of “pip” based systems, which had previously been confined mostly to comic genre role-playing games. Given this history, it should come as no surprised that VtM is by no means “balanced.” Nor should it be assumed that the rules are complete and have zero inconsistencies. While the general genre and rule set is reasonable and playable, there are many places where strictly following the rules can lead to trouble. (This still happens in 3.5E D&D, but to a far smaller extent than it did in 2E AD&D or VtM.) While the game mechanic doesn’t break down at high levels, it does get strange. (Under the original rules it was certainly possible that “more” was not always better.) VtM discussions tend to be tainted with VtM LARP, much as discussions of AD&D in the 80’s were tainted with SCA LARP. The fact that VtM can be reduced to RPS form is an interesting aspect of VtM, but for all practical purposes VtM RPS rules are vastly different from VtM PnP rules in terms of practical effect. VtM tends to have a flatter advancement system than level based games like D&D. Points are awarded for role playing, as well as overcoming obstacles, but there are limits to advancement that require certain actions … that can hover on vile … to overcome. The VtM system is more of a hierarchy of inheritance than a meritocracy … one does not advance as much as through ones own merit as one does by jumping inheritance lines. Various characters are not designed to be balanced with each other, but exist to provide a different angle to the general vampire role-playing experience. Balance can only be obtained, if at all, at the group level, where each member can have an important part to play, if the group is designed with that in mind. If you are looking for a simple game, there is a Dr. Who game called “Time Lords” where almost all human characters start off with the same stat, and resolution is made by taking the difference of 2d6, a process called “beating the difference.” (Basically you take your difficulty and subtract your attribute, assuming that the difficulty is greater than the attribute, otherwise you get an automatic success. You then roll 2d6 and get the difference between the two dice, a value from 0 – 5. If this number is greater than the difference between the difficulty and attribute you succeed.) There is no such thing as the best game. The question is whether or not the game fits within the genre of the game without getting in the way. The White Wolf games meet this criteria as well as, or slightly better than the 2E AD&D system of its day. |
| asurademon02-06-04, 02:48 AM | I like White Wolf's D10 system much better than D20, it's both more flexable when it comes to character creation, and more realistic feeling, that and except in video games I'm not fond of the character levels concept. How ever I enjoy D&D more than I do Vampire despite my preference for vampires rules. Vampire largely revolves around political intrigue, and that's one thing I've found gets boring quite quickly. D&D is epic fantasy, that's what gets me going. One thing I do have to say that's a big flaw with White Wolf however is how bad their editors are, they are notoriously bad when it comes to making mistakes. |
| DarkSoldier02-06-04, 04:26 AM | Originally posted by asurademon One thing I do have to say that's a big flaw with White Wolf however is how bad their editors are, they are notoriously bad when it comes to making mistakes. Oh yeah; it seems every reference in a White Wolf book points to the elusive page XX. |
| Tenzhi02-06-04, 06:50 AM | Early on in my experience with RPGs I liked the Storyteller system. However, as time passed and I garnered more experience with various systems I finally came to this conclusion: Dice Pools suck. It doesn't matter if they're Storyteller dice pools or WEG d6 dice pools - dice pools are a hateful way to play. |
| rabidpigmy02-06-04, 02:26 PM | True, VtM's a game of horror, but it can also be a game of humour--if you can't make anything funny out of it then perhaps you've got a pretty bad sense of humour. Maybe it's a darker humour than some are use to, perhaps, but humour nonetheless. As for action in WoD, if you like thrills-and-kills stuff there are always ways to arrange that in the system. You can play a anarchistic Brujah and teach lessons to some money-grubbing Ventrue, or, if you like adventure, you can play as a Gangrel (any clan can do it really) and see what life is like on the road as one of the undead (whatch out for those werewolves though!). Werewolf:the Apocalypse is a combat oriented WoD world. If you like killing a lot, get a Werewolf book and make a band of werewolves to go chasing down some nasty wyrmy fiends. And another thing I like with Werewolf is that it, too, can be an epic fantasy! If you explore the Umbral realms, or maybe travel the world in wolf form. Another game to play hunt-the-goose grab Hunter: the Reckoning, and you can run through hectic and gloomy life as an average person who's been chosen by some cosmic force (or whatever) to chase down supernatural creatures! If you're looking for pure out contemporary fantasy epic (ever read books by Charles De Lint?) then check out Changeling: the Dreaming. Changeling takes it to a whole other world, where fantasies like dragons and faeries are real in a different way. You can either struggle with banal reality, or swamp yourself in the madness of the dreaming to confront chaotic lands and awesome creatures of dreams. Now, IMO, it's a matter of choice when it comes to system. Whether you want gritty realism as one person put it (and I love it), or whether you want epic high fantasy--it's all in the tastes. The WoD is a flexible world, and often people tend to get the impression it's all about talk when actually it depends on the ST as much as the game of D&D depends on the DM. It's true, however, that the systems are built for different reasons. One is roleplay (WoD), and one *was* dungeon crawling. I may come off slightly biased, but I love both systems, and support either. Both have their pros and cons. I just wanted to point out that WoD is more versatile than simple intrigue play. |
| Hengwrt Ellesmere02-06-04, 08:53 PM | Does anyone know if there is a d20 conversion of the World of Darkness? I like the Vampire setting, but I like how D&D is easily quantified and balanced in terms of game play. With ECLs, I think it would be pretty easy to make WoD style vampires and werewolves for d20. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland02-06-04, 09:11 PM | Originally posted by Hengwrt Ellesmere Does anyone know if there is a d20 conversion of the World of Darkness? I'd give my right ventricle for that. My kingdom for a non-suck d20 Vampire or 'canthrope! |
| Tenzhi02-06-04, 11:35 PM | Originally posted by Vaalingrade Ashland I'd give my right ventricle for that. My kingdom for a non-suck d20 Vampire or 'canthrope! Indeed. I would rather have had that from them (and d20 Changeling, too, for my part) than Ravenloft or that other d20 setting they put out. |
| Drindin02-07-04, 12:11 AM | Alright, I'll be honest with you. I've never played this "Vampire" game, or any game in this "World of Darkness" setting, though, personally, due to my views, it does not sound like a game I'd play. Perhaps I'm just to adjusted to the D20 style of play (this D10 system sound... cumbersome and expensive {d10's cost quite a bit!}), but I will bet you money that if they came out with the world of darkness setting for D20, I would still not buy it, even if I were as rich as Bill Gates. Here's why: It sounds too dark, and dark humour does not particularly attract me. There's a couple of reasons for that, the most prominent being my upbringing. In no way was the matter in which I was, and still am, raised sheltered. Indeed, my parents simply ingrained in me rather good moral choices, by teaching me well what's right and whats wrong, what's real and what's not. Today, they trust my introvertial attitude enough that they let me watch rather horrendously violent films, knowing that I can tell that such things are wrong. Merely, I do not find such creepy things attractive. I like the heroic hack-and-slash or balanced RolePlay-hack-and-slash style of the d20 system. Though, I can often be in dark moods. Such times, I would still not play in that setting, rather, I'd rely on my poetry and writing skills to sate my need for creepiness. I've had my heart broken many times, and my style of fiction writing almost always involves tragedy, even in the most romantic of my stories. Simply put, I'd take Heroic D20 settings such as Dragonlance and Living Greyhawk over World of Darkness any day. |
| Hengwrt Ellesmere02-07-04, 12:36 AM | Well the amount of "darkness" really depends on the individual group, and to some extent the game. Playing a vampire who must kill to live is a little different from playing an eternally young and whimsical fae. Though I've played some pretty lighthearted Vampire games, and I played one extremely dark Changeling game. There are some people who like the World of Darkness because it gives them an excuse to talk out their violent fantasies or to wallow in angst. I don't like to play that way. What I do like about the setting is the way that it places essentially "human" characters in roles that test their humanity in a variety of ways. It also gives them room to grow and work out their own inner struggles, though there are plenty of outer struggles to take on as well. Like I said before, though, I would definitely not recommend it for children or even young teens. Even if you keep the game free of what's now termed "vile" subject matter, the basic premise is rather existential and amoral. My favorite theme for vampire characters is the search for morality, but even that implies a certain subjectivity that undermines whatever values the character does establish. Contrast this with D&D in which objective moral forces are essential to the setting's metaphysics. There you know that good already exists and is an option for your character to choose, no matter how difficult. In the World of Darkness, actions are only good to the extent that someone with power makes others agree that they are. |
| Archtyrant Terevoth02-07-04, 02:08 PM | I'd say it all depends on the group. Fun: VtM is more fun in the hands of a proactive group who prefers noncombat roleplaying over combat, where D&D is better for a reactive group who prefers combat. I've had fun in both games. Though V:tM really requires you flesh out your character to truly have fun with it. Its not a sit-and-go style of play as D&D is usually. Simplicity: I think V:tM wins hands down. It's a much easier to learn system and lacks all the nuiances and rules complexity of D&D. Though D&D is more comprehensive by far. Realism: by far V:tM is more realistic. Overall: The one major advantage D&D has is versatility. Unlike V:tM, it isn't grounded in any specific world, and its rules are easily adaptable to many different settings. That being said, I think both games are great and fun to play. They are the Top two RPGs out there IMO and I'd play a game of either if given the opportunity and a good DM. |
| rogue_lettuce02-07-04, 04:01 PM | Originally posted by Kobold Avenger All of recent Vampire characters in various Larp's have been ridiculous or silly characters, and only one of them was a Malkavian. Then again I don't take the game that seriously either. Besides most of the vampire larpers I know do play D&D as well. I agree - after all, who would NOT want to play a sesame street count dracula - mwahahaha (complete with cape, etc) Oh, and it depends whether you are tlaking LARP or PNP as to how simple Vamp is. The larp is easy as pi, it just uses rock paper scissors, whereas the pnp version confuddles me still.:( :confused: |
| Willie the Duck02-07-04, 04:54 PM | Originally posted by Hengwrt Ellesmere As far as the settings go, Dungeons and Dragons was designed by a couple of old men to play adventure games with their kids and grandkids. D&D was invented by two men in their early 20s. Anyway... MECHANICS: D&D is all about concrete power levels ad abilities. You know exactly how hard it will be for your rogue to climb a given wall or how challenging an opponent is based on CR (at least the DM knows this). Complaints about mages outpacing fighters aside, you can rate two peoples abilities almost exclusively by listing their level. White Wolf is not like that. It is not clear that two starting vampires from different clans are equally matched, much less a starting vampire vs a hunter vs a werewolf. There are even subgames (ghoul, kindred, etc.) that deliberately start you off weaker. This means you either have to give up on the idea of equality (which is okay in a non-combat based campaign), or you can create uber builds that would make the most die-hard d20 munchkin blush. FOCUS Let's face it, D&D is a combat game. Even if you give your character a detailed history, personality and quirks, you still have a character sheet, world, and ability list based around either righting wrongs with your sword or raiding treasure hoards with it. White Wolf games can be about combat (werewolf in particular tends to focus on wiping out other factions of supernatural beings), but doesn't have to. You can also do political intrigue, mystery solving or whatever else. While alot of people seem to think that makes WW superior, I tend to see it as two sides of the same coin, since most of the intrigue tends to be offscreen violence (true you don't kill people, you just have your assassins do it for you). FEEL D&D is heroic fantasy. You right wrongs, slay dragons, get fantastic rewards, and either die young or rescue the princess and live happily ever after. WW (especially vampire) is bleak. First you die, then it starts going downhill. You start out as a newbie member of a very violent group that kills its own for very minor infractions, and you're not privy to all the rules. worse still, if you :censored::censored::censored::censored: anyone off, or simply happen to be in your way, they are more than happy to frame you, or just have you offed. Whatsmore you have to hunt to survive, exposing you to opportunity for death every night. If none of that kills you, there are the werewolfves, hunters, mages, ghosts, dark fae, mummies, and dozens of other vampire factions that would just as soon see you dead. You must survive all of that with virtually no friends (except the other PCs, who may well be plotting against you), no experience, and either one useful power or three useless ones (one 3 dot power or three 1 dot ones). Oh, and did we bother to mention that, with each new book they publish, there is a gathering threat (I guess it's called the time of judgement for vampire) that seeks to destroy even the powerful members of your society. Throughout all this, you have to survive without compromising your ethics, or else you'll become a feral npc. And did we mention that you have to make periodic "virtue" checks or else the DM takes away your autonomy and causes you to do something wicked, and then penalizes you for it. While the "challenge" is real, and if you can survive V:tM, D&D is a peice of cake, there really aren't enough rewards in the game to make people want to play it. |
| Drindin02-07-04, 05:40 PM | Originally posted by Willie the Duck D&D was invented by two men in their early 20s. Anyway... [B]...While the "challenge" is real, and if you can survive V:tM, D&D is a peice of cake, there really aren't enough rewards in the game to make people want to play it. Uh... last sentence... clarifiy. Which system do you mean? |
| rabidpigmy02-07-04, 06:30 PM | I think it just takes a certain taste for VtM. If you love vampires (not in a I-think-I'm-a-vampire-way, though that too would apply), then there is plenty of satisfaction in playing a game about vampires. Like I said earlier though, it depends on the ST too, because the way the game goes is all up to the ST in the end. Adventure comes in more than one form, and that's simply that. I would love a d20 version of these games so bad. |
| Palin the Wizard02-07-04, 06:39 PM | Originally posted by Drindin Uh... last sentence... clarifiy. Which system do you mean? He means V:tM. |
| Mister Mayhem02-07-04, 06:42 PM | Sure sells a lot of books for a game which isn't rewarding to play ;) |
| Hengwrt Ellesmere02-07-04, 08:22 PM | I thought Gary and Dave were older than that when they started TSR. Ok, they probably didn't have grandkids at that point; I was confusing the younger Gygax with someone else. But what I meant was that it's actually a family-oriented game, whereas White Wolf has always aimed for more mature audiences. |
| Drindin02-07-04, 10:03 PM | Originally posted by Palin the Wizard He means V:tM. Thankee. |
| Vaalingrade Ashland02-07-04, 10:22 PM | Like I said, d20 vampire would be like the best of both worlds, but D20 dungeon crawls wouldn't be worth the strain of rolling 7-0 d10 all the time. Plus winging it in Vampire is a bloody calculus problem. |
| ManTimeForgot02-08-04, 12:45 AM | I actually prefer the versatility of the WoD most times, but I can never really find people to game with. A lot of people who turned to palladium games and White Wolf after the mishap that was second edition (I was one of these people, though for me it was the player's option which was the straw that broke the camel's back for 2ed) have returned to playing 3ed D&D. Ash might be willing to give his right ventricle for Vamp d20, but I would give my right ******** for a shot at Mage d20. The magic system was just too cool, it's too bad I have no idea where to even start with that one. And yeah high powered mages, vampires, or even in some cases werewolves would make most d20 munchkins fear for their lives. Example of Archmage in Mage the Ascension/Certain Antedeluvian Vampires: You die while I am half way across the universe from you. I blow up the continent. I step outside of time and go back to when you were still growing inside your mother's womb; I stab your mother. I like the skill system for WoD better simply because it provides what I believe to be a better approximation of a realism, while still allowing for crazy James Bondian stunts (5 in drive is you can make a yugo do tricks from a James Bond movie; I always liked the little descriptions too :) ). It's harder to min/max skills here because there are just so many. I like the WoD emphasis on backgrounds and history. Some of the abilities in WoD actually require you to have a backstory. That is great. I would kill to play under a DM who actually required people to write up backgrounds for their characters in D&D and then actually made use of it in play. Some of the WW games I played in (with backgrounds of course) the ST actually had one of the bad guys kidnap family members and use them as leverage. That is something I have NEVER seen in D&D; it just seems like all the heroes of D&D or orphans or something. But most of all I like the versatility of flavor. Vampire has certain themes which have to remain constant because of the nature of the character (vampires are dead after all, and this needs to be kept secret), when it comes to Mage and Changeling there really isn't any kind of limitation on what kind of campaign can be held. Heroic fantasy campaigns can be held using Mage or Changeling (though Changeling at times seems a bit "too" fanciful) though not quite as easily as D&D. And that to me seems the crux of it. D&D is easier. With less versatility D&D is much easier to grasp, and it is very easy to just sit down and play D&D. You roll up your character, and it is orc stomping time. First and foremost I blame societal acceptance of masculine violence, but secondly I blame the ease of violence in D&D for the reason why paladin threads about "Can I torch the hobgoblin babies after pillaging their village, sowing their fields with salt, and slaughtering their menfolk down to the last man?" On a different note: I defend D&D's decision to put in social skills on a certain level. It certainly makes no sense to punish someone for their lack of social skills. But I think it was a mistake to make the social skills mechanical in basis; this makes the game way oversimplified IMO and leads to abuse (social munchkins who get their diplomacy score to +24 at level 5). Personally I would create a skill which duplicates how my gaming group uses diplomacy and the like. Instead of diplomacy have a reaction modifier called eloquence, which is a static modifier determining how "cool/eloquent/persuasive" a persons speech sounds; this way you still have to say what you want said, but then the DM can take into account how much more "eloquent" it sounds. Then create something similar for bluff (maybe a believability score) and possibly something for intimidate (Though I think the intimidate mechanic is alright since it is resisted by will save and fearless people are immune). Sense motive is fine because reading people is a skill of sorts. If I could have the versatility of the WoD and the ease of use of D&D I think I would find it difficult to choose between eating (maybe even water too) and roleplaying. Thank You all and have a nice day. Signed, The Man Time Forgot |
| Vaalingrade Ashland02-08-04, 01:01 AM | Originally posted by ManTimeForgot [B]Ash might be willing to give his right ventricle for Vamp d20, but I would give my right ******** for a shot at Mage d20. The magic system was just too cool, it's too bad I have no idea where to even start with that one. Oh, yeah. Do whatever you want with your Spheres, but Paradox (not the Wizo) may slap you into next week. :D I would kill to play under a DM who actually required people to write up backgrounds for their characters in D&D and then actually made use of it in play. Some of the WW games I played in (with backgrounds of course) the ST actually had one of the bad guys kidnap family members and use them as leverage. *raises hand* Yo. Family, friends, retired PCs (with permission) parts of thier being (HA! I stole her half dragon template!). When your BBEG is a limited omniscient, everyone's fair game. |
| Escef02-08-04, 05:01 AM | So which is better? Well, my preference in game mechanics is 3e. The real problem I have with Vampire (and WW in particular) is that the game is made with a specific setting in mind, and I've never heard of any group using the WoD game mechanics for any other style or setting of game play. D20 system, heck D&D itself, is designed assuming that you won't use the base setting. Between homebrews, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, et al people playing in Greyhawk probably make up less than 15% of the D&D community (no research to back this up, sorry). In the end, however, the game being fun and/or combat oriented is about the interection between the players and the DM/ST. I have never played WoD with a decent ST. But I've DMed games in my homebrew D&D worlds where two sessions in a row the dice weren't even touched. I've also heard of games of V:tM that were powergaming combat fests. It's about the group as a whole, not the books. |
| Uberman02-09-04, 04:59 AM | First some background: I've been playing D&D for a few years more than V:TM. I currently am in a D&D Campaign every Friday, and a V:TM chronicle that runs every Saturday (Tabletop, not LARP... though the term "tabletop" in this case would be more acurately referred to as "group of couches around table full of munchies/Pop"). Now, having given my 'credentials', I must say that I love both of the systems, for different reasons. DND is more combat oriented, but you still get (if the group's into it) a lot of Roleplaying experience (no pun intended) V:TM, on the other hand, is a 'storytelling' game, meant for doing stuff with as little dice rolling as possible, but again it depends on the group. I play both systems with the same group, the DND ends up being about 70% combat 30% roleplaying, while the V:TM is more like 30% combat, 70% RPing. I've actually played D&D games where no dice were touched for 3 sessions, and also V:TM sessions that were entirely Combat. Another point is that the D&D system(3ed) is a lot more fleshed out, whereas the V:TM system is a lot more open to interpretation. I guess in the end t all depends on what you're looking for and who you're playing with. I don't really have a preference, and I don't think either of them is 'inherently' better at anything than the other is. Hope that helped. |
| StormKnight02-10-04, 01:40 PM | In many ways, D&D is about rules while Vampire is about Story. The D&D core rules are mostly (and in great length) devoted to precise mechanics, numbers and game effects, with extensive rules covering as many circumstances as possible. Combat is approached from a wargame point of view, with complex rules covering areas of effect and board based tactical movement. By contrast, the Vampire rules focus on creating a game framework around a story. Rules cover the basics of task resolution and leave the circumstance details to the players. Combat is approached from a dramatic point of view, with simple rules to give players tactical choices but mainly to focus on exciting and fast-paced fights. Within its core rules, D&D covers a wider variety of abilities and powers (mostly spells in the case of D&D). With minimal changes it is suitable for most medieval-fantasy environments. However, adding to the existing material is complicated and clearly defined. A new class must have 20 different levels on bonuses and abilities added for it and thought it with regard to balance without any clear guidelines. Vampire covers a smaller range of abilities. Extending it beyond its boundaries will require work in terms of defining new abilities. However, adding new material is fairly simple seach each ability can be considered on its own. To add a new vampire clan, for example, one would simply need to choose a clan bonus attribute, pick which clan disciplines they receive, and choose a clan weakness. To say that each game requires a certain theme is misleading. A vampire game need not be all that dark or angsty; when I played heavily, my group definetely played in more of a "World of Kinda Shadowy" rather than World of Darkness - while there were issues about dealing with being vampires and fighting the "beast within", essentially the game was about fighting a secret war against evil forces. I'm sure many D&D players of evil campaigns have much darker games. Each game does lend itself best to a certain style. There just isn't much point in using D&D to play a heavily roleplaying based game; all of those massive volumes of combat rules and wide array of abilities with precisely defined combat effects are going to waste if not being used. On the flip side, trying to run heavy tactical fights in Vampire will likely be a source of frustration, as there simply aren't the precision of rules to cover it. One of the nice things about D&D is that it supports multiple worlds with a consistent rules set. However, while other D20 systems exist it is debatable that they are compatible - since other D20 systems have system differences and style differences that lead to incongruitites. While Vampire has a consistent rules set across multiple games, it also fails to be truly compatible; each type of character often has slightly different tweaks that often make it hard to combine the two, even though they are meant to be set in the same worlds! Further, through its first several games, White Wolf's combat system seemed to change every version with little consistency. As I quit buying products some time ago, I am not sure whether they have established any consistency. In my experience I have found it much easier to introduce new players to Vampire than to D&D. The Storyteller rules system is more consistent and simpler, with straightforward meaning behind values and die rolls. Character creation is a simple process and does not require lots of reference to charts or rules - for a player of even a little experience character creation can be accomplished without even referring to the rule book. The game system is fast to play and intuitive - however, it relies heavily on the GM. A game of Vampire with a GM who does not know or have confidence in her rules ability will bog down regardless of the players, while a GM with a good rules ability can keep a running smoothly even if the players don't know the rules at all. In D&D, with a group of inexperienced players a GM will be hard pressed to manage all the rules details that the players do not know. In my opinion, when Vampire was originally introduced it made a landmark change in Role Playing games that was previously unaddressed in well known RPGs; the focus shift from stats to story. By writing a rulebook specifically aimed from this vantage, they played for a different paradigm and style to RPGs. The original Vampire also made a huge contribution to the roleplaying community by choosing to attempt to bring in female gamers, rather than actively trying to exclude them as many games (such as D&D) had done for years. By choosing to present material in a non-sexist fashion and writing it as they clearly intended women to play, they helped lower barriers that years of sexist gaming had raised. This was supported by the clear association with the Anne Rice vampire novels which are popular among female readers. As regards Vampire being a "mature" system, I believe this has shifted drastically over its existence. Originally, Vampire was "mature" because it chose to deal with themes such as morality and love, and because the storytelling style was more complicated than the fairly straightforward wargame style of D&D. However, as the game progressed they chose to shift this focus to considering "mature" to mean that their books would be filled with blood, gore, nudity, and similar material. They actually became far more immature and unsuited and unappealing to genuinely mature players. They ruined their appeal as a mature game, cut their attempts to bring in female gamers, and generally lost all the respect I had for them. I do not know how the system or company has changed in recent years, so I do not know how true any of these statements are about their current product line. |
| BlackwhipsAngel02-10-04, 02:55 PM | Does anyone know if there is a d20 conversion of the World of Darkness? Yes there is. Its not the World of Darkness parsay but there is a d20 game that has Vampire, Changlings, Werewolves, and all the rest in it including dragons, spys, psyonists. (hay cant have Changlings with out dragons). It D20 Modern...Yes I do believe that is the title of the game. |
| Vix Damnul02-10-04, 03:49 PM | WW has put out a fair number of other settings, actually, among them aberrant, trinity, adventure, and exalted. Those are only the ones i have direct knowledge of and/or own. Same basic rules, only differences are specific powers and the backdrop. As exalted is a high-fantasy heroic thing, it compares favorably to dnd, at least for me. |
| Hengwrt Ellesmere02-10-04, 03:51 PM | I guess what I'm looking for is a set of d20 Modern stats that approximate vampires, werewolves, etc. as they appear in White Wolf. D&D's vampires and werewolves are more suited to being monsters than characters. So I'd like a template progression for being a Ventrue or a Shadowlord, for instance. Actually, I've heard that White Wolf is ending the World of Darkness line for Storyteller. Maybe it's because they're making more money off d20 books now. If this is the case, I'd love to see them do a WoD d20 setting. |
| Mister Mayhem02-10-04, 03:54 PM | Originally posted by Vix Damnul WW has put out a fair number of other settings, actually, among them aberrant, trinity, adventure, and exalted. Not to mention the somewhat bizzare "Hol", probably the only commercial RPG to be presented in Handwritten form. |
| Spongly02-11-04, 07:33 AM | Originally posted by Hengwrt Ellesmere Actually, I've heard that White Wolf is ending the World of Darkness line for Storyteller. Maybe it's because they're making more money off d20 books now. If this is the case, I'd love to see them do a WoD d20 setting. Hmm, well actually, from what I can tell, they're basically just using it as an excuse to do all of the Storyteller games all over again, presumably with more major differences than they could ever introduce with edition changes. |
| Big Dawg02-11-04, 11:09 AM | In many ways, D&D is about rules while Vampire is about Story. The D&D core rules are mostly (and in great length) devoted to precise mechanics, numbers and game effects, with extensive rules covering as many circumstances as possible. Combat is approached from a wargame point of view, with complex rules covering areas of effect and board based tactical movement. By contrast, the Vampire rules focus on creating a game framework around a story. Rules cover the basics of task resolution and leave the circumstance details to the players. Combat is approached from a dramatic point of view, with simple rules to give players tactical choices but mainly to focus on exciting and fast-paced fights. EXACTLY You really can't compaire them. There are more differences then similarities. D&D is more complex with much more rules the Vampire. Vampire tends to be more ROLEplaying, storyteller discretion on rules, and sociel situations rather then combat based and the book says X so I can do X as in D&D. The dice pools are awesome if you understand how to use them. It's not hard to figure out but as soon as you compare to the D20 your gonna get screwed up. It's nothing like D20. Throw D20 out the window when you play vampire. another huge difference is One system is based on completely made up worlds. The other is based on real life history. Arch Bishop Artimus - Clan Losombra |
| Willie the Duck02-12-04, 06:52 PM | Originally posted by Big Dawg another huge difference is One system is based on completely made up worlds. The other is based on real life history. Arch Bishop Artimus - Clan Losombra [/B] I hope you aren't implying Vampire has any relation to real world history. The attempts at mythology and history in the entire White Wolf line are attrocious at best. |
| Larcen2602-13-04, 11:16 AM | My thoughts on this are... I like playing D&D... I like reading about Vampire... D&D is more of a game in the traditional sense, whereas Vampire is almost like an improvisational theatre experiment. In D&D, The core of the game is that you go on adventures, fight things and come back with treasure. Mixed into all of that, on varying degrees depending on where you are and who you are with, can be some very deep and interesting roleplaying. In Vampire, the core of the game is the interaction between the vampires and the clans. The interest lies in the "politics" more than the adventure. The clans and their interactions are amazing and in far more depth than anything that I have come across in D&D. Vampire is more like a story that you can get involved in to some small degree. |
| bingers02-13-04, 11:24 AM | That totally depends on what context you want to consider it. Vampire masquerade is better live action and D&D is better table top. |
| Big Dawg02-13-04, 11:30 AM | I hope you aren't implying Vampire has any relation to real world history. The attempts at mythology and history in the entire White Wolf line are attrocious at best. I am saying that In Vampire stories play off events that happened in our real history. Crusades, roman empire, inquesition... all happen in that game. they don't in D&D. Vampire is set in our history. Know what I mean now. D&D is more of a game in the traditional sense, whereas Vampire is almost like an improvisational theatre experiment. In D&D, The core of the game is that you go on adventures, fight things and come back with treasure. Mixed into all of that, on varying degrees depending on where you are and who you are with, can be some very deep and interesting roleplaying. In Vampire, the core of the game is the interaction between the vampires and the clans. The interest lies in the "politics" more than the adventure. The clans and their interactions are amazing and in far more depth than anything that I have come across in D&D. exactly, this guy has got it. Vampire masquerade is better live action and D&D is better table top. right, Vampire is not a Combat Game. It's 80% roleplaying. |
| Adriayna02-13-04, 12:06 PM | I just want to know what class you are taking :P |