Why D&D?

[David Johansen]

One of the reasons I give for providing social rules is that it puts non-combat options on the character sheet. I'd rather have players roll out a diatribe than have one PC kill another because it's the only way to win.

 

[Faylar]

The interim GM will still bring it up...? You still play with that asshole?

Hes a personal friend. We have known each other for decades. However, I do not play with him anymore. He is one of those guys who is worth knowing, but hard to get to know.

 

[Dammit Victor]

I don't know, it just strikes me as weird people saying people my age like those apps and stuff when... honestly I couldn't care less. Hell, I was resistant to playing online for that matter until it became almost a necessity because of my work schedule and friends moving all over the place.

That's because the assholes writing those articles-- who are mostly not actually Boomers, either, but older Gen X-- really are as stupid as their lazy, ignorant, and tone-deaf articles imply that they are. Depending on how you count me (tail end of 1980), the "Millennials" that these oblivious, entitled parasitic dinosaurs are writing about aren't my generation, they're the grown children of the actual Millennial generation.

 

[Faylar]

That's because the assholes writing those articles-- who are mostly not actually Boomers, either, but older Gen X-- really are as stupid as their lazy, ignorant, and tone-deaf articles imply that they are. Depending on how you count me (tail end of 1980), the "Millennials" that these oblivious, entitled parasitic dinosaurs are writing about aren't my generation, they're the grown children of the actual Millennial generation.

Assholes that write asshole articles come from all generations and they usually do it to spur more people into being assholes just like them.
Don't kid yourself, no generation has the monopoly on assholes.

 

[Arminius]

Somehow the point of my question has been lost in this generational warfare. I was basically asking, if you are marketing an RPG, what’s the right age range to target? My hypothesis is that you aren’t going to get very many “new gamers” in their late 20s. By that time they’re either ex-gamers, never-will-be gamers, or a shrinking group of long-timers.*

If you want to go head to head with D&D you should target 12-14 year-olds, is my hypothesis. That has a lot of implications for rules length and complexity, as well as theme and content.

*There will be exceptions of course.

 

[Faylar]

Somehow the point of my question has been lost in this generational warfare. I was basically asking, if you are marketing an RPG, what’s the right age range to target? My hypothesis is that you aren’t going to get very many “new gamers” in their late 20s. By that time they’re either ex-gamers, never-will-be gamers, or a shrinking group of long-timers.*

If you want to go head to head with D&D you should target 12-14 year-olds, is my hypothesis. That has a lot of implications for rules length and complexity, as well as theme and content.

*There will be exceptions of course.

Well, from a marketing standpoint, you always want to target the DINKS (Dual income no kids) So probably early to mid 20s. These are the people with disposable income and time. So they will pay for the supplements and other periphanelia that you would be peddling with your core product.

From a gamer standpoint, that's trickier. You go for the older crowd, you need to cater to nostalgia and niches. You cater to the newer crowd and you will probably be contending with the illusion of gaming from folks like Mercer.

I'd say make the game you want and market as it is. (Im no expert at all on this though)

 

[EmperorNorton]

I will say also that at 12-14 my patience for rules complexity was probably much much higher than it is now.

 

[Séadna]

Count me interested. I've never seen it handled in a satisfactory manner although I concede that it is absolutely possible with a bro-tier group of players.


That's pretty much my experience with PvP conflict. Nothing terrible like some of the examples cited but unsatisfactory, annoying, and uninteresting.

My brother and I played a game of Vampire where we were at end game trying to become Prince and went to war with each other. He ended up assassinating my char and it was great fun, but of course we know each other well.

 

[Ladybird]

Ah that is why I much prefer indoctrinating my own players rather than recruiting people who already roleplay.

I love GMing Advanced Fighting Fantasy because rulings are so easy. Yes / Roll a special skill / Roll SKILL / Roll LUCK / No, work your way down the list until one feels right. Could I spend ages working something out, yes, would it be better than my fallback list, probably not.

The decision tree for OD&D may be similar - Yes / Hit roll / Saving throw / x-in-y / No - but due to how many abilities are set by class, it feels less like the character is getting a chance to be responsible for their success.

 

[CRKrueger]

It's a traditional rpg system and not narrative in any way.

Incorrect.

A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying pg. 161
Yielding
You may choose to yield in order to choose the outcome of your defeat. If you fear imminent defeat, you may, on your turn, offer the Narrator terms by which your character will go down to defeat, including the outcome. So for example, you can offer to have your character defeated and left unconscious or taken for ransom. The Narrator has the option of accepting your terms, making a counter-offer, or rejecting them. If you reject the Narrator's counter-offer, you cannot yield.

Destiny & Defeat
You may also burn a Destiny Point to choose a fate other than the one your opponent chooses for you. If your family is particularly poor, you might choose maiming or death over a ransom. Similarly, if your opponent would see you dead, you might opt for unconsciousness in-stead.



When you and the GM start bargaining OOC to decide the narrative of what happens to your character when you’re defeated and Yield, it’s pretty much the definition of Narrative play.

Spending a Destiny point to say “no, they didn’t choose to ransom me, they maimed me instead” is textbook Narrative Control.

It doesn’t have a central core Narrative mechanic that governs all play, but saying it’s not Narrative in any way is patently false.

 

[T. Foster]

The trick IMO is to make the game look like it's being marketed to adults in their 20s and 30s while really being marketed at the 12-14 set. Kids that age don't like being condescended to or treated like kids, they want to be taken seriously and think they're adults. D&D and AD&D c. 1978-82 were very good at this (as were other rpgs of that era like Traveller and RuneQuest) - when I was reading and playing those games as a 13-14 year old I felt like I was doing something really sophisticated and adult-like. It stoked my little pretentious teenage ego. When TSR in the later 80s caved to the "angry mothers from heck" and started making their products more obviously safe and kid-friendly it was off-putting to my 15-16 year old tastes, and I assume I'm not the only one. Yes, I know that plenty of people did still get into D&D in the late 80s and early 90s, but not as many as had a decade earlier, and I think the success of White Wolf's games in this period is illustrative because they caught the same "transgressive" faux-adult flavor that D&D had earlier - V:tM looked and felt like it was made for cool urban Goth 20-somethings, which made nerdy suburban teenagers want to be a part of it. White Wolf gained market share at TSR's expense in the 90s because it took over the mantle of being the "adult" game.

The reasons for "secretly" targeting the 12-14 cohort are pretty obvious. They've got tons of free time (they can't drive yet, don't have real jobs (paper routes and babysitting excepted), and probably aren't dating - at least not the nerdy bookish ones) so they're ripe to get deep into the weeds and become obsessively devoted fans. They've also got a decent amount of disposable income (from that paper route and babysitting money and not yet having any adult expenses) and are at an impressionable enough age that if you gain their loyalty they're likely to become lifelong fans. The demographic seems to have genuinely changed now with 5E, but I'm firmly convinced that the d20 boom c. 2000-2001 was driven almost entirely by the exact same people who drove the original boom c. 1981-82 - that the 12-14 year olds of that era were being driven by the 20-year nostalgia cycle to pick the game up again in their 30s.

But the trick is, in order to hook those 12-14 year olds, you need just enough real adult fans to serve as cover (and perhaps not so many weird-seeming 40- and 50-somethings to make it seem like a lame Dad (or even Granddad) activity).

EDIT: Which makes me wonder what the real demographics of the current 5E fanbase are - the most visible cohort is definitely Millennial 20- and 30-somethings, but I wonder if that's truly representative or if it's the tip of the iceberg hiding a bunch of 12-14 year old kids on the one hand and a bunch of 40-50-something dads (i.e. that same early 80s cohort) on the other. I'm so far outside the current scene that I don't have any real sense of this at all - from my outsider perspective it looks like D&D is primarily popular among hip, urban 20-30-somethings, but of course given everything I said in the previous 3 paragraphs that's exactly what WotC would want it to look like, whether or not the actual sales figures bear that out.

 

[Arminius]

“paper routes”

 

[T. Foster]

Which occurs to me - delivering newspapers and babysitting were pretty much the go-to options for entrepreneurially-minded early-teenagers in the 70s & 80s. I assume the former has pretty much gone away, but is babysitting still a thing (pre-COVID, obviously)? If not, is there something else that those early-teens do to earn spending money, or is that not even a concern anymore (because everything is purchased online via their parents' credit cards)? When I was that age we would ride our bikes to the mall once a week and buy some junk food and comic books and a D&D module, or maybe a video game cartridge or cassette tape. I assume that kids today are doing something analogous, but neither being nor being the parent of one, I don't know exactly what it is.

 

[Arminius]

Joking aside, I agree with T T. Foster but:

a) The modern trade dress and style of D&D seems a little more kiddo than AD&D 1e and Traveller were. That might be a vulnerability someone could exploit.

b) OTOH I have the impression that the biggest cohort of “lifers” are from the Mentzer or 2e era. And those traded some of the appearance of sophistication and dangerousness for Toys ‘R’ Us friendliness.

c) I forget what (c) is because I’m from the White Box/1e era.

 

[Voros]

Do we actually know that kids these days don't like things clearly aimed at them or are we just projecting our own (often deeply contradictory) previously-tween viewpoints onto the current generation?

I don't get the sense these days there is the same sense of stigma on being into 'kid' things as when we were kids. If that were true how would we have so many adults reading YA fiction so rabidly?

I recall there also being a significant shift between 8-10 and say 11-13, so one may need to be more specific about the age range intended.

I certainly recall the stigma vs. 'kid stuff' being often absurd in the 80s. I remember reading a comic book when I was 10 and one of my brother's girlfriends who was only a year older was visiting the house asked 'Why are you reading a comic? Those are for little kids.'

Surprisingly I had the presence of mind to reply 'I'm 10, when else would I read comics?' and go back to reading.

 

[T. Foster]

b) OTOH I have the impression that the biggest cohort of “lifers” are from the Mentzer or 2e era. And those traded some of the appearance of sophistication and dangerousness for Toys ‘R’ Us friendliness.

I've always suspected that cohort (the "Xenials" born in the late 70s-early 80s - who would've gotten into the hobby in the late 80s-early 90s) is over-represented online compared to their actual numbers because they were the first online-native generation - so they started talking about 2E and BECMI on Usenet and AOL in the 90s as teenagers and never really stopped. I also suspect fans of those versions tend to be more vocal advocates because they've got a lingering inferiority complex over being looked down upon and made fun of by the older 1E-era kids. Watch what still to this day happens when a BECMI/RC fan sees an AD&D fan dismiss their version as "kiddie D&D" ;)

EDIT: It also seems like the "geek stigma" of D&D was at its height in that era. There was a noticeable shift around that time where mainstream references to D&D went from being either "it's just a thing kids are into" (like in E.T. or Taps) or "it's Satanic" to "it's only for the nerdiest of nerds" (like this SNL sketch from 1994 - skip to about 5:00 in) - which maybe also instilled some additional "us against them" esprit de corps among the fans who stuck it out in spite of that. D&D didn't really have that sort of stigma in the 70s-early 80s (it had a different stigma for being Satanic, but if anything that made it more appealing to most kids) and nowadays "geek stigma" doesn't even seem to really exist anymore as almost everything that was once considered geeky is now mainstream, but I can't imagine it was easy being a teenage D&D fan in the 90s when the brand's only presence in the mainstream was as a punchline and metonymy for hopeless dorkiness.

 

[Dumarest]

My brother and I played a game of Vampire where we were at end game trying to become Prince and went to war with each other. He ended up assassinating my char and it was great fun, but of course we know each other well.

Honestly, I don't even need to know your brother to know you never had a chance at becoming Prince.

​

 

[Vargold]

I mean, OK, university town, anecdote != data, and all that, but my youngest (who is about to turn 10) goes to an elementary school full of 3rd, 4th, and 5th graders playing 5E.

 

[Arminius]

Do we actually know that kids these days don't like things clearly aimed at them or are we just projecting our own (often deeply contradictory) previously-tween viewpoints onto the current generation?

I don't get the sense these days there is the same sense of stigma on being into 'kid' things as when we were kids. If that were true how would we have so many adults reading YA fiction so rabidly

Of course, and good point. I’m pretty sure my (c) was going to be the evident change in style from 70s-80s “action” cartoons to the modern Cartoon Network look. I’m not crazy about the dominance of the latter, or the seeming approach these days of deliberately highlighting pastiche elements, but there’s no denying its popularity.

Tangentially related, I don’t think my neighborhood school scene was “cool” enough to look down on geeks, or maybe I was just oblivious, but of all places, going to an Ivy League school in the mid-80s, I remember an occasion when a friend and I were mocked for reading comic books while chilling in a common area. I don’t think that would happen today, at least I hope not.

 

[Fenris-77]

Ugh, my suburban Catholic high school was not the place to be a geek in the early 90s.

 

[Ladybird]

Joking aside, I agree with T T. Foster but:

a) The modern trade dress and style of D&D seems a little more kiddo than AD&D 1e and Traveller were. That might be a vulnerability someone could exploit.

I'm not sure that's much of an issue any more. Fortnite and Minecraft aren't exactly hyper-mature in their art style but they are both still huge amongst kids. Modern D&D also shares similar aesthetics with a lot of games targeted at slightly more mature kids.

 

[Brock Savage]

Ugh, my suburban Catholic high school was not the place to be a geek in the early 90s.

I feel ya. I grew up in a tough working class neighborhood that was 80-90% Hispanic; not exactly fertile ground for D&D kids. I ended up being one of those weird 8-12 year olds who played AD&D with teens and adults.

Funny that I looked down at B/X as the kiddie version back in the day but now I think it is the superior version.

 

[AsenRG]

I have to disagree there. How many people playing fighters can boast the strength or prowess of a fighter?

I hear it's popular in the army...a lot?

How many can cast spells?

I only know of Pundit!

Pick Locks?

More than would admit to it, and some that would.

We role play to be different, we are always playing outside our capacity.

Not "always", but happens a lot, yeah. And some people roleplay a version of themselves...

Social interactions should be no different.

Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.
All my attempts of "letting a socially unaware player play a socialite that outplays the socially aware ones" having crashed and burned, I'm no longer looking for a way to do that. I just consider it a fool's errand, unless you decide to hamper artificially the socially more aware players.
So I'm looking for an explanation why it's different. And my best answer so far is simply, "because roleplaying takes the form of a conversational exercise in decision-making, filtered by the lens of a made-up character that we treat as fully real, and thus is inherently influenced by the other abilities the player has".

I mean, you think if you play with an Army/Marines/Whatever vet the guy wouldn't know small-unit tactics better than you? You think that wouldn't work for him?
You think if you play with a martial artist or someone with experience in street bralws, the guy wouldn't know man-to-man tactics better than you? You think that wouldn't work for him?
Or do you think if you play with someone like Pundit the guy wouldn't know occultism better than you? You think that wouldn't work for him, even if he just plays a Fighting Man?
Hell, I've played with a guy who makes heavy use of his ability to craft items (from wood and metal) in-game. And it really helps him.

In other words, roleplayers of the first generations had it right, IMO. If you don't know about pike wall tactics, and the game you play features those, go read a book. The same applies to everything, social skills included.
Even if we believe it "shouldn't work like that", it does.

I was one of those weird 8-12 year olds who played AD&D with teens and adults. I grew up in a tough working class neighborhood that was 80-90% Hispanic; not exactly fertile ground for D&D kids. Funny that I looked down at B/X as the kiddie version back in the day but now I think it is the superior version.

I still think you had it right back then!

What were those early sessions right? And did you use the Weapon vs Armour tables?

 

[Fenris-77]

I feel ya. I grew up in a tough working class neighborhood that was 80-90% Hispanic; not exactly fertile ground for D&D kids. I ended up being one of those weird 8-12 year olds who played AD&D with teens and adults.

Funny that I looked down at B/X as the kiddie version back in the day but now I think it is the superior version.

Yeah, my school was all soccer players and slicked back hair. When I started grade nine I was the only dude in the school with a pony tail, other than the hippie in grade 13 that sold everyone pot. I spent way more time at my FLGS than I did at school, and like you, a lot of my gaming friends were older. Rough times.

 

[Faylar]

I hear it's popular in the army...a lot?

I only know of Pundit!

More than would admit to it, and some that would.


Not "always", but happens a lot, yeah. And some people roleplay a version of themselves...

Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are.
All my attempts of "letting a socially unaware player play a socialite that outplays the socially aware ones" having crashed and burned, I'm no longer looking for a way to do that. I just consider it a fool's errand, unless you decide to hamper artificially the socially more aware players.
So I'm looking for an explanation why it's different. And my best answer so far is simply, "because roleplaying takes the form of a conversational exercise in decision-making, filtered by the lens of a made-up character that we treat as fully real, and thus is inherently influenced by the other abilities the player has".

I mean, you think if you play with an Army/Marines/Whatever vet the guy wouldn't know small-unit tactics better than you? You think that wouldn't work for him?
You think if you play with a martial artist or someone with experience in street bralws, the guy wouldn't know man-to-man tactics better than you? You think that wouldn't work for him?
Or do you think if you play with someone like Pundit the guy wouldn't know occultism better than you? You think that wouldn't work for him, even if he just plays a Fighting Man?
Hell, I've played with a guy who makes heavy use of his ability to craft items (from wood and metal) in-game. And it really helps him.

In other words, roleplayers of the first generations had it right, IMO. If you don't know about pike wall tactics, and the game you play features those, go read a book. The same applies to everything, social skills included.
Even if we believe it "shouldn't work like that", it does.



I still think you had it right back then!

What were those early sessions right? And did you use the Weapon vs Armour tables?

You are speaking of metagaming, which is something that should not influence your role play experience.
I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I really can't agree with your POV on this.

 

[AsenRG]

Very obnoxious indeed. I have noticed an annoying trend among garbage-tier GMs where they treat social skills as if they were spells.

Those two might be related...

I think the main issue is that people use PvP as a safe way to air personal grievances that they may not have otherwise aired.

My bad experience with this was in High School. We were playing Shadowrun and I had an Elven Magic-Adept. She was pretty cool imo, and I enjoyed the character a lot. She was a long surviving character in the campaign, and as such, being a magician, she got hella powerful.
One day, the normal GM was sick, so we allowed another player to fill in for him. That player used the time to boost their character, go on a powertrip and introduce new toys that are not otherwise in the game (recoiless rifles) He then encouraged violence against my character which another mage obliged with. they ended up mob minding a large group of npcs to capture me, ti me to a truck and rape me. I was given no chance to defend myself and it was all narrated by the GM.
Despite the original GM making it all not happen as of the next session, I was not able to fully play that character again and to this day, the interim GM will still bring it up saying, "come one man, that was funny, and it did happen!"

Its fucking ridiculous that people think shit like this is okay and still do it at tables as an adult.
Its also why I am firmly no hostile action against other players or player character's loved ones.

"You do stuff like that because it's what your characters would do. I kill your characters off in painful ways because that's what my character would do in return!"
Also, I'm sorry you got to play with pricks like these, and I'm saying this despite my personal dislike of both elves and magic-users.

 

[Arminius]

I only know of Pundit!

Venger Satanis ?

 

[TJS]

Incorrect.

A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying pg. 161
Yielding
You may choose to yield in order to choose the outcome of your defeat. If you fear imminent defeat, you may, on your turn, offer the Narrator terms by which your character will go down to defeat, including the outcome. So for example, you can offer to have your character defeated and left unconscious or taken for ransom. The Narrator has the option of accepting your terms, making a counter-offer, or rejecting them. If you reject the Narrator's counter-offer, you cannot yield.

Destiny & Defeat
You may also burn a Destiny Point to choose a fate other than the one your opponent chooses for you. If your family is particularly poor, you might choose maiming or death over a ransom. Similarly, if your opponent would see you dead, you might opt for unconsciousness in-stead.



When you and the GM start bargaining OOC to decide the narrative of what happens to your character when you’re defeated and Yield, it’s pretty much the definition of Narrative play.

Spending a Destiny point to say “no, they didn’t choose to ransom me, they maimed me instead” is textbook Narrative Control.

It doesn’t have a central core Narrative mechanic that governs all play, but saying it’s not Narrative in any way is patently false.

Shrug. It’s my post so I get to use my arbitrary definition and not yours.

 

[CRKrueger]

Shrug. It’s my post so I get to use my arbitrary definition and not yours.

True, you can ignore obvious, textbook Narrative mechanics and tell people the game isn’t Narrative in any way.

Someone buys the game based on that description though, you‘ve done them a disservice.

 

[TJS]

True, you can ignore obvious, textbook Narrative mechanics and tell people the game isn’t Narrative in any way.

Someone buys the game based on that description though, you‘ve done them a disservice.

Well I did say that the end of the post that the game was not playtested and explained how I would I use something else.

So maybe someone considering the game would take that as a clue.

But this is the second time in which you've gone beyond arguing with a post to moralising I should somehow feel guilty for posting it. That's really acting like dick, so I'm going to stick you on the ignore list so I don't have to deal with this shit again.

 

[CRKrueger]

Well I did say that the end of the post that the game was not playtested and explained how I would I use something else.

So maybe someone considering the game would take that as a clue.

But this is the second time in which you've gone beyond arguing with a post to moralising I should somehow feel guilty for posting it. That's really acting like dick, so I'm going to stick you on the ignore list so I don't have to deal with this shit again.

I think calling a game “not narrative in any way” when any combat ending in PC defeat opens up a host of Narrative Control choices to be a misrepresentation. I also don’t think you’re a dick for doing that, but someone who gets the game on that misrepresentation very well might.

In any case, I don’t think you should feel guilty, but if you’re characterizing me as “moralizing”, maybe you do.

 

[Fenris-77]

True, you can ignore obvious, textbook Narrative mechanics and tell people the game isn’t Narrative in any way.

Someone buys the game based on that description though, you‘ve done them a disservice.

The GoT RPG does have some narrative elements, for sure, but it's not exactly PbtA either, is it. So no, it's not 'not narrative in any way' but neither is it a whole hog narrative game. I'd call it middle ground in the way that a lit of RPGs are that are maybe more traditional in implementation but also include a soupcon of narrative rules so they can hang with the cool kids.

 

[Brock Savage]

Pardon my ignorance but can someone explain the whole traditional versus narrative thing?

 

[Fenris-77]

Pardon my ignorance but can someone explain the whole traditional versus narrative thing?

I would, but it's not really two things more than it is two somewhat imaginary positions.

 

[Brock Savage]

I would, but it's not really two things more than it is two somewhat imaginary positions.

Doesn't even have to be a explanation, a link would suffice. Obviously I can Google but in this case I prefer to start with a Pubber recommendation AND work from there.

 

[under_score]

Whatever his abrasive mess, Kreuger's in character/out of character is a good, and consistent, definition

 

[Fenris-77]

Doesn't even have to be a explanation, a link would suffice. Obviously I can Google but in this case I prefer to start with a Pubber recommendation then work from there.

At the risk of rubbing someone's rhubarb because their definition is different than mine, I'll give it a shot. Generally RPG exist on a spectrum, with simulationist at one end and natrrativist at the other. Broadly speaking the goal of a simulationist game is to model a consistent diagetic environment, while narrative games put their focus on moving the game through a narrative. It's really not that simple though. That basic description makes narrative games sound railroady, but they arent. FATE is a narrative game for instance, whole D&D is simulationist. A lot of people get hung hung up in the details of the two, or in particular things they tend to do or not do.

 

[Brock Savage]

At the risk of rubbing someone's rhubarb because their definition is different than mine, I'll give it a shot. Generally RPG exist on a spectrum, with simulationist at one end and natrrativist at the other. Broadly speaking the goal of a simulationist game is to model a consistent diagetic environment, while narrative games put their focus on moving the game through a narrative. It's really not that simple though. That basic description makes narrative games sound railroady, but they arent. FATE is a narrative game for instance, whole D&D is simulationist. A lot of people get hung hung up in the details of the two, or in particular things they tend to do or not do.

Thanks. Without knowing more it sounds like it is a spectrum rather than a binary ON/OFF deal.

 

[Fenris-77]

Thanks. Without knowing more it sounds like it is a spectrum rather than a binary ON/OFF deal.

That is entirely correct.

 

[Ladybird]

Doesn't even have to be a explanation, a link would suffice. Obviously I can Google but in this case I prefer to start with a Pubber recommendation then work from there.

Okay... so as a very basic breakdown, in a traditional RPG, the player can only affect the game world through their character and their actions. Players can ask the GM for things but the GM doesn't have to listen to them.

In a narrative RPG, the player can also affect the game by saying "hey, wouldn't it be cool if..." and asking for some element to be added, a confrontation to end in a particular way, that sort of thing, and the mechanics will give them the power to do that, generally at the cost of some sort of resource or trigger.

In practice, it's a scale, with most games somewhere between the two extremes. Some people don't like any narrative elements, some people like lots of narrative elements, and most people are just somewhere in the middle.