Does the player-created character have to act as party spokesperson?

[Hormalakh]

In the beginning of Arcanum, your first companion, Virgil, can be allowed to speak for you. The conversation option is [Let Virgil speak] and it was a great way for another character to speak. Of course, maybe you'd like the party member to say something else than what they've been programmed with. In any case, these sorts of things have been done in the past and can be done again. And done well.

[wanderon]

I would prefer the conversation to (snip)

 

That gives roll players options but powerlevelers can just choose the best option.

 

Wouldn't ROLL players and power levelers be the same thing?

 

(And then there are the Roleplayers of course)

 

Sorry couldn't help myself ...carry on...

[jivex5k]

What if there was a way to make none of the party members you....if that even makes sense.

I suppose for a story though there has to be a main character...I mean in BG there has to be the son of bhaal in the party.

 

But I'd like to see a game where there is no main character, just a party trying to save the world or make a buck or something.

And the party members are all inconsequential to the story, so they can all get killed or leave.

So you could end up with no one in the party and your just a floating god that observes the world and can never interact with it again.

 

That's where it all falls apart...i'm just confusing myself, but the main point is I'd like a game where no party member is essential but I don't see how that's possible.

Edited October 25, 2012 by jivex5k

[Hassat Hunter]

I do think the game will suffer if there's not atleast 1 character you bind too (preferably all in your party of course)

[Grand Heresiarch]

Sylvius, I certainly understand your point(s), but must respectfully disagree.

 

 

 

"I've always considered the dialogue options to be abstractions (like keywords in text parser dialogue systems), rather than an exact representation of what was said."

 

I find this unsatisfying. As the designers have stated (dont remember exactly who posted) dialogue options will reflect the intelligence, charisma and other stats ascribed to the character speaking. In this case, the text does represent what the speaker is saying. If it is an abstraction, this dramatically alters the storytelling power of the game.

 

 

"I don't perceive the player-created character as the player's avatar. Since the player controls the whole party, I suggest that the party, as a group, serves as the player's avatar. A sort of gestalt avatar."

 

Again, I must disagree. The player created character is the only character which presents a true tabula rasa on which the player (me) can infuse their respective values, thoughts and opinions into the game world. If the other characters are to be believable, they have to have sufficient agency (scripted AI agency) to agree or disagree with my player character's decisions. If the other party members simply serve as further mouthpieces for me, this serves to reduce their own agency, and depth as standalone characters. By this, I mean that the other characters cannot simply take over party conversations and retain their own voice without the player surrendering control of all conversations. Yes, in combat the player controls the whole party, but from a storytelling standpoint it makes the game capable of a great deal more depth if the PC is the party leader for conversations.

 

"...The player makes these decisions for the party, and how the player imagines the party is actually making these decisions within the game world is entirely up to him. There is no requirement that the PC be the one carrying out the player's instructions. Inf act, in combat, we can see how this isn't the case. Since the player retains control of the whole party, even when the PC is incapacitated, demonstrates that the player doesn't control just the one player-created character."

 

I see your logic here, but I think that players controlling combat is more of a gameplay fun decision than a storytelling one. If the companion characters were completely governed by their own AI for combat (with some player intervention), like dragon age, the tactical depth of the game is significantly diminished. But the fact that you will likely only start with your player character, and acquire companions as you progress, indicates that the player character functions as a sort of "window" into the game world. A window whose absence renders the story unintelligible.

 

Consider Baldurs Gate. If Imowen or Khalid dies, you can take them to the temple for a rez (or reform party to keep Jahera). If the player created character dies in any combat, even one your party is winning, the game is over and you are reloading to your last save.

 

I understand that you feel you should be able to create a player character that is unfit for leadership, or at least should not be the "public face" for the group. I completely understand your reasoning, but from a storytelling standpoint I think it significantly alters the depth of the companion characters if the player is able to control their mouths and thoughts. Considered another way, I have a hard time remembering every character in BG1 and 2, but I distinctly remember each in Planescape. This is because in Planescape, each companion character brought a lot of their own personality and baggage to the party, and frequently the Nameless One had to sort it all out. By placing the nameless one as the only possible lead and conversant for the party, the game allowed for a much deeper and more satisfying story than Baldurs Gate. (personal opinion, to be sure, but one that I think is not exceptionally controversial)

I really appreciate your input in this forum, you have forced me to examine why I think the way I do about how the player interacts with the game world, and presented me with an alternative view. While I am not persuaded by your view, I find it unique and refreshing.

 

Cheers!

[jethro]

I don't perceive the player-created character as the player's avatar. Since the player controls the whole party, I suggest that the party, as a group, serves as the player's avatar. A sort of gestalt avatar.

 

But he is. The player may move the whole party, but characters you find in the game (i.e. not created by you in the adventures guild) have their own personalities and voices. Apart from the lines that don't fit the character you have the problem that companion x might be scripted to intervene into your conversation. If you put companion x as speaker, he would interrupt himself. Sure, even that can be handled, but it gets more and more complicated. This is just the wrong RPG for this type of system.

[jethro]

I'd like if I could use other party members to speak, else you'd pretty much need a high cha high int character to get the "best" conversations.

 

Didn't Obsidian tell us in one of the first kickstarter updates, that they were planning to have a separate progression in non-combat skills (for example social skills) and combat skills? I really hope they didn't drop that or just use it for stealth and lockpicking.

 

So even if you are a fighter, you could give him excellent speech skills in exchange for lockpicking. But without compromising your combat skill advancement. Or a wizard that is very good at mechanically reciting spells, but a social disaster.

[Frenetic Pony]

I enjoy the idea more that each character in your party is an independent character with their own motivations, meaning there's no great group cohesion where you get to choose what they do visa vis dialogue abilities.

 

If, however, a character with a relevant ability stepped in when motivated, to say something that would give you an option you wouldn't otherwise have, then that would be very cool.

 

Example: Your hyper intelligent wizard is in your party, and has a higher intelligence score than your character. At some point in the conversation he might butt in, saying something to the same effect that you'd get from a high int dialogue option. You can then either tell him "great idea!" or "shove off" if you want to accept or reject that option, with the appropriate consequences. You'd get the benefits of your party, but also the restrictions of only getting them when the appropriate party member agrees with that dialogue option, AND you keep the whole "idiot" dialogue tree intact, as well as any other personalized stat based trees there might be; such as the low charisma score options, where your only choices are to call people ugly gits and say that you slep with their mum.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Frenetic Pony

[FlintlockJazz]

I don't perceive the player-created character as the player's avatar. Since the player controls the whole party, I suggest that the party, as a group, serves as the player's avatar. A sort of gestalt avatar.

 

But he is. The player may move the whole party, but characters you find in the game (i.e. not created by you in the adventures guild) have their own personalities and voices. Apart from the lines that don't fit the character you have the problem that companion x might be scripted to intervene into your conversation. If you put companion x as speaker, he would interrupt himself. Sure, even that can be handled, but it gets more and more complicated. This is just the wrong RPG for this type of system.

 

And yet you usually have total control of your party members in every other facet of the game, enabling you to make that holier than thou paladin to kill innocent children. I see nothing wrong with getting party members to talk for you, it's like asking the party bard to go over and seduce someone for you.

[Hassat Hunter]

They could easily make it based on your influence with party members.

 

PC does all the talking, however if his skill is low for a check, a character who does can chime in... IF he likes the player enough.

A NPC disliking the player might even use his knowledge of the skill to screw up the conversation instead without the players knowledge.

 

Not sure how feasible it would be to intergrate it though...

[Hormalakh]

If we want to play a game with multiple party members under the player control (unlike fallout or arcanum) then it would be best if the devs made sure to let us know their motivations. This would be easily done if they chime in whenever possible. As we know more about how they react to certain dialogue, that gives us more of an idea of how they are. Thus for thos of us who like to role-play them, we can RP them well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

 

I find this unsatisfying. As the designers have stated (dont remember exactly who posted) dialogue options will reflect the intelligence, charisma and other stats ascribed to the character speaking. In this case, the text does represent what the speaker is saying. If it is an abstraction, this dramatically alters the storytelling power of the game.

Yes, it makes it better.

 

Since the literal meaning doesn't change, the abstraction does affect the Intelligence angle at all, and Charisma would presumably impact only the effectiveness of the statement, which could continue to be true.

 

All the abstraction approach does is free the player's character from the shackles of whatever the writers' foibles happen to be.

Again, I must disagree. The player created character is the only character which presents a true tabula rasa on which the player (me) can infuse their respective values, thoughts and opinions into the game world. If the other characters are to be believable, they have to have sufficient agency (scripted AI agency) to agree or disagree with my player character's decisions. If the other party members simply serve as further mouthpieces for me, this serves to reduce their own agency, and depth as standalone characters. By this, I mean that the other characters cannot simply take over party conversations and retain their own voice without the player surrendering control of all conversations. Yes, in combat the player controls the whole party, but from a storytelling standpoint it makes the game capable of a great deal more depth if the PC is the party leader for conversations.

You misunderstand. I am not claiming that I am in total control of all of the party members individually. I am claiming to be in total control of the group in the aggregate.

 

When the group speaks to outsiders, I (the player) control what it says. This is how you play, as well. But you perceive it as the PC speaking rather than the party speaking. But if the PC isn't an appropriate spokesperson for the group in that instance, why would the rest of the group want him speaking? Why would a low Charisma PC be allowed to speak on behalf of high Charisma companions? It is you, I assert, you is actually controlling the companions individually, as you need somehow to have them allow this suboptimal internal group heirarchy.

 

I suggest that the group, when dealing with outsiders, speaks as a unit, and it is that full group entity who selects the dialogue options. And then, should some individual member of the party disagree with the group's direction, that individual can raise an objection.

 

Yes, the party consists of individuals, and only one of those individuals is entirely my creation, but the group is also under my control. Internally, the party members can disagree, but when dealing with outsiders they work as a unit.

I see your logic here, but I think that players controlling combat is more of a gameplay fun decision than a storytelling one. If the companion characters were completely governed by their own AI for combat (with some player intervention), like dragon age, the tactical depth of the game is significantly diminished. But the fact that you will likely only start with your player character, and acquire companions as you progress, indicates that the player character functions as a sort of "window" into the game world. A window whose absence renders the story unintelligible.

I completely reject the very idea of gameplay/story segregation. The gameplay is part of the story. To describe the two separately is nonsensical.

Consider Baldurs Gate. If Imowen or Khalid dies, you can take them to the temple for a rez (or reform party to keep Jahera). If the player created character dies in any combat, even one your party is winning, the game is over and you are reloading to your last save.

In general, I think that's poor design. I do applaud BG for at least having an in-game justification for that mechanic (the Bhaalspawn's essence was consumed upon death), but I find its necessity unfortunate.

I understand that you feel you should be able to create a player character that is unfit for leadership, or at least should not be the "public face" for the group. I completely understand your reasoning, but from a storytelling standpoint I think it significantly alters the depth of the companion characters if the player is able to control their mouths and thoughts.

I'm not claiming to be able to control their thoughts as individuals. Nor their words. But when they speak for the group, they're not speaking as individuals.

Considered another way, I have a hard time remembering every character in BG1 and 2, but I distinctly remember each in Planescape. This is because in Planescape, each companion character brought a lot of their own personality and baggage to the party, and frequently the Nameless One had to sort it all out. By placing the nameless one as the only possible lead and conversant for the party, the game allowed for a much deeper and more satisfying story than Baldurs Gate. (personal opinion, to be sure, but one that I think is not exceptionally controversial)

Whereas, I think the companions in both games are very memorable. I had a stronger connection with the BG companions, though, because I was allowed to play them.

I really appreciate your input in this forum, you have forced me to examine why I think the way I do about how the player interacts with the game world, and presented me with an alternative view. While I am not persuaded by your view, I find it unique and refreshing.

Thank you, but I'd rather you were persuaded.

[DreamDancer]

I do like the OPs line of thought as it reflects my own regarding the role of my PC in a group or in the game world in general. I too am a bit tired of always having my character be the central focus in every scene and conversation. I also don't want to always be the one guy that can save the world. As someone mentioned already in this thread, why not just have your good old traditional group of adventurers who happen to get entangled in the main story line of the world. Or not, if they choose to just stick with the side quests and exploring the world.

 

Best example for me is my "playthrough" of Fallout NV. I had tons of fun and kinda crafted my own story by creating my own caravan, hiring companions to protect me while I went exploring the world. I completed the whole map and did most of the side quests, but I did not touch the main story line. Why? Because there came a point where I felt I was forced to do things I'd never consider doing in order to progress the story line. Neither did I want to stand in the limelight, nor did I want to be the one responsible for deciding the fate of a whole region. I just wanted to be a caravan trader. With his own agenda, sure, but not special in any way or form.

 

Now the matter of my PC being the spokesperson of the group is something where I'd also like to see change. Of course I don't mind if the game revolves mostly around my player character and his actions, but not to the extent that is so common in heroic epic fantasy settings. My PC is part of a group of very capable and I am sure charismatic people. He can be their go-to person, the counselor of the party who holds the group together and who they often look up to for advice. But he doesn't need to be their spokesperson on every single occasion.

 

Why not give the PC the same options that only NPCs had before? Let's say there is this group of soldiers my group happens to come across on their travels. My PC usually being a mage/scholar would certainly look to the warrior of his group to initate and lead a conversation with them. The PC doesn't have to be completely locked out of that convo though. Why not give the PC the same option to chime in and comment, or getting asked by his companions for his opinion etc. Have a pool of appropriate answers based on the characters background and various other flags that identify him as a unique charcater.

 

If the PC absolutely has to be the leader of the group, let the spokesperson leading the conversation refer to him at the end of it, awaiting a final decision on how to proceed.

 

Dont get me wrong though. I have no issues with leading a group of people, but it would be so refreshing to be given the option to be more of a silent advisor/counselor to the group than the one always in charge.

[PsychoBlonde]

I think it'd be fun to have the opportunity to play a character who doesn't (and maybe even CAN'T) talk. I'd like to see "mute" as a background option. You'd get to see party disputes resolve without your interference, get to hear the wild-ass stuff your companions think when you don't argue with them, and get to communicate by staring people down. Could be quite fun.

 

So I'm on board with the idea of letting/making an NPC companion do the talking.

[AGX-17]

I think it'd be fun to have the opportunity to play a character who doesn't (and maybe even CAN'T) talk. I'd like to see "mute" as a background option. You'd get to see party disputes resolve without your interference, get to hear the wild-ass stuff your companions think when you don't argue with them, and get to communicate by staring people down. Could be quite fun.

 

So I'm on board with the idea of letting/making an NPC companion do the talking.

 

That's just the JRPG "silent protaganist" model. Besides, how is a mute going to effectively issue commands in the heat of battle? Not all (if any,) of your characters are going to understand what your characters' arm flailing is supposed to mean. They're not also always going to be able to see it, either. Mute protagonists have been overdone in video games simply for mechanical reasons already, it's not a thrilling new horizon in narrative design as a result.

Edited October 31, 2012 by AGX-17

[Hormalakh]

Jan Jansen and Sarevok have some interesting banter in BG2. As does Haer'Dalis and Aerie.

[jethro]

When the group speaks to outsiders, I (the player) control what it says. This is how you play, as well. But you perceive it as the PC speaking rather than the party speaking. But if the PC isn't an appropriate spokesperson for the group in that instance, why would the rest of the group want him speaking? Why would a low Charisma PC be allowed to speak on behalf of high Charisma companions? It is you, I assert, you is actually controlling the companions individually, as you need somehow to have them allow this suboptimal internal group heirarchy.

 

Please no arguments about realism. A lot of design decisions are founded on gameplay and not realism. In practically all games, because fun play is more important than realism.

 

In this game there are a few axioms that are already fixed: Your companions will have their own personality separate from you. It follows that they will not be completely under your control. Another axiom: There will be dialog choices for low charisma or low intelligence characters. It follows that not the most logical character will talk but either the one you select or simply the PC. And because of the first axiom this should be the PC.

 

The reason that you control the PCs fighting is again simply for the "fun" aspect and has nothing to do with realism or story. Its a compromise because companions who do their own fighting are just boring to play in a party RPG.

 

I completely reject the very idea of gameplay/story segregation. The gameplay is part of the story. To describe the two separately is nonsensical.

 

So the ability to save your game progress is somehow founded in the story? How does the story dictate that you can't shoot or look through a window? Why is there no concurrency of actions?

[FlintlockJazz]

When the group speaks to outsiders, I (the player) control what it says. This is how you play, as well. But you perceive it as the PC speaking rather than the party speaking. But if the PC isn't an appropriate spokesperson for the group in that instance, why would the rest of the group want him speaking? Why would a low Charisma PC be allowed to speak on behalf of high Charisma companions? It is you, I assert, you is actually controlling the companions individually, as you need somehow to have them allow this suboptimal internal group heirarchy.

 

Please no arguments about realism. A lot of design decisions are founded on gameplay and not realism. In practically all games, because fun play is more important than realism.

 

In this game there are a few axioms that are already fixed: Your companions will have their own personality separate from you. It follows that they will not be completely under your control. Another axiom: There will be dialog choices for low charisma or low intelligence characters. It follows that not the most logical character will talk but either the one you select or simply the PC. And because of the first axiom this should be the PC.

 

The reason that you control the PCs fighting is again simply for the "fun" aspect and has nothing to do with realism or story. Its a compromise because companions who do their own fighting are just boring to play in a party RPG.

 

I completely reject the very idea of gameplay/story segregation. The gameplay is part of the story. To describe the two separately is nonsensical.

 

So the ability to save your game progress is somehow founded in the story? How does the story dictate that you can't shoot or look through a window? Why is there no concurrency of actions?

 

Your speech against realism actually disproves your own point: if you are allowed to control your companions in combat because its more 'fun' then controlling them in dialogue is the same.

 

Really though, throwing accusations of realism around like its a bad thing that automatically ruins gameplay seems like a weak argument to me, and wasn't it those who were opposed to controlling other characters in dialogue the ones citing realism to begin with?

Edited November 1, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[jethro]

Your speech against realism actually disproves your own point: if you are allowed to control your companions in combat because its more 'fun' then controlling them in dialogue is the same.

 

Does it? Is it really more fun to control your characters in speeches as opposed to them talking themselves? Remember that they having their own minds is one of the big selling points of PE: That you have "living" companions (as in Bladurs Gate1/2 and PS:T) instead of cardboard figures without personality (IWD). Now if you control them in speeches that would not break realism but immersion. The player would perceive the companions more under his control, less "living" . Ergo less fun on the whole. (Fun is actually a very nebulous and subjective concept that encompasses the whole game experience, one could argue that it is the only true measure).

 

Not that you haven't got a point there: It would be a win in some situations to be able to let anyone speak for the group. But nobody defined "fun" just as having more control over everything. It is true for the fights (in this game as in many others, but not all, team-FPS are an exception), it is more complicated for the conversations. If your companions were generated by the player and without their own personality I would not argue against it.

 

Really though, throwing accusations of realism around like its a bad thing that automatically ruins gameplay seems like a weak argument to me, and wasn't it those who were opposed to controlling other characters in dialogue the ones citing realism to begin with?

 

I don't have a problem with the realism argument as long as it takes into account that other considerations have a bigger weight (Granted the first sentence of my previous post was poorly worded, it was a "radical" reply to a "radical" viewpoint). There is no black and white here, a big win in realism or a win in a combination of factors could trump a small win in more important factors.

 

I don't know if anyone cited realism as a reason against controlling other characters. But if I would value realism above all then you couldn't control your companions at all (not even in fights) because realistically you are only one person and not a group.

Edited November 2, 2012 by jethro

[Amentep]

I'm not sure I really care one way or the other.

 

I did like - was it Storm of Zehir that allowed party interrupts? I liked that. But generally speaking I have no problem with my pc being forced to be party spokesman.

[Shadenuat]

Obsidian writing is often very personal, more often than not NPCs are speaking directly to protagonist. "YOU are Akachi, thus YOU are special and do THAT", "YOU are the Courier", "YOU my love must die", "YOU are the Exile and everyone is talking to you and you are important". It's far from BG1 with "We were hired to kill CHARNAME", it's often personal and dramatic. Concidering we are getting the "PC is special and tied to the narrative again", making everyone a spokeperson won't make much sense.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Shadenuat

[ogrezilla]

Obsidian writing is often very personal, more often than not NPCs are speaking directly to protagonist. "YOU are Akachi, thus YOU are special and do THAT", "YOU are the Courier", "YOU my love must die", "YOU are the Exile and everyone is talking to you and you are important". It's far from BG1 with "We were hired to kill CHARNAME", it's often personal and dramatic. Concidering we are getting the "PC is special and tied to the narrative again", making everyone a spokeperson won't make much sense.

For major story events, this definitely makes sense. When talking to shopkeepers and random townsfolk, I don't have a problem with having a spokesperson. Though the spokesperson should be limited to what makes sense for his or her character. I shouldn't be able to force fleshed out NPC companions to completely go out of character.

[Churchwarden]

Dont get me wrong though. I have no issues with leading a group of people, but it would be so refreshing to be given the option to be more of a silent advisor/counselor to the group than the one always in charge.

 

Roleplaying a hidden mastermind is also very appealing (think Darth Sidious), especially for an evil-tilted party.

[Solanum]

I start off by admitting that I did not read through all the posts (to my defence, it's 4 am in here and I got stuck here reading and wanted to comment but too tired to read through all), so pardon if I may say something already discussed.

 

Since I'm getting the feeling that the game is about the PC and the companions (as the ability to create custom members was brought along later to cater user requests), I think you shouldn't be in control of how the companions think and talk and such. They have a backstory and they should act upon that and not necessarily say what the player wants them to in any given situation.

 

my idea, that i posted in another topic about a month ago, is that companions should automaticaly give advice to the player during important conversations if they have any insight on the situation just like some did in BG. also you can have the option to ask their opinion at any time during a conversation or if you think one of them knows better the subject of the conversation you will have the option to pass it to him and he proceeds to talk for the group without you choosing his answers, just like at the start of arcanum, you could let Virgil talk to that hooded guy,

 

I really liked this possibility, to ASK you companions to sort of fill in. I also think it works best in a logical way as you don't decide who the companions are and how they view things. Also I think this should be somehow related on the relationship between the PC and the companion. If the companion doesn't like you and you ask them to chime in, they may actually affect the conversation negatively.

 

Other thing I do like and which I think would make the companions feel more real is that they can actually either interrupt or join the conversation themselves in any given situation. You could then either tell them to shut up, or let them keep talking or whatnot.

 

Also controlling your group in general could be explained as PC giving commands to people and them acting upon it, but this wouldn't necessarily be a viable option in a way that during combat PC would actually just give commands and companions would act upon them autonomously, so a direct manipulation has to be used.

 

The only problem in that is the inclusion of Adventurer's hall and the custom made party members. But then again the developers have already mentioned it would come at a cost of losing the "feel" the companions have as they're properly fleshed out but the custom characters are not. Maybe that's a trade-off you would have to live with should you feel the need to spawn a group of your own outside the given premade possibilities.

[PieSnatcher]

I really liked this possibility, to ASK you companions to sort of fill in. I also think it works best in a logical way as you don't decide who the companions are and how they view things. Also I think this should be somehow related on the relationship between the PC and the companion. If the companion doesn't like you and you ask them to chime in, they may actually affect the conversation negatively.

 

Other thing I do like and which I think would make the companions feel more real is that they can actually either interrupt or join the conversation themselves in any given situation. You could then either tell them to shut up, or let them keep talking or whatnot.

 

Also controlling your group in general could be explained as PC giving commands to people and them acting upon it, but this wouldn't necessarily be a viable option in a way that during combat PC would actually just give commands and companions would act upon them autonomously, so a direct manipulation has to be used.

 

Agreed

 

 

I'd rather only have direct control of the PC during a conversation. I love to see party participation- if another party member is the most appropriate spokesperson, then I would rather have that person simply do the talking (perhaps at my request)- maybe I could interject my own thoughts (kind of a role reversal) or take control (or try), but I don't want to dictate what this other character says (who I'm pretending is a person with his/her own mind). Even as a party, I don't envision a collective mind, I picture the character I create at the helm of independent thinkers (or at least among them). If we are having a group conversation, then I want to know what is being said. If another character is more charismatic or intelligent, I'd rather the NPC use that skill as he/she sees fit.

 

 

Having direct group control in other situations (battle/travel/ i suppose every other situation other than talking) is a matter of convenience- I don't mind explaining it away (I don't even think about it, actually) since the alternative would be complex and (for me) would detract from the fun of the game. My reasoning certainly has its exceptions (I doubt Minsc would go on a citizen-murdering rampage no matter how politely I asked or commanded him- and yet my mouse can certainly make that happen). But as far as conversations go, I think the PC ought to be the primary speaker, with appropriate (coordinated perhaps, but independent) participation of party members. Hope I make sense.