Rules Never Prevent RPing? (But Minis Seem To Do So?)

[shilsen]

I think that largely depends upon the chess club you're in.

In the one I used to belong to, things got pretty boisterous. Beyond my frequent claims of "Checkmate in 4 moves" or the like, there was a LOT of smack talking.

Piece-appropriate sound effects like whinnys would have seemed almost...quaint.

Were I to somehow wind up playing Gary Kasparov, OTOH, I think a single whinnny would be about the limit, depending upon his reaction. I'd do it, too- especially if there were an audience. There is something to be said, IMHO, for displaying a bit of style and fortitude in the face of impossible odds.

Somehow, I don't think a little sound-effect would prevent GK from finishing me off in 25 moves. Or less. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't respond to a 3rd whinny with "Checkmate in 14 moves" and a shark-like grin.

I may be strange, but the most interesting part of this thread for me has been the visual of Dannyalcatraz sitting across a chess board and whinnying at Kasparov.

 

[genshou]

I may be strange, but the most interesting part of this thread for me has been the visual of Dannyalcatraz sitting across a chess board and whinnying at Kasparov.

You're not the only one.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My point is that there are RPGs that do this sort of thing using rules.

True, and I wouldn't argue that D&D couldn't benefit from a few of these. I'm more defending the way it currently is as not inhibiting to roleplaying. It's roleplaying rules are very hands-off, which allows people to take their own directions with them, to form their own archetypes and their own stories. And, partially because D&D tries to be "a fantasy for all seasons," this works. It allows you to play the Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun and Planescape and Eberron all with one system for roleplaying -- the system where you get in character, talk to the DM about the world, and act as if you're a part of it.

I do find those rules to be relics of wargaming more than anything else, but "not providing help in roleplaying" is a far cry from preventing roleplaying.

Could D&D benefit from more extensive storytelling rules? Heck yeah. Does it need 'em? Heck no.

Something about the level of guidance being given to DMs regarding how to roleplay and how to encourage it in their players? Something about, even if there aren't rules, per se, there could be a lot more written in the rulebooks about it? And about how it relates, directly and indirectly, to the games mechanics of the rules? And how the two can be interchangeable dependant upon a situation, mood, or set of players?

The thing is that, especially in 3e, there's a pretty bold line drawn between what you describe and what happens, to help you play a role rather than use your powers of DM persuasion to save the day. Be as convincing as you like, you still need to roll that Diplomacy check.

The core D&D rules don't care, really, that your character is in love with someone. Because it's impossible to make that fair, to make sure that an encounter is still a challenge when your lover is in danger, to ensure that your love doesn't overshadow the other characters, etc. It's impossible to balance story effects, because every story is different, told differently, by different DM's at different tables.

So D&D deals with the rules it can control, the objective world the PC's interact with. And gives general advice for storytelling rather than specific rules. There are advantages in this, and there are limitations, just like in any other ruleset. It's a choice, and it's not a bad one. If you want +8 because you're in love, it's up to the DM to give it to you or no, depending upon what he thinks is a good challenge. The rules won't give it to you, because then you'll never have a character who doesn't have a lover because it gives you a free bonus.

It's the idea that a red hat shouldn't give you a mechanical bonus that a blue hat doesn't, because it's just a superficial, variable requirement.

I'm not saying it's the right way to do things (that's gonna vary depending upon your preferences), I'm just saying it's a valid choice, and just because D&D leaves it in the hands of a DM to reward you for subjective acts doesn't mean the rules that do exist inhibit your RP at all.

You see, certain games are played a certain way.

So we come to the crux of the matter -- it's not the rules that tell you to play this as a mini's game, it's your perception that a mini's game can only be played a certain way.

The way to play D&D has always been "the way you have fun doing it." If people don't possess the mental agility to see role playing on a grid, it's not D&D's fault. D&D's responsibility to address that problem is in direct proportion to the sales it looses by doing it this way vs. doing it another.

The rules of D&D have never said "stop being in-character." Even the minis rules don't say or imply that. That comes from your own head. And while it's fine to dislike minis combat because it takes you personally out of the world, it's not fair to say that the rules inhibit roleplaying absolutely, just because they do so for you. The rules don't. You do. And I don't mean to be insulting by saying it, because it's not BAD that you are the way you are. It's just inaccurate to blame the rules for it.

I dunno. I only want to roleplay stuff that actually matters. I could care less about roleplaying the shopping trip, or getting a room in a tavern, or picking up a wench, or whatever. But when it matters, when something happens that I really don't want or I really want something to happen (ie. two characters are in conflict), that's what I want to roleplay.

And I don't want the GM to just decide what's going to happen. I want him to push me as hard as he can to see if I'll break. I want him to kick me in the nuts and say, "Had enough?" And when I stand up and spit in his face - yeah, wicked.

I do agree, even though I'm defending D&D's manner of doing things. D&D says that the DM can give you a bonus, but since the DM knows best (IMHO, something of a flawed reasoning to begin with), if he doesn't, it must be because the bonus would be too powerful. He doesn't want you to be immune to the charm, he wants the tension of having yourself charmed into being your love's enemy. He won't give you +8 for free just because it's in the story, because how would that be fair to the other characters? (those are just examples of why D&D doesn't do things like that)

I would love it, and, as my work on FFZ shows, I'm into that kind of story-mechanics interdependancy. But I've found that it very much limits the story I tell. I loose a lot of D&D's versatility by using Character Concepts, and basing awards around Story Themes and the like. That's okay for FFZ, but I'm not sure it would be okay for D&D.

I think creating roleplaying-based feats instead of tactical-combat-based feats would be a nice addition to D&D indeed

And the reson D&D DOESN'T create an "In Love" kind of feat is because it doesn't want there to be some mechanical incentive to be in love. You're in love because you WANT your character to be, not because the game pats you on the back for it. You roleplay because you want to roleplay, not because you want a +8 bonus. You wear a blue hat instead of a red one because it fits your character, not because the red one gives you a smaller bonus with the organization the characters deal with.

It opens up a can of worms that I'm happy D&D didn't open up.

However, not giving you a +4 bonus for a blue hat doesn't equate to forcing you to not roleplay your character. It just means that if you want a blue hat, it's beacuse you want a blue hat, and you're not going to be better than the character without a hat because of it.

When one looks at the way different games approach the mechanics of character creation, action resolution, giving different people at the table the power to call scene details, etc, it seems hard to deny that mechanics can have a very big effect on roleplay.

Only for those who want them to.

If I play a powergamer, I will look at the In Love feat and the Blue Hat feat not as role-playing opportunities, but as bonuses I can get just for describing myself a certain way. It won't affect the way I play, it will just affect the tools I use to play. If I'm playing 7th Sea, I take hubrises and flaws that rarely come up, and pick benefits that will frequently come up.

You won't change people by changing the rules.

The flip side of this is that if I play for role-playing, I don't need In Love and Blue Hat to make my character in love or give him a blue hat. This is D&D's assumption -- you will play the role because playing the role is it's own benefit. And if you aren't that into character, you don't need to be, because the rules are their own benefit as well. I shouldn't need to use the rules to make me feel better about roleplaying, and I shouldn't need to play a role to make me feel better about using the rules.

Fair enough. But then there is really little wrong with Philotomy's approach, of letting a player call his/her character as a squire without having that affect the sheet - because (according to the above) you really need very little on the sheet to mark a character as a squire (I'm not sure a rank of Profession is even needed to be able to oil armour, prepare saddles and care for horse in a basic way - the latter two things I know from experience can be done by a 10 year old boy with a pony, and surely oiling armour comes (implicitly) with the armour feats, given that most GMs aren't having the armour of all fighters rust, except for those with ranks in Profession (Squire)).

Exactly. If you're the King of Siam and you don't want to get a benefit for it, there's nothing (in my games) inhibiting you from that. If you want to be the king of Siam and, say, have a magical crown, then get a magical crown, but don't expect me to give you one just because the king of Siam would have one.

Somehow, I don't think a little sound-effect would prevent GK from finishing me off in 25 moves.

And being in love or wearing a blue hat shouldn't help you slay the dragon, either.

That is, at least, D&D's philosophy. I like it when blue hats give you some particular advantage.

 

[LostSoul]

Good points, KM. I see where you're coming from now. I think we agree that D&D's rules don't neccesarily inhibit roleplaying, but they don't neccesarily reward it either. Is that correct?

The way I like to play, I'd rather being in love (or not, or hating someone) had mechanics, and wearing plate mail or leather armour or nothing at all didn't. (ie. The blue hat is plate mail and the red hat is leather. What really matters is the relationship.)

 

[Mark CMG]

Something about the level of guidance being given to DMs regarding how to roleplay and how to encourage it in their players? Something about, even if there aren't rules, per se, there could be a lot more written in the rulebooks about it? And about how it relates, directly and indirectly, to the games mechanics of the rules? And how the two can be interchangeable dependant upon a situation, mood, or set of players?

The thing is that, especially in 3e, there's a pretty bold line drawn between what you describe and what happens, to help you play a role rather than use your powers of DM persuasion to save the day. Be as convincing as you like, you still need to roll that Diplomacy check.

The core D&D rules don't care, really, that your character is in love with someone. Because it's impossible to make that fair, to make sure that an encounter is still a challenge when your lover is in danger, to ensure that your love doesn't overshadow the other characters, etc. It's impossible to balance story effects, because every story is different, told differently, by different DM's at different tables.

So D&D deals with the rules it can control, the objective world the PC's interact with. And gives general advice for storytelling rather than specific rules. There are advantages in this, and there are limitations, just like in any other ruleset. It's a choice, and it's not a bad one. If you want +8 because you're in love, it's up to the DM to give it to you or no, depending upon what he thinks is a good challenge. The rules won't give it to you, because then you'll never have a character who doesn't have a lover because it gives you a free bonus.

It's the idea that a red hat shouldn't give you a mechanical bonus that a blue hat doesn't, because it's just a superficial, variable requirement.

I'm not saying it's the right way to do things (that's gonna vary depending upon your preferences), I'm just saying it's a valid choice, and just because D&D leaves it in the hands of a DM to reward you for subjective acts doesn't mean the rules that do exist inhibit your RP at all.

There is no doubt that actions and factors that are less tangible than mere killing can be tied to rewards both tangible and explicit. Since it is done now in the Story Awards (experience) section of the DMG and the DMG II under Teamwork Benefits, it can obviously be done more extensively. This has been proven and is, as such, not really part of the debate.

What would help to further give those DMs with a larger focus on RPing in their games additional guidance toward their ends would be to have the same done throughout the ruleset with DM advice not just in a few pages in a couple of isolated sections but elsewhere in sections where it might not be currently. Sidebars or subsections on how RPing interplays with other game mechanics periodically interspersed with one another in a more overt approach.

The debate, KM, is not whether or not it can be done, since it has been done, but in how extensively it has been done in the past and how extensively it could be done in the future.

 

[pemerton]

True, and I wouldn't argue that D&D couldn't benefit from a few of these. I'm more defending the way it currently is as not inhibiting to roleplaying. It's roleplaying rules are very hands-off, which allows people to take their own directions with them, to form their own archetypes and their own stories. And, partially because D&D tries to be "a fantasy for all seasons," this works.

<snip>

Could D&D benefit from more extensive storytelling rules? Heck yeah. Does it need 'em? Heck no.

<snip>

The thing is that, especially in 3e, there's a pretty bold line drawn between what you describe and what happens, to help you play a role rather than use your powers of DM persuasion to save the day. Be as convincing as you like, you still need to roll that Diplomacy check.

The core D&D rules don't care, really, that your character is in love with someone. Because it's impossible to make that fair, to make sure that an encounter is still a challenge when your lover is in danger, to ensure that your love doesn't overshadow the other characters, etc. It's impossible to balance story effects, because every story is different, told differently, by different DM's at different tables.

So D&D deals with the rules it can control, the objective world the PC's interact with. And gives general advice for storytelling rather than specific rules. There are advantages in this, and there are limitations, just like in any other ruleset. It's a choice, and it's not a bad one. If you want +8 because you're in love, it's up to the DM to give it to you or no, depending upon what he thinks is a good challenge. The rules won't give it to you, because then you'll never have a character who doesn't have a lover because it gives you a free bonus.

<snip>

The rules of D&D have never said "stop being in-character."

<snip>

it's not fair to say that the rules inhibit roleplaying absolutely, just because they do so for you. The rules don't. You do.

<snip>

And the reson D&D DOESN'T create an "In Love" kind of feat is because it doesn't want there to be some mechanical incentive to be in love. You're in love because you WANT your character to be, not because the game pats you on the back for it. You roleplay because you want to roleplay, not because you want a +8 bonus.

<snip>

However, not giving you a +4 bonus for a blue hat doesn't equate to forcing you to not roleplay your character. It just means that if you want a blue hat, it's beacuse you want a blue hat, and you're not going to be better than the character without a hat because of it.

<snip>

If I play a powergamer, I will look at the In Love feat and the Blue Hat feat not as role-playing opportunities, but as bonuses I can get just for describing myself a certain way.

<snip>

The flip side of this is that if I play for role-playing, I don't need In Love and Blue Hat to make my character in love or give him a blue hat. This is D&D's assumption -- you will play the role because playing the role is it's own benefit. And if you aren't that into character, you don't need to be, because the rules are their own benefit as well. I shouldn't need to use the rules to make me feel better about roleplaying, and I shouldn't need to play a role to make me feel better about using the rules.

<snip>

And being in love or wearing a blue hat shouldn't help you slay the dragon, either.

I realise that you are not advocating for D&D in the above post, because you refer to other gaming preferences of yours. But I've selected some of the key points above, because I think when read together they give a very accurate summary of a very common attitude that D&D (and most of its players?) takes towards roleplaying, which presents itself as common-sense but is in fact quite controversial.

I take the attitude to be something like this: mechanics are for what's objective, like combat abilities, and have to be fair across players. Roleplaying is subjective, and is in the domain of "flavour" or "fluff", not mechanics. Furthermore, the incentive for developing and playing a character is taken to be the player's pleasure in it, not mechanical benefits.

But consider the following: why does the game reward wearing full plate armour over a Conan-style loincloth? After all, we could say that if I want to play a knight who spends money on armour, I will, and if I want to play Conan I will - why impose a mechanical difference? The mechanical difference creates a disincentive to play the Conan-type (and we can note that some d20/OGL rulesets, like the Conan RPG, change the mechanics to try and reduce this, by giving a class and level based bonus to AC).

Likewise, the absence of a mechanical benefit for being in love creates a disincentive to establish those sorts of relationship in game, because in doing so the player puts his/her character on the line - money spent on the love-interest, the possibility of the story doing him/her over by killing off the love-interest, etc - but nothing is received. Whereas the player who decides to invest roleplaying effort in the cultivation of martial pursuits does get a mechanical reward, because the mechanics care about those things.

If by "powergamer" we mean "player who want to extract mechanical benefits from the system", then I have no objection to powergaming. Why have mechanics if you don't try to make them work for you? And it is true that, if you have mechanical benefits like +8 to save when it's your love interest at stake, then powergamers will cultivate love interests. But I don't see how it is an objection to these sorts of mechanics that they would encourage powergamers to cultivate "story elements". Isn't that the point - that certain types of mechanics encourage roleplaying, while others don't?

Picking up on some other points above:

*roleplay mechanics need not dictate a certain type of story element - eg I don't think that The Riddle of Steel puts any limits on the range of possible Spiritual Attributes;

*there is a big difference between mechanics where description affects resolution (ie I get a bonus on a Diplomacy check due to my (the player's) silver tongue) and mechanics which give a bonus to rolls based on story elements (which is what I and Lost Soul have been talking about);

*it can't be true that both "D&D is fantasy for all seasons" and that "being in love shouldn't help you slay the dragon".

Why this last point? Think of Beowulf - he is able to slay the dragon because he is king of the Geats, and his kingdom is at stake. Think of Boromir - he is able to fell many foes despite being full of arrows, because his honour is at stake. Think of Eowyn - she is able to slay the Witchking because of her passion for Theoden - & Merry can follow up because of his relationship to Eowyn and the King. In all these classic fantasy tropes, passions are what create the win.

There is a type of fantasy where passions don't play such a role - the low-fantasy pulp style of the Grey Mouser and Conan. And it's no surprise that Gary Gygax has always stressed these as the primary influence on D&D, rather than romantic/high fantasy like Tolkien, Beowulf or the medieval Arthurian romances. But this doesn't make D&D fantasy for all seasons, it makes it a way of playing out a particular type of fantasy milieu.

Some fairly mainstream d20/OGL material tries to move things in a different direction - I'm thinking of Monte Cook's oath feats in Hallowed Might, and the Oathsworn in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved, both of which DO give a bonus to kill the dragon if an appropriate passion is at stake. Even D&D does to a limited extent - the Paladin (which is the D&D character trope most directly derived from romantic rather than pulp fantasy) gets a benefit to slay the dragon to whose destruction he is sworn, by using the Smite Evil ability. Of course, D&D implements this through alignment rules rather than passions or Spiritual Attributes. But I don't see why alignment can be regarded as consistent with a "mechanics over fluff" outlook, but passions are not. I think it's more that D&D players are so accustomed to alignment, they don't notice its (many) roles in shaping a certain type of roleplay in the game.

Anyway, none of the above is meant as an attack on D&D, or on any poster. It's meant as an argument for the conclusion that mechanics, including D&D's approach to them, do shape roleplay. There is no such thing as a "roleplay neutral" mechanics - and even if there were (I don't know what they would look like, but maybe they're out there somewhere) D&D is not an example of such.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The core D&D rules don't care, really, that your character is in love with someone. Because it's impossible to make that fair, to make sure that an encounter is still a challenge when your lover is in danger, to ensure that your love doesn't overshadow the other characters, etc. It's impossible to balance story effects, because every story is different, told differently, by different DM's at different tables.

So D&D deals with the rules it can control, the objective world the PC's interact with. And gives general advice for storytelling rather than specific rules. There are advantages in this, and there are limitations, just like in any other ruleset. It's a choice, and it's not a bad one. If you want +8 because you're in love, it's up to the DM to give it to you or no, depending upon what he thinks is a good challenge. The rules won't give it to you, because then you'll never have a character who doesn't have a lover because it gives you a free bonus.

It's the idea that a red hat shouldn't give you a mechanical bonus that a blue hat doesn't, because it's just a superficial, variable requirement.

And here I think you are oversimplifying, or maybe just focussing on the "I'm in love" example a bit too much...as there are examples of D&D giving mechanical advantages to "roleplaying aspects", like feats that base on the faith of a character, or his goodness or vileness, and that give mechanical advantages for them. So what is so wrong to give advantages in feat form for certain interpersonal relationships, to help players define a motivation they get for a certain emotion/passion they feel? The ranger already gets his "favored enemy", after all.

D&D is a toolset that, through rules, allows players to describe the elements of their character's stories in mechanical terms so they can be played out on a common baseline of rules. There's enough feats and special abilities that allow a character to overshine all others in combat if he concentrates on it. I don't see any reason why there can't be something similar for more roleplaying-related stuff...except for the obvious: it's not supposed to be as much encouraged as combat is. Saying it can't be done rules-wise is a cop-out, as it can be done, and has been done by other games. And 3E's big motto "Options not restrictions" should actually point out that it can be done...if it's wanted.

I'm not saying it's the right way to do things (that's gonna vary depending upon your preferences), I'm just saying it's a valid choice, and just because D&D leaves it in the hands of a DM to reward you for subjective acts doesn't mean the rules that do exist inhibit your RP at all.

No...neither do they encourage roleplaying, especially compared to how they encourage building up personal combat power. If you encourage one, and leave the other up in thin air...that's a form of discouraging it, too.

So we come to the crux of the matter -- it's not the rules that tell you to play this as a mini's game, it's your perception that a mini's game can only be played a certain way.

No, the crux of the matter is that I'm saying that a game usually is played a certain way, and encourages that way of playing. I know very well that you can play any game "against the grain", as it is, but that many people simply don't do that. If you present them with a mini game, they play the mini game, and if you present them with chess, they won't play knights and horsies while making their moves. The rules only make clear what kind of game it is, and D&D combat rules and examples make it abundantly clear that it at heart is meant to be a mini game. So many players will play it as such when all the pieces for it are on the table. I hope you see the difference.

The way to play D&D has always been "the way you have fun doing it." If people don't possess the mental agility to see role playing on a grid, it's not D&D's fault. D&D's responsibility to address that problem is in direct proportion to the sales it looses by doing it this way vs. doing it another.

So in a nutshell, it's not the fault of the rules if the people are too uncreative to play a mini game as anything other than a mini game?

However, not giving you a +4 bonus for a blue hat doesn't equate to forcing you to not roleplay your character. It just means that if you want a blue hat, it's beacuse you want a blue hat, and you're not going to be better than the character without a hat because of it.

Right...that's why so many players tout 3E's "options", because now it actually meant something to be a dextrous warrior in contrast to a brutish one, while in old editions all that separated you was the roleplaying, and that only happened because the player chose to do so, not because it gave him any cool advantages, like it does today? That's why choosing the blue hat gives you a +1 dodge bonus to AC, for example, if you point out one opponent for that? Why can't it give your "fate-tied" partner a +2 bonus to AC as long as you are not more than 10' away from him? Or you a +2 to attack as long as you fight to defend her? I don't see much of a difference here, much less a can of worms. All I see are tools to represent stories in a rules frame.

If I play a powergamer, I will look at the In Love feat and the Blue Hat feat not as role-playing opportunities, but as bonuses I can get just for describing myself a certain way. It won't affect the way I play, it will just affect the tools I use to play. If I'm playing 7th Sea, I take hubrises and flaws that rarely come up, and pick benefits that will frequently come up.

Yeah, and then you have a DM who actually brings those advantages/disadvantages up in play, makes that Nemesis appear, your True Friend pop up and need your help, have that Haunting pester you every game session...because you chose it as such, and reap the benefits along with the problems. And if you choose to totally ignore it, the DM can as well take the mechanical benefit away with the roleplaying. If you ignore your grandfather for too long because he haunts you, you might actually incur the anger of an ancestor. Instant story hook.
Or is that simply putting too much into the DM's hands again?

You won't change people by changing the rules.

No, maybe not, but I've seen it often enough that people change their play when the rules change.

The flip side of this is that if I play for role-playing, I don't need In Love and Blue Hat to make my character in love or give him a blue hat. This is D&D's assumption -- you will play the role because playing the role is it's own benefit. And if you aren't that into character, you don't need to be, because the rules are their own benefit as well. I shouldn't need to use the rules to make me feel better about roleplaying, and I shouldn't need to play a role to make me feel better about using the rules.

Then I wonder why there's so many rules focussing on making players feel better about micromanaging combat situations? Isn't that something a tactic-lover should do anyway, then, because it's its own benefit, and makes his character stand out even if it has no direct effect on the game?
There's plenty enough stories that tell how something like "true love", or "fate" or "past lives" or any other of those purely roleplaying choices have a big and tangible effect on the outcomes of a story. What's wrong with including rules for something like that, too? I could simply say that feats were simply a way to include "cool fighting moves" into D&D for those who wanted there to be a difference between their fighters, yet they have turned into one of the biggest source of power combinations for purely mechanical reasons. If it's just about the potential of abuse of feats...we should eliminate them all. Or leave it up to the players to use them how they see fit, and craft stories with them. But then we should have a full set of tools, not one that is heavily weighed towards plain combat.

 

[pemerton]

Geron, I think we're in broad agreement.

And I like the favoured enemy example, which complements my paladin example nicely (and shows that even in core DnD these things go beyond alignment).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Geron Raveneye and pemerton: Fantastic posts!

Kamikaze Midget: While it may be true that "You won't change people by changing the rules" (and rules do change how people approach a game, even if they do not change them outside the game) it is certainly true that the rules can (and, IMHO, should) reflect options wherein role-playing choices grant mechanical advantages.

Geron Raveneye and pemerton have shown, I believe, very strongly that D&D's assumption is not that "you will play the role because playing the role is it's own benefit" but rather that you play the role because each role has its own mechanical benefits if the designers thought that role important to the game. And the argument, as I understand it, boils down to a simple question: Did the designers think broadly enough when deciding what roles were important?

RC

 

[genshou]

So in a nutshell, it's not the fault of the rules if the people are too uncreative to play a mini game as anything other than a mini game?

See, here's where I see the argument weaken. How can a ruleset in which the chapter on combat is such a small portion of the Player's Handbook be a mini game? If you look at the contents and their percentages, it looks to me like it's actually a game about building characters and using magic. Combat is just the most frequently occurring place to overcome challenges.

If D&D is nothing more than a mini game to you, I do have to wonder what happened to the rest of your copy of the core rulebooks. Or are you speaking to us from the horrible future, where 4E has swept across the land, ravaging all in its path?