[3.X] Diplomacy Hack: Reaction Rolls (PL, please stay out)

[Lago PARANOIA]

Honestly, I think my players would feel more dicked over, if I told them that if they failed their perception check they couldn't act in the encounter.

Because if I told them that they'd be ambushed and basically cut-scene it away, they'll still feel dicked over, just less, because there is probably some kind of (probably bad) story I'd want to tell.

The only way this viewpoint makes any sense at all is if your players think that they can get a better deal doing an in-game filibuster via MTP than by trusting cold hard dice.

[hogarth]

So your reaction results might be:

• Combative - Roll initiative, no social actions.
• Disinterested - You have only enough time for a "short pitch," a minor diplomatic action such as intimidate or plead before the creature reverts to team behavior (villagers keep walking, monsters attack, etc.).
• Interested - You have enough time to take a standard diplomatic action before the creature reverts to team behavior.
• Attentive - You can take multiple diplomatic actions.

That sounds much more palatable than what was discussed before; sort of like an initiative system for social actions (instead of combat actions) rather than randomly falling in love/hate.

[MGuy]

You refuse to discuss this unless I explain some strawmen you pulled right out of your ass?

It's not a strawman, dipshit. Strawmen are when you mischaracterize someone else's argument. Since it's my argument, I can't be strawmanning it. It's an analogy. If you refuse to accept the premises of those analogous events (surprise rolls and attack rolls), then we have nothing to discuss.

You don't see how you're mischaracterizing my argument by claiming I'm making arguments for, not only things that I did not say but by using analogies that don't sync up with what is actually being argued about?

If and only if you accept that it is (or at least can explain why it might be) desirable to roll dice to determine whether you are allowed to take an action at the beginning of a combat encounter, then we can have a reasonable discussion like civilized fucking people about whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to roll dice to determine whether you are allowed to take an action at the beginning of a social encounter. Until you do that, there's nothing to discuss and you are shitting on this thread for no damn reason.

How 'bout instead we try to have an argument about what is being discussed instead of you making up bullshit that I'm not talking about to argue about hmm? We're not talking about the fact that some people went out of there way to do something (make a stealth check) that in turn you can do something about (Perception check) which leads to other things (avoiding combat or getting a surprise round). We're talking about a roll that is intrinsically made the moment two different characters interact with each other that takes no actions on either side other than both of them existing in the same place and letting that roll inform their decisions instead of letting it decide the success/failure of an actual action taken. No it is not equivalent and no matter how badly you want to shove your fucking strawman down my god damn throat I will not engage you in it because it is not the same damn thing.

If you cannot or will not engage with this discussion honestly and on its own terms, I and many other people will put you on ignore. There are really very few premises here, if you refuse to discuss or even acknowledge even the simplest of them, we are not having a discussion and there is no compelling reason to read anything you write.

-Username17

Then argue what is being argued and make 'some' attempt at actually countering something I actually said. I am not going to argue about something I didn't say, suggest, or even imply. You gonna talk about arguing honestly then get fucking honest.

[Username17]

That sounds much more palatable than what was discussed before; sort of like an initiative system for social actions (instead of combat actions) rather than randomly falling in love/hate.

Yeah, a s a couple people noted on the first page, the PHB social category terms are really bad and create a lot of argument. First of all, there's a causality problem, where characters are on your side or not before they know what side you're on (or even that there are any sides in the first place), and this is game mechanically important because it sets the DCs for determining how hard it is to convince them that you're on the same side. Secondly, the words just don't mean what the game mechanics want them to mean. Seriously, the "helpful shop attendant who suggested this nice coat" is indifferent, the "indifferent postman you asked for directions" is friendly, and the "friendly Dwarven soldiers assaulting the Goblin fortress" are helpful. It's fucked.

Obviously, no final product is going to use the 3rd edition PHB NPC Attitudes names, because they are actually less informative than having no labels on the social categories at all. It would actually be better to call things "class C diplomatic relations" or something, because at least then people would know that the title didn't mean shit and they had to read the long form description. Calling an NPC attitude "friendly" when it has absolutely no relationship at all to whether someone is actually considered a friend or is in any way affable or favorably disposed to you at all is simply unnecessarily confusing.

How 'bout instead we try to have an argument about what is being discussed instead of you making up bullshit that I'm not talking about to argue about hmm? We're not talking about the fact that some people went out of there way to do something (make a stealth check) that in turn you can do something about (Perception check) which leads to other things (avoiding combat or getting a surprise round).

Nice fucking try. Surprise checks are passive. Whether you or anyone else is attempting a stealth check or not, there's still a fucking DC to not be surprised. There are things people can do to make surprise more or less likely, but there's still a roll even if no one does anything and both sides are just walking around.

This really is your last fucking chance: Do you agree in principle that reasonable people would want there to be a die roll to determine whether or not they were allowed to take an action at the beginning of an encounter, rather than having the GM simply decide arbitrarily whether they could act or not? Answer the bolded fucking question or go on ignore. This isn't the first time you've pulled this kind of shit, I might just leave you on ignore permanently.

-Username17

[zugschef]

What I don't get is, why does team monster's attitude rely on a check and the pcs' does not? Why can you, as a player, basically just say, "Shut up! We're now killing you for loot and xp!", skipping the whole process, but the ogre can't say, "Shut up! I'll kill you because I'm hungry!", and may end up as the pcs' best friend although he really fuckin' hates people, really fuckin' loves manflesh and is really fuckin' hungry?

Somewhere in a another thread there was the proposition to give npcs and monsters attitude tags such as "can be bribed", "loyal to death", "easily intimidated", "peaceful", "talkative", "won't parley", etc.

Now a certain pc might have a class feature ignoring or altering these tags, but other than that you don't have a reaction roll, because that's stupid. Nobody randomly decides how to react, not even looneys.

What you do need, though, is a mechanic letting people determine how and when they actually get to use their charismatic abilities and a mechanic for said charismatic abilities.

Example: Unless the enemy has the "won't parley"-tag or is fuckin' mindless, you roll d20+charisma to determine the order in which people can, if they want to, use their charismatic abilities. If nobody wants to do that or the charismatic ability failed and combat is inevitable, you then roll for initiative as normal. So showing your boobs isn't dependent on how fast you un-bra, but how promising they are.

[Username17]

What I don't get is, why does team monster's attitude rely on a check and the pcs' does not?

I don't know that anyone has specifically demanded that it not do so. I think it would be a net good thing if charismatic villains could call for a reaction test from team player in order to force them to listen to their mad plan before combat started.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

What I don't get is, why does team monster's attitude rely on a check and the pcs' does not?

Gameplay/story tradeoff. The first time people promulgate a tale about how the PCs got saddled with a sidequest the players didn't want but the characters did or someone complains that their character got seduced by some jerk they didn't like and ended up having a lovechild your system collapses. Not because there's something internally or inherently wrong with the system, but because a rather large minority -- majority, really -- of players are going going to go to extremes to prevent their character from buying magic beans from a shady merchant.

I don't know that anyone has specifically demanded that it not do so.

I personally am not axiomatically against such a system, but I can see people literally rebelling against the mechanic harder than if the DM decided to institute anal circumference modifiers. And I do mean literally. So I'd rather not put it in the game at all.

[zugschef]

What I don't get is, why does team monster's attitude rely on a check and the pcs' does not?

I don't know that anyone has specifically demanded that it not do so. I think it would be a net good thing if charismatic villains could call for a reaction test from team player in order to force them to listen to their mad plan before combat started.

-Username17

Well, that's a reaction test again. Reaction tests are dumb. I don't react randomly, but if said villain was a sexy chick welcoming me with a banquet I just might listen to her before stabbing her in the face. In mechanical terms (sticking to my example) she would beat my character with her charisma check and then use her social ability to force my character to listen or whatever. [edit] If she becomes hostile, roll for initiative.

[deaddmwalking]

We use a similar system to as proposed, but use 2d10, and only a negative roll will yield a hostile encounter. Hostile can mean different things, depending on the situation. The shopkeeper that's hostile isn't going to shank the party Fighter, but he's going to be a jerk as far as he can, and if things head south, he'll call the authorities for sure...

Likewise, the most extreme positive reaction requires a positive modifier to achieve.

Diplomacy and Intimidate can shift these initial attitudes, but you can't rely on a single DC 30 check to take someone from Hostile to Friendly - usually you're limited to shifting a single degree.

As far as monsters use of the system, if the result indicates that the PCs have a 'favorable' view of the monsters, I'll try to portray them in a favorable light - pointing out details that might make them more sympathetic, etc. But there's no real point in determining the PCs reactions to the NPCs - this is an RPG and each player is responsible for choosing how their character responds. Taking too much of that away defeats the purpose... If I don't want the players to react in character, I'll write a novel and make Shadzar happy.

[MGuy]

How 'bout instead we try to have an argument about what is being discussed instead of you making up bullshit that I'm not talking about to argue about hmm? We're not talking about the fact that some people went out of there way to do something (make a stealth check) that in turn you can do something about (Perception check) which leads to other things (avoiding combat or getting a surprise round).

Nice fucking try. Surprise checks are passive. Whether you or anyone else is attempting a stealth check or not, there's still a fucking DC to not be surprised. There are things people can do to make surprise more or less likely, but there's still a roll even if no one does anything and both sides are just walking around.

This really is your last fucking chance: Do you agree in principle that reasonable people would want there to be a die roll to determine whether or not they were allowed to take an action at the beginning of an encounter, rather than having the GM simply decide arbitrarily whether they could act or not? Answer the bolded fucking question or go on ignore. This isn't the first time you've pulled this kind of shit, I might just leave you on ignore permanently.

-Username17

Fuck you Frank, seriously. I already responded to you damn question in my very last post and you even quoted the part that was a direct response to it. There is no "SURPRISE" check, no SURPRISE DC, none of that new bullshit you just pulled out of your ass. The only thing you can even be referring to is Perception vs Stealth because the only way a surprise round happens is if some people are unaware/unprepared when the combat music starts and that wholly has to do with Perception unless you're talking about the act of taking initiative which only determines turn order.

This whole 'argue about what I want you to argue about' thing is getting real old. This isn't the first time you pulled this shit either. You always get full of shit when you decide on a direction and demand that people only argue what you designate that they "can" argue about because if they argue about your 'no no' areas that evidence how your bullshit falls apart you simply huff and puff and threaten them with "I will ignore you" or for people you don't want to put on ignore (like K) you claim that they've simply gone mad and cannot engage them.

Well if you simply cannot actually engage in an actual conversation about the points I actually bring up your response should be that you simply cannot do that. I've even pointed out several times HOW your question is not only an irrelevant attempt to change the focus but I even explained how nothing in your fucking system even prevents the GM from making the "this thing is hostile no take backs" situation occur anyway using the very results that you revealed last time this was a thing and again in this thread. You haven't challenged anything I've said AT ALL. You keep trying to force me into arguing in the abstract when I (and PL) am pointing out that what has been produced flies in the face of everything you want it to fucking do. Even when I do actually respond to shit you actually say you can't even garner an argument to counter anything I've actually said.

If you want to stomp your feet and gnash your teeth because you don't actually have an actual response to actual things I'm actually speaking about be my guest.

[Username17]

OK, Mguy goes on ignore. For people keeping track at home, yes "encounter distance" is totally a thing and can make you surprised at the beginning of combat and there are DCs for it and no one has to be actively hiding for that to happen. There are certain amounts of fuckery up with which I shall not put. Mguy refused to engage on even the most basic level with this rules discussion and he goes on ignore just like Shadzar did when he refused to admit that that there was no number of times you could add a positive number to move from 5 to 4.

-Username17

[MGuy]

OK, Mguy goes on ignore. For people keeping track at home, yes "encounter distance" is totally a thing and can make you surprised at the beginning of combat and there are DCs for it and no one has to be actively hiding for that to happen. There are certain amounts of fuckery up with which I shall not put. Mguy refused to engage on even the most basic level with this rules discussion and he goes on ignore just like Shadzar did when he refused to admit that that there was no number of times you could add a positive number to move from 5 to 4.

-Username17

For those keeping score I did say that the only thing he could be talking about was Perception vs Stealth and "encounter distance" is just a play on whether or not you can see opponents (or they see you) from a distance which wholly involves Perception. Also note that he didn't bring up Encounter Distance before he decided to put me on ignore because he knew I would've called him out on that bullshit and of course wants to have an excuse not to actually have to deal with the fallout of his own bullshit.

[virgil]

I personally am not axiomatically against such a system, but I can see people literally rebelling against the mechanic harder than if the DM decided to institute anal circumference modifiers. And I do mean literally. So I'd rather not put it in the game at all.

Yeah, you thought people had it out for reaction rolls; the kind of uproar we'd have to dig through if we suggested that PCs be subject to any of it themselves. As it stands, I can honestly say that I am less inclined to continue working on this mechanic because of the collective thread shitting by PL & company.

Back to actually doing something. As Hogarth's noted, the combative/attentive reaction is definitely more palatable and less subject to argument, and is why I'm trying to retool the OP to fit that language instead.

I'm not in favor of the "past experience" category, actually. Why are we having reaction rolls for people who have some sort of diplomatic relationship with the PCs already? If the party talked to Tom the Blacksmith yesterday and were friendly with him, they really shouldn't have to suffer through another potential reaction roll that could make Tom less friendly with them today.

The reason I would prefer to keep it is for the same reason that Tom is going to be less inclined to talk to the party if they walk up to him with their swords out in a dark alleyway; he's less inclined to listen to what they have to say, but because he knows them, he's not necessarily going to start punching in self-defense. Another reason I wanted to keep "past experience" is so that half of the modifiers are ones that the PCs can control; three-fourths if they are good at disguise. Is that insufficient justification? Would it be better if we removed it and instead gave established NPCs a baseline behavioral script?

[Username17]

Back to actually doing something. As Hogarth's noted, the combative/attentive reaction is definitely more palatable and less subject to argument, and is why I'm trying to retool the OP to fit that language instead.

I think once you convert it to "attentive" a lot of players will scream less when it is applied to them. If high charisma characters simply get to say their peace before combat can begin as a regular thing, it won't feel like their character is having their control taken away or whatever.

If there simply is a diplomacy phase of some kind before initiative is rolled if any high Charisma character asks for one, I think everyone would be better off. When you meet the Ghoul King, you actually do want to get a Comicbook/JRPG style mad speech about his evil plans before combat begins. And if that has some potential fear riders and actually matters game mechanically, so much the better.

-Username17

[virgil]

If there simply is a diplomacy phase of some kind before initiative is rolled if any high Charisma character asks for one, I think everyone would be better off. When you meet the Ghoul King, you actually do want to get a Comicbook/JRPG style mad speech about his evil plans before combat begins. And if that has some potential fear riders and actually matters game mechanically, so much the better.

Wouldn't that remove the point of a reaction roll, or does that make it work better if we just use that as a marker for how long 'social combat' is allowed to last; the more powerful social moves requiring more time?

[violence in the media]

I'm not in favor of the "past experience" category, actually. Why are we having reaction rolls for people who have some sort of diplomatic relationship with the PCs already? If the party talked to Tom the Blacksmith yesterday and were friendly with him, they really shouldn't have to suffer through another potential reaction roll that could make Tom less friendly with them today. Tom should already have his stance in regards to the players; further interaction should be handled by the second part of the system, whatever happens during the actual diplomacy stage.

See, I like the "past experience" category so there's a metric for either winning people over or having them turn their backs on you over time. Being able to friendship your way to free healing at the temple or disappoint the priests into not giving aid of any sort is valuable and shouldn't totally be up to "when the MC feels it's appropriate."

[Omegonthesane]

OK, Mguy goes on ignore. For people keeping track at home, yes "encounter distance" is totally a thing and can make you surprised at the beginning of combat and there are DCs for it and no one has to be actively hiding for that to happen. There are certain amounts of fuckery up with which I shall not put. Mguy refused to engage on even the most basic level with this rules discussion and he goes on ignore just like Shadzar did when he refused to admit that that there was no number of times you could add a positive number to move from 5 to 4.

-Username17

For those keeping score I did say that the only thing he could be talking about was Perception vs Stealth and "encounter distance" is just a play on whether or not you can see opponents (or they see you) from a distance which wholly involves Perception. Also note that he didn't bring up Encounter Distance before he decided to put me on ignore because he knew I would've called him out on that bullshit and of course wants to have an excuse not to actually have to deal with the fallout of his own bullshit.

I'm feeling more charitable than Frank - you might actually be missing something rather than making things up.

The fact that "encounter distance" wholly relies on Perception - and crucially NOT STEALTH - makes it passive on both sides. You don't take an active action to spot people.

However in light of the latest direction that the proposals for hard mechanics are taking, there is a better example of a 100% passive roll that potentially decides whether or not you get to take an action. Initiative. There is no meaningful difference between declaring that the Diplomancer cannot take a Diplomancy action because Skeletor is inconsolably hostile and declaring that the Wizard cannot take a Combat action because Skeletor autowins Initiative and either splats him with a rocket launcher or Plane Shifts to Laa Laa Land.

You have argued against the mechanical proposals without proposing better ones. This behaviour calls into question whether or not you agree that there should be any reaction roll mechanic at all. As the thread is a discussion about reaction roll mechanics themselves, rather than whether or not there should be reaction roll mechanics, clearly the whole discussion is based on the premise that there should be any reaction roll mechanics at all. If you are not willing to accept this premise then you have nothing to add to the discussion, in the same way that a person who wishes for the utter destruction of all pizza has no place in a discussion of which pizza toppings are best.

[zugschef]

If there simply is a diplomacy phase of some kind before initiative is rolled if any high Charisma character asks for one, I think everyone would be better off. When you meet the Ghoul King, you actually do want to get a Comicbook/JRPG style mad speech about his evil plans before combat begins. And if that has some potential fear riders and actually matters game mechanically, so much the better.

Wouldn't that remove the point of a reaction roll, or does that make it work better if we just use that as a marker for how long 'social combat' is allowed to last; the more powerful social moves requiring more time?

I think the answer is yes, it does remove the point of a reaction roll. You don't need a reaction roll. I'd stick with acting and not reacting. The most socially competent/charismatic guy can start using his social skills/abilities/whatever first. And if you've got the Lich King, then simply give him a tag which says "always gets to rant before combat".

[virgil]

Well, that's a reaction test again. Reaction tests are dumb. I don't react randomly, but if said villain was a sexy chick welcoming me with a banquet I just might listen to her before stabbing her in the face. In mechanical terms (sticking to my example) she would beat my character with her charisma check and then use her social ability to force my character to listen or whatever. [edit] If she becomes hostile, roll for initiative.

We've covered this before on other threads. It's random from an outside perspective; we can't realistically represent someone's mental state, just like we can't represent a sword swing's position in relation to defense to exacting accuracy. Therefore, we abstract it. If you roll low on Perception, then a couple leaves got in the way or your attention was in the wrong direction, so you get surprised by the bandits. If the subject rolls low on the reaction, then they happened to have a bad day or maybe the charismatic PC used the wrong gesture while trying to silence the burping dwarf companion, or whatever. We cannot perfectly predict a person's behavior, therefore it is random to a certain degree from an outsider's perspective, and therefore a reaction roll is appropriate.

[Username17]

I don't react randomly, but if said villain was a sexy chick welcoming me with a banquet I just might listen to her before stabbing her in the face.

The bolded part is where you conceded the argument.

-Username17

[zugschef]

I don't react randomly, but if said villain was a sexy chick welcoming me with a banquet I just might listen to her before stabbing her in the face.

The bolded part is where you conceded the argument.

-Username17

That's what her social skill/ability is for. Not some reaction test.

[Dean]

So currently, we have four factors that modify how a subject reacts to the party; ambiance, stance, allegiance, & past experience. Should there be more modifier types? Should any be added or removed?

I think the 4 categories are too many and the last two should be combined into one category called "Bias". Three categories would be a small enough list for me to whip up the numbers on the fly during impromptu storytelling.

Nemesis, Member of Hated Enemy Faction: -4
Violent Past, Bigotry towards Subject: -2
Stranger, Acquaintance, an Unknown: +0
Friendly Past, A Neighbor, Someone Safe: +2
Close Friend, Lover, Someone Important : +4

Jigger the numbers to taste of course. I just feel 4 is a bit much for me to do on the fly and the Diplomacy system is already SO huge and excessive that the less moving pieces you can add to it the better.

As to making players subject to social effects. Having tested that a bit it is something you can only do for very well defined effects for limited periods of time. Players will not accept vaguely defined limits on their actions. And for good reason. The only thing you can actually do in this game is decide your players actions. Players will accept things that make them unable to make attacks for 1 minute, or that make them cower or something, but it has to be specific.

[Username17]

I don't react randomly, but if said villain was a sexy chick welcoming me with a banquet I just might listen to her before stabbing her in the face.

The bolded part is where you conceded the argument.

-Username17

That's what her social skill/ability is for. Not some reaction test.

If it might happen, then by definition a test is involved.

-Username17

[MGuy]

OK, Mguy goes on ignore. For people keeping track at home, yes "encounter distance" is totally a thing and can make you surprised at the beginning of combat and there are DCs for it and no one has to be actively hiding for that to happen. There are certain amounts of fuckery up with which I shall not put. Mguy refused to engage on even the most basic level with this rules discussion and he goes on ignore just like Shadzar did when he refused to admit that that there was no number of times you could add a positive number to move from 5 to 4.

-Username17

For those keeping score I did say that the only thing he could be talking about was Perception vs Stealth and "encounter distance" is just a play on whether or not you can see opponents (or they see you) from a distance which wholly involves Perception. Also note that he didn't bring up Encounter Distance before he decided to put me on ignore because he knew I would've called him out on that bullshit and of course wants to have an excuse not to actually have to deal with the fallout of his own bullshit.

I'm feeling more charitable than Frank - you might actually be missing something rather than making things up.

The fact that "encounter distance" wholly relies on Perception - and crucially NOT STEALTH - makes it passive on both sides. You don't take an active action to spot people.

However in light of the latest direction that the proposals for hard mechanics are taking, there is a better example of a 100% passive roll that potentially decides whether or not you get to take an action. Initiative. There is no meaningful difference between declaring that the Diplomancer cannot take a Diplomancy action because Skeletor is inconsolably hostile and declaring that the Wizard cannot take a Combat action because Skeletor autowins Initiative and either splats him with a rocket launcher or Plane Shifts to Laa Laa Land.

You have argued against the mechanical proposals without proposing better ones. This behaviour calls into question whether or not you agree that there should be any reaction roll mechanic at all. As the thread is a discussion about reaction roll mechanics themselves, rather than whether or not there should be reaction roll mechanics, clearly the whole discussion is based on the premise that there should be any reaction roll mechanics at all. If you are not willing to accept this premise then you have nothing to add to the discussion, in the same way that a person who wishes for the utter destruction of all pizza has no place in a discussion of which pizza toppings are best.

The small distinction between rolling vs actual stealth and ambient stealth that the environment, size, and distance gives is a very weak argument at best. It is effectively no different than rolling vs targets waiting in ambush or to find a hidden object. In either case if he wanted to argue encounter distance then he should've just said 'encounter distance' the fact that he didn't just goes to show how dishonest he intended to be.

Further, yes, I do not think a Reaction roll is necessary and if you note I didn't chime in until PL had started an actual argument about why they are useless. Threads get derailed all the time here and it should come as no insult or surprise that an argument about something else arises in one. To try and climb up on some kind of high horse about the fact that one happened is just plain stupid.

Lastly it is not that I don't have an alternative to how you can have diplomacy despite a hostile encounter. I just don't believe you need a whole new subsystem to spot fix the issues with one type of social encounter. I mean if all you want to do is give lich kings the chance to monologue you can just make a rule where he can do that and skip over the useless damn roll.

[deaddmwalking]

I don't react randomly, but if said villain was a sexy chick welcoming me with a banquet I just might listen to her before stabbing her in the face.

The bolded part is where you conceded the argument.

-Username17

That's what her social skill/ability is for. Not some reaction test.

But flip it around... She's planning on assasinating you. She enters into the room undetected. But you're standing there next to a banquet... Maybe she decides to talk, eat, flirt...have some fun before she kills you.

As the GM, I don't care whether this particular assassin slips up and kills you (all business) or decides to tarry awhile (willing to talk, first). I could decide every time, but I'd also appreciate a way to quickly figure it with random chance.

So maybe she's at -8 because she plans to kill you, but at +2 because she saw you help a little girl in the Marketplace for a -6 reaction roll. If you roll a good reaction, maybe she spends some time talking... Maybe she even gives you a chance to tell her why she shouldn't kill you....

The specific encounter might become more interesting than just 'assassin tries to kill you' in a way that I, as the DM, didn't plan. Now, maybe as the DM I should have just decided that was going to be more interesting and done it INSTEAD, but that's not what I really thought was most likely to happen... So, allowing some random chance will change the way things play out from what is 'most likely' and usually, it makes the game more interesting.