Kitchen Sink Roleplaying

[TavishArtair]

As a minor question, Frank, long ago you proposed a "Striker" role/class/concept along with a list of other, similar classes that had a role conception along these lines... one class having buffs, another having curses, et cetera. Yet, since white numbers (damage numbers, as opposed to green numbers) are not particularly "role protectable", what would you propose the Striker actually does in such a game? Or is it really just to have more potential white numbers than anyone else?

[Username17]

Well no, while your abilities are finite, your actual archetypes are going to be near infinite, because of combinations.

No. A finite ability list implies a finite number of characters. It's not "near infinite" - there's no such thing! It's a finite number, and to make it a Kitchen Sink setting all you have to do is make that finite number very large. Pretending that you have access to infinity when you don't is at best extremely lazy. The question is simply how to make best use of your design space in order to get a very large number of potential characters. And I'll give you a hint: the answer is not to simply allow every single player to take any abilities off of any lists and use them together.

No one is arguing that you should have infinite abilities, but those abilities just can't be protected such that you can't mix X and Y in the same character, because that defeats the entire purpose of kitchen sink gaming. The moment you say "Time mages can't be ninjas", you're no longer playing in a kitchen sink game.

Unadulterated horse shit. Abilities have costs, and players have to be able to "afford" the abilities that they get. You're fucking right that a Time Mage may not be able to become a Ninja, because they can't afford to become a Ninja. And what "affording" means is going to be of course limited on several distinct axes. The most obvious of course, is some sort of "raw power" gauge, where your actual attack number can't be substantially higher than is allowed. But there are also diversity restrictions - your character can't "do anything" because you have to leave stuff for the other players to do. As well as simple limits on what your character can do even within their deal.

So no, you can't be a Ninja and a Time Mage if another character is expected to be only one or the other. That would be an example of cheating. Of making an unbalanced character for no better reason than simple avarice and the desire to have more powers than other players. Not in Kitchen Sink gaming, not in any gaming. Once you've spent all your points, you don't have any more points! That is an inescapable universal fucking law. However many selections the game allows you to make off of different parts of the menu, when you run out of selections that is fucking it! And any concept that you have that requires more selections off the menu than that can go fuck itself.

Now, you can divide up the selections and then give people more selections, and you can make that feel like they have more choice. But really you are just giving them a different set of finite choices and making the players figure out for themselves what the choices actually are. You could split up the Time and the Mage and the Nin and the Ja and then people could make a Timeja or a Nin Mage. But they still couldn't make a fucking Time Mage Ninja, because that would still be making twice as many selections as the other players are allowed.

The ability list is inherently and permanently married to what is possible. You even allude to this fact in your own poorly conceived essay:

Now the one thing you actually can't have in a kitchen sink setting is too many moves that have to be countered specifically, unless those counters are readily available. You can't count on every group being able to remove a curse or dispel a golem.

Whatever system of attacks and defenses you set up, you can't change them. Imagine for the moment the simple case of RPS. And now: add something to it. Anything at all. A newcomer throws dynamite - that beats Rock, Paper, and Scissors all. And it loses to Toilet, Blast Shield, and Vacuum. That's "fair" but it's still a completely fucking retarded thing to do. Because everyone made their characters back when there did not appear to be any Vacuum to throw, so they are all going to lose.

It isn't just that that making new attacks and defenses that are puzzle monsters is unacceptable (although it is), it's that the introduction of new attack and defense types at all is totally unfair. And it cannot be made fair. If you introduce a new sign to RPS, it has to be something like Grass - it beats Rock and loses to Scissors. It fulfills the same role as Paper. Because the matrix of tactical necessity and possibility cannot be changed without the players being forced to start new characters all the time.

Recall: Gygax did allow for new attack types all the time. And you didn't have any defenses against the Calzone Golem's special attack. And that means that... your characters die. Like, all the time. Because you keep running into effects that make your character unplayable that you have never even heard of. And that's just not acceptable in the modern gaming circles.

If you want to be able to add new powers and new combinations of powers, you have to go full Munchhausen and let the players use authorial controls to add new powers to their characters during play. If you have the players' options remain static, the available options that could be had have to remain static as well.

As a minor question, Frank, long ago you proposed a "Striker" role/class/concept along with a list of other, similar classes that had a role conception along these lines... one class having buffs, another having curses, et cetera. Yet, since white numbers (damage numbers, as opposed to green numbers) are not particularly "role protectable", what would you propose the Striker actually does in such a game? Or is it really just to have more potential white numbers than anyone else?

I have discussed the 4e D&D Striker role at length. It's not salvageable. More importantly, it's not even something that I would want to salvage, since the very concept is one of mandatory rather than exclusionary roles.

There are two role concepts. The first is one where there are a certain number of roles and all of them have to be covered. This is the conceptualization that a role like "Striker" necessarily fits into. The second is one in which the roles are all different and every player gets a different role - and there is really no place for Strikers in that schema at all.

-Username17

[Starmaker]

The players need to be able to have a grip on what things can be done so that they can make tactical decisions and the DM needs to be able to have a grip on what things can be done so that they can design adventures.

But for a kitchen sink setting, you're not going to be able to easily design adventures for a generic group, because there seriously is no generic group. you can throw in different kinds of challenges, but you can't account for everything.

Having lots of well-designed classes and roles means that characters are statistically more likely to be different. That's how you account for everything. Three random characters have to be able to complete any quest (as opposed to a specific task that they can bypass).

You can't count on every group being able to remove a curse or dispel a golem.

You should be able to count on every group being able to mitigate the effects of a curse for a reasonable time and kill / abuse / mislead / sneak around a golem. See Frank's flowchart.

A golem with a flame thrower and a firemage may pretty much use the same "cone of fire" ability, but the archetype is completely different.

Then it should be designed so that they are discouraged from being in the same game. (Say, cone of fire sets people on fire and the "on fire" condition does not stack.)

No one is arguing that you should have infinite abilities, but those abilities just can't be protected such that you can't mix X and Y in the same character, because that defeats the entire purpose of kitchen sink gaming. The moment you say "Time mages can't be ninjas", you're no longer playing in a kitchen sink game.

A kitchen sink game is not a game where you can be 1/11th of each class. It's a game where lots of crazy stuff exists simultaneously and is actually appropriate to play.
Go open a decent fantasy book. Chances are, it has no more than three sources of supernatural (psionics, or holy and unholy magic, or technology and spiritual power). A kitchen sink setting has a lot of these and that is its defining feature: god worship, ancestor worship, supernatural ancestry, mind, sekrit names, nature, gadgets and BLUE are all sources of power. These take up conceptual space in the hundreds of fuckillions of cubic feet, and you're not allowed to goatse it even further to make room for every crazy combo.
Now, what is a heavily protected role in a kitchen sink game can be free for the taking and even mandatory in a themed game. If you're playing Have Time Will Travel, there's no Time Mage class. If you're playing Naruto, there's no Ninja.

some people are going to create characters with a wide variety of seemingly unrelated abilities, like Superman

Generalists need to die.

[RobbyPants]

The question is simply how to make best use of your design space in order to get a very large number of potential characters. And I'll give you a hint: the answer is not to simply allow every single player to take any abilities off of any lists and use them together.

I was hoping you could elaborate on this. What's the problem with that? Is it just that it's too hard to balance, or what?

The reason I ask is I've been mulling over how to do just that for a while now, but I haven't taken the time to put any of it on paper. I'm curious if the idea is doomed from a design point, and if so, why.

[Kaelik]

The question is simply how to make best use of your design space in order to get a very large number of potential characters. And I'll give you a hint: the answer is not to simply allow every single player to take any abilities off of any lists and use them together.

I was hoping you could elaborate on this. What's the problem with that? Is it just that it's too hard to balance, or what?

The reason I ask is I've been mulling over how to do just that for a while now, but I haven't taken the time to put any of it on paper. I'm curious if the idea is doomed from a design point, and if so, why.

My answer is simple.

If you give people a choice between Druid list and Cleric List and Wizard list, they will sometimes choose each one, and it depends.

If you give them all spells, then you have to accept that at level 1 they will be throwing entangle + Color Spray + Wall of Smoke + Cure Light Wounds + Utility.

Because those are the best spells.

Yes, you can try to make all powers equal, but for every little bit you deviate from perfect equality, you turn every character into a copy of every other character.

[RobbyPants]

That makes sense, and it is my primary concern with the concept. You're right that everything needs to be equal, and that's very hard to do. So if druid level 1 ability is noticeably better than other 1st level abilities, then it will get taken more often than it should.

Although, I wouldn't be giving them access to all spells off of all lists, per se. Each level would give access to X spells on a specific list, so you still have to make choices. Each individual list needs to be versatile enough that playing a straight class is viable, while being balanced with the others. Of course, each allotment of spells per level needs to be balanced with all other allotments of the same level for the other classes, as well as non-caster level-appropriate abilities.

It looks like I have my work cut out for me (probably the biggest downside to this approach)!

[TheWorid]

EDIT: Site error led to double post.

[Username17]

The question is simply how to make best use of your design space in order to get a very large number of potential characters. And I'll give you a hint: the answer is not to simply allow every single player to take any abilities off of any lists and use them together.

I was hoping you could elaborate on this. What's the problem with that? Is it just that it's too hard to balance, or what?

The reason I ask is I've been mulling over how to do just that for a while now, but I haven't taken the time to put any of it on paper. I'm curious if the idea is doomed from a design point, and if so, why.

The short answer is that people do not actually play "Ability A" and "Ability B" - they play an actual character whose tactical presence is defined by both Ability A and Ability B together. Very generally having a new action you could take is worth less the more action options you already had, and passive stack bonuses are worth more when you already have more of them. So allowing people to trade abilities back and forth encourages boring characters. Remember that players really play one character, not the sum possibilities of all characters - so if everyone ends up playing a Thunderglaive Swordmage who spams Sword Burst with Resounding Thunder every single round, your game is not "full of possibilities" - it is fucking dull.

Let's give a hard example: imagine the Monk Armor bonus. It's worth about as much as Light or Medium Armor proficiency, right? And yet, if we "let" a Rogue trade in their light armor proficiency for it, they get ass boned by the exchange. And if we let a Druid exchange his armor proficiencies for it - he can't stop touching himself. The ability simply does not have a fixed value between different characters - there exist other characters for whom the ability is worth much more or much less than it is to the people the ability is actually written for.

In short: just because the game gives you the ability to make a character with a specific selection of abilities doesn't mean that character will be anything resembling balanced. And power discrepancies being what they are, the strong options - even the ones you didn't think of when making the books - will be the "real" options, and every other option will be narrated by Admiral Akbar.

Far better than letting the free market decide what the real options are is t decide for yourself by making a list. Wizards don't get saving throws and hit points because the players wouldn't rather sell it all for higher level spells - they get them because the game is better if Wizards don't (and can't) sell their minimal defenses for more offensive magical power.

-Username17

[TheWorid]

some people are going to create characters with a wide variety of seemingly unrelated abilities, like Superman

Generalists need to die.

As much as that would make game design easier, the generalist is a character concept deeply embedded in literature. You can't just dismiss it because it's hard to do, unless your setting is set up to specifically exclude the possibility of being a generalist. A kitchen sink setting cannot be set up this way, by its very nature.

[Username17]

some people are going to create characters with a wide variety of seemingly unrelated abilities, like Superman

Generalists need to die.

As much as that would make game design easier, the generalist is a character concept deeply imbedded in literature. You can't just dismiss it because it's hard to do, unless your setting is set up to specifically exclude the possibility of being a generalist. A kitchen sink setting cannot be set up this way, by its very nature.

This is not, in fact, true. In fact: name one "generalis" from any literature who is not a special snowflake who is better than everyone else because he's a main character. Go ahead. Name. One.

-Username17

[TheWorid]

This is not, in fact, true. In fact: name one "generalis" from any literature who is not a special snowflake who is better than everyone else because he's a main character. Go ahead. Name. One.

-Username17

"Not a main character" is a completely arbitrary restriction. Characters notable enough to mention as an example of anything are more likely than not main characters. I'm sure you can name 10 generalists off the top of your head.

[TavishArtair]

As a minor question, Frank, long ago you proposed a "Striker" role/class/concept along with a list of other, similar classes that had a role conception along these lines... one class having buffs, another having curses, et cetera. Yet, since white numbers (damage numbers, as opposed to green numbers) are not particularly "role protectable", what would you propose the Striker actually does in such a game? Or is it really just to have more potential white numbers than anyone else?

I have discussed the 4e D&D Striker role at length. It's not salvageable. More importantly, it's not even something that I would want to salvage, since the very concept is one of mandatory rather than exclusionary roles.

There are two role concepts. The first is one where there are a certain number of roles and all of them have to be covered. This is the conceptualization that a role like "Striker" necessarily fits into. The second is one in which the roles are all different and every player gets a different role - and there is really no place for Strikers in that schema at all.

-Username17

Well, objectively I know all this, which is why I am just curious as to what moved you to include them in a sample list that you wrote some time ago.

[Username17]

This is not, in fact, true. In fact: name one "generalis" from any literature who is not a special snowflake who is better than everyone else because he's a main character. Go ahead. Name. One.

-Username17

"Not a main character" is a completely arbitrary restriction. Characters notable enough to mention as an example of anything are more likely than not main characters. I'm sure you can name 10 generalists off the top of your head.

Are any of them a balanced participant in an ensemble cast?

Doc Savage is a generalist. Renny and Ham are specialists. But Doc Savage is a mary sue ultimate badass who is much much better than any of the rest of the team members. He is... not a playable character in any scenario where Ham would be a plausible character.

So, again, can you name one "generalist" from any piece of literature who would be a balanced party member in the literature they were from?

-Username17

[schpeelah]

Re: Striker
He assumed you were talking about the 4e Striker, who is just the "big damage" guy. The Striker in that list is someone specifically more effective against targets already engaged by someone from a different class, and maybe also during an ambush. Which might still be a little too general anyway (synergy between combatants of different roles is already supposed to universally happen), but still not the same thing.

[TheWorid]

Doc Savage is a generalist. Renny and Ham are specialists. But Doc Savage is a mary sue ultimate badass who is much much better than any of the rest of the team members. He is... not a playable character in any scenario where Ham would be a plausible character.

So, again, can you name one "generalist" from any piece of literature who would be a balanced party member in the literature they were from?

-Username17

Alfred (Batman): Butler, soldier, surgeon, and actor. Norman Burg could also be included, given that he's essentially the same character.
Alia Atreides (Dune): Has the knowledge of generations before her.
Forge (X-Men): Master of a number of scientific fields. Works in a team constantly.
Leonard da Quirm: So clever he had to be locked up.

Also, in fiction at large:

Data (ST:TNG): Knowledgeable about pretty much everything.
Lando Calrissian (Star Wars):Gambler, con man, pilot, and businessman. Also a dungeon crawler.

[Username17]

None of those people are generalists.

Alfred Pennyworth lives in the superhero genre. He cannot fly, shoot energy blasts, read minds, bounce bullets, or lift a car. He's not even a specialist, he's a slightly surprisingly competent background NPC. On the list of "normals you have to save," Alfred is among the more likely to be able to get himself out during your showdown with the villain.

Alia Atreides lives in Dune, where fucking everyone of note takes a bunch of Spice and gets psychic powers. Her psychic powers that let her "know a lot of stuff" is not really that impressive compared to other people who can "see the future," "travel between planets," and "telekinetically destroy things." Indeed, the fact that she can't do those other things means that she is, by definition, not a generalist. She has a single character class that would be called Akashic or something.

Forge also lives in Super Hero land. He is a gadgeteer. No more, no less. That's a character class, and he has it. He can't shoot laser eyebeams, he can't lift a car, he is not bullet proof. He shows up each issue with a number of high tech gadgets that he made. He is no more or less of a generalist than is Dr. Doom.

Basically, you're conflating "being smart" or "swashbuckling" with "being a generalist." That's not being a generalist at all. Rogues are not "generalists" they have a character class that is called "Rogue."

-Username17

[TheWorid]

Alfred Pennyworth lives in the superhero genre. He cannot fly, shoot energy blasts, read minds, bounce bullets, or lift a car. He's not even a specialist, he's a slightly surprisingly competent background NPC. On the list of "normals you have to save," Alfred is among the more likely to be able to get himself out during your showdown with the villain.

Within the larger context of DC, you're right, he isn't a generalist. In the context of the Batman stories he was created to occupy, he is.

Alia Atreides lives in Dune, where fucking everyone of note takes a bunch of Spice and gets psychic powers. Her psychic powers that let her "know a lot of stuff" is not really that impressive compared to other people who can "see the future," "travel between planets," and "telekinetically destroy things." Indeed, the fact that she can't do those other things means that she is, by definition, not a generalist. She has a single character class that would be called Akashic or something.

The fact that she cannot see the future by no means proves that she isn't a generalist; Paul's prescient ability is unique within the story to him alone. Alia is possesses a unique form of projective telepathy in addition to "know a lot of stuff". Throughout her career, she slits throats with a crysknife and engineers political intrigues.

Forge also lives in Super Hero land. He is a gadgeteer. No more, no less. That's a character class, and he has it. He can't shoot laser eyebeams, he can't lift a car, he is not bullet proof. He shows up each issue with a number of high tech gadgets that he made. He is no more or less of a generalist than is Dr. Doom.

Forge is bulletproof thanks to special armor (if that doesn't count, then Iron Man doesn't count). He also has extensive training in combat, bionic limbs, and spellcasting capability.

Basically, you're conflating "being smart" or "swashbuckling" with "being a generalist." That's not being a generalist at all. Rogues are not "generalists" they have a character class that is called "Rogue."

-Username17

The ability to put a character class to something does not prevent it from being a generalist. The "Rogue" type in Tunnels and Trolls is defined by the fact that it is a generalist class, as is the Factotum class from 3.5.

Besides Doc Savage, who would you call a generalist?

[The Man Who Killed Death]

The ability to put a character class to something does not prevent it from being a generalist. The "Rogue" type in Tunnels and Trolls is defined by the fact that it is a generalist class, as is the Factotum class from 3.5.

Besides Doc Savage, who would you call a generalist?

As far as the Factotum in 3.5, that sort of thing should be created through a decent multi-classing system. You don't just work towards general abilities. The factotum should be researching arcane magic for a portion of his career, then multiclass into a thief, or cleric, or whatever.

"Generalists" should be done by multiclassing, assuming you can work with a system that doesn't make you suck by doing it.

Speaking of that, does anyone know of a good system for multiclassing?

[TavishArtair]

Re: Striker
He assumed you were talking about the 4e Striker, who is just the "big damage" guy. The Striker in that list is someone specifically more effective against targets already engaged by someone from a different class, and maybe also during an ambush. Which might still be a little too general anyway (synergy between combatants of different roles is already supposed to universally happen), but still not the same thing.

That's part of why I brought it up. I'm not really "seeing it" so to speak.

[Username17]

Re: Striker
He assumed you were talking about the 4e Striker, who is just the "big damage" guy. The Striker in that list is someone specifically more effective against targets already engaged by someone from a different class, and maybe also during an ambush. Which might still be a little too general anyway (synergy between combatants of different roles is already supposed to universally happen), but still not the same thing.

That's part of why I brought it up. I'm not really "seeing it" so to speak.

The "Striker" I suggested there was basically nothing like the 4e Striker. I was using 4e names and making a minimalist list of roles (which you'll note: was still like twice as many as they used). And that Striker specialized in putting the boot in to enemies that had been put into a bad position by one of the other party members. So you might get attacks that penalized or negated an enemy's recovery phase, so that stunlocks used by your allies would last longer. That kind of deal.

-Username17

[TavishArtair]

Oh, I see. The description was somewhat nonspecific. Yes, a "Mortal Strike" Warrior to borrow a WoW name for but a brief moment. That makes more sense. For some reason that did not occur to me. The only other interpretation, aside from "good white numbers", that particularly came to mind had to do with the class having good maneuverability to put it into position to deal its damage anywhere it chose, which admittedly could itself be a role, although "maneuver" is such a common trait that I'd hesitate to grant it a role in most fantasy games.

[Jacob_Orlove]

Besides Doc Savage, who would you call a generalist?

Hector. Theseus. Superman.

[RandomCasualty2]

No. A finite ability list implies a finite number of characters. It's not "near infinite" - there's no such thing! It's a finite number, and to make it a Kitchen Sink setting all you have to do is make that finite number very large. Pretending that you have access to infinity when you don't is at best extremely lazy. The question is simply how to make best use of your design space in order to get a very large number of potential characters. And I'll give you a hint: the answer is not to simply allow every single player to take any abilities off of any lists and use them together.

It's semantics. I should probably say "large enough that it might as well be inifinity" instead of actually infinite.

Unadulterated horse shit. Abilities have costs, and players have to be able to "afford" the abilities that they get. You're fucking right that a Time Mage may not be able to become a Ninja, because they can't afford to become a Ninja.

And that's fine. But that's saying that you can't be a ninja time mage *yet* as opposed to saying you can't be one at all. Every game will have some balance mechanism to keep the players at the same power level, and that's fine. But at some point every concept is eventually possible. This campaign may revolve around beast and wolverine, but next game you may want to run Thor and Superman.

So no, you can't be a Ninja and a Time Mage if another character is expected to be only one or the other.

Only there shouldn't be any expectation here, that's the problem. Because any characters schtick may contain a slight bit of time magic, but without being a full blown time mage. Further, because this is kitchen sink, you're going to be quite possibly including different versions of the time mage, if it's a concept that pops up in different incarnations. One may be a precog who can see through time and react to his opponent's blows before they happen. Another one might be the Final Fantasy time mage whose main ability is pretty much hasting people. But going fast, and seeing the future isn't something you ever want to protect, because by doing that, you make it so you can't have jedi or vampires with Celerity.

Almost every protected power you can think of is going to be a power possessed by some other concept. If you're making a closed setting where literally time mages are the only one to possess this ability, and that's what makes them special, then you can by all means protect it. But kitchen sink doesn't work that way. You have to accept that there are multiple roads to the same power, each with potentially different flavor.

Whatever system of attacks and defenses you set up, you can't change them. Imagine for the moment the simple case of RPS. And now: add something to it. Anything at all. A newcomer throws dynamite - that beats Rock, Paper, and Scissors all.

I'm not really talking about that. I'm talking about ability combinations. RPS isn't even an appropriate example because it automatically involves picking one out of three and includes role protection. This is more like a card game where you have a series of cards, and you get to pick any 7. If you encourage role protection you basically say that certain "protected" cards can't be taken with other protected cards. In a game without role protection, you can basically choose any 7 cards you want.

Nobody is arguing that abilities should just come out of nowhere. The argument is whether the game should look like GURPS, or whether it should look more like 4E. I'm arguing the former, and you (I guess) are arguing the latter. I'm really actually not sure what you're arguing since your examples for the most part have nothing to do with what I'm actually talking about.

[Ganbare Gincun]

And that's fine. But that's saying that you can't be a ninja time mage *yet* as opposed to saying you can't be one at all.

You can't ever become a "Ninja Time Mage" because those are two separate character concepts and you're only allowed to allot one concept per character. If you want to play a Ninja with a smattering of Time Mage powers, you can go right ahead and take the Ninja main class and the Time Mage subclass. But you don't get to have two fully-developed power sets per character.

So no, you can't be a Ninja and a Time Mage if another character is expected to be only one or the other.

Only there shouldn't be any expectation here, that's the problem. Because any characters schtick may contain a slight bit of time magic, but without being a full blown time mage.

See the recommendation listed above (and below).

Further, because this is kitchen sink, you're going to be quite possibly including different versions of the time mage, if it's a concept that pops up in different incarnations. One may be a precog who can see through time and react to his opponent's blows before they happen. Another one might be the Final Fantasy time mage whose main ability is pretty much hasting people. But going fast, and seeing the future isn't something you ever want to protect, because by doing that, you make it so you can't have jedi or vampires with Celerity.

That's why you pick different subclasses. A Time Mage/Diviner is going to play differently then a Time Mage/Hero or a Time Mage/Psion. They may have the same main schtick, but they are by no means identical concepts.

Almost every protected power you can think of is going to be a power possessed by some other concept. If you're making a closed setting where literally time mages are the only one to possess this ability, and that's what makes them special, then you can by all means protect it. But kitchen sink doesn't work that way. You have to accept that there are multiple roads to the same power, each with potentially different flavor.

On the contrary, having distinct roles, concepts, and powers is vital to maintaining the spirit of a Kitchen Sink setting. The Kitchen Sink is about offering a spectrum of diversity to players instead of encouraging players to gravitate to variants of the same damned character. You don't want to have Gnoll Heroes and Warforged Druids spamming the same power all of the time - they need to be able to contribute equally to the party's success in their own unique ways.

[RobbyPants]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole class/subclass system. Can you take any class for your "class" and any class for your "subclass"? So could you be Ninja (Time Mage) or a Time Mage (Ninja)?

Or are there two separate lists of classes used for classes and subclasses?