Do you give NPC's Artha?

[Judd]

If so, how much?

I gave an Elven King some Artha to throw around because I imagined him as a really beefy, Elrond-level NPC but I didn't give joe-shmoe guard any...but I did give the vicious Witch-Hunters at the end of my Game #3 of 3 in the 3 Sessions of BW in 5 days.

Thoughts?

[Kaare Berg]

I tend to give pivotal NPCs artha.

when I do I give them something like four or five Fate and one or two Persona.

The arch-nemesis Aelfric for instance had six fate and three persona. The Dragon Gostiaur had none, but then he didn't really need to as the PCS had to flood a city to kill him.

I think the question is a philosophical one:
Are your player characters uniqely marked by fate (only PCs have artha) or are is fate playing around with all. (NPCs have artha too).

Answer this and you have the answer to your question.

[Judd]

I like how you turned this into a philosophical question.

Good answer.

Thanks.

[Viper]

I don't know. I'm struggling with the same question myself as I'm burning up NPCs for my steampunk game - I almost think that NPCs don't need artha, as you can fudge their rolls at will... though as a GM, I more often find myself nudging things downward a bit to help my players survive.

[luke]

in the new new new artha chapter (the one that is actually in the layout for the revision), I recommend giving NPCs artha.

Oddly enough, I recommend exactly what Kaare said.

damn Norse vikings reading my mind,
-L

[Kaare Berg]

I almost think that NPCs don't need artha, as you can fudge their rolls at will

Its funny, because this is what I'd normally do (and do downwards if need be) but using the persona for complication rule to save NPCs gives the players an acceptance of such fudging where they would otherwise feel cheated.

it boils back to the philosophical question.

By giving NPCs artha in my game I have given it a more fate-laden tenor, fitting my high-heroic game.

if you are looking for a more brutal punk game, I wouldn't give tham this oppertunity, I would even go so far as to not use the persona-for-complication rule.

[Judd]

I have taken to more and more rolling my dice right in front of the players and letting the chips fall where they may. This goes against years of fudging that I did from behind the screen.

[Kaare Berg]

I still hide behind my screen like a good screen-monkey.

I have the custom DOF and often roll thses outside the screen, or roll them and ask what element they choose.

I've taken to using beads for artha, handing out (left and right according to Luke :oops: ) which would be easy to combine with the NPC artha question.

However, if you are looking for a way to fudge, then pull the dice behind the screen again.

[Judd]

I have found that I'm enjoying not fudging and enjoying the stories that are coming from it.

[Thor]

I have found that I'm enjoying not fudging and enjoying the stories that are coming from it.

Yeah, I'm with you! I suspect that GMs fudge die rolls to keep PCs alive far more frequently than they judge die rolls to keep NPCs alive. I know I did.

Now that I'm playing more and not GMing (relatively a new experience for me), I find that I really prefer to see what happens with the rolls. If it screws my character, so be it.

Why?

Because I feel a genuine sense of accomplishment (or relief!) when I make the right choices and pull through. This game is all about risk, you know? Much like Sorcerer, it's all about what you're willing to risk to achieve your goals. It's always a gamble.

To really FEEL that risk, you have to know that it's genuine. My take anyway.

[Kublai]

Ha! No more GM screens for you, Thor! Suffer at the wrath of my dice-fu!

Actually, there is one really good reason to keep GM dice behind the screen. Not knowing how many dice the villain is throwing makes him mysterious and unknown. This ignorance of his abilities creates suspense for the players.

[foxandwarlock]

Thor, Paka, I can't agree with you more.

A few years back Wuxing and I tussled with a baby blue dragon in the granddaddy of systems. It nearly killed us but I rolled two natural twenties back to back, representing two deeply buried arrows and that was enough to "kill it" The GM at the time rolled behind the screen and while I was estatic (as I had never fought a dragon in my years of gaming) Wuxing always felt like the GM had pulled punches on us - i.e. not really rolling all its attacks, fudging die rolls down, lessening damage, etc and it totally tainted his experience. He, in fact, never played that character again.

With our current BW game, Wuxing always rolls out in the open unless its Perception/Stealth or some such. And Thor you said it:

"Because I feel a genuine sense of accomplishment (or relief!) when I make the right choices and pull through. This game is all about risk, you know? Much like Sorcerer, it's all about what you're willing to risk to achieve your goals. It's always a gamble.

To really FEEL that risk, you have to know that it's genuine. My take anyway."

I mean what feels better - having your "hero" status handed to you when you were really never in danger - due to fudging behind the screen or really, actually sweating bullets and pulling through. Isn't it easier to be a hero when you know there's no risk? I think knowing that the GM is just going to roll and whatever happens, happens lends the right amount of consequence to those kind of legend-making stunts/actions.

Great stories do come from not fudging. Wuxing and I were once playing a solo campaign where my Wolfen character (can I say Wolfen here? Or will we get in copyright trouble? :twisted: ) was fighting an assassin atop a building. He rolled a natural 20, a deathblow in Palladium for assassins, and I rolled the required natural 20 to parry it. His next attack was a second natural 20, which I failed to parry and died. Hell, we still talk about that today. That's testament to not fudging right there.

[foxandwarlock]

Okay, true that Kublai. That is one good reason to keep 'em hidden.

Alternatively, always roll a whole bunch and use different colors and secretly only count the one color's results.

Watch your players freak. I know I'd be all over Wuxing like stink on...well, you know.

"That's his SKILL!?! That's BULLSHIT!"

[Thor]

Ha! No more GM screens for you, Thor! Suffer at the wrath of my dice-fu!

Actually, there is one really good reason to keep GM dice behind the screen. Not knowing how many dice the villain is throwing makes him mysterious and unknown. This ignorance of his abilities creates suspense for the players.

Hey, that's a totally fair point and totally valid, I think. Although there's definitely an "oh, shit!" factor if you commit to something and then the GM hauls out 18 dice! :lol:

Really though, I was sweating bullets at our last Corso game! I froze up and made some bad decisions, I think. I was totally drained at the end because you totally put me through the ringer! But if my character had died, I wouldn't have been upset. It would have been the result of my choices for the character and would have been a fitting end for the character (live by the sword, die by the sword), much as I'd like to see him and his brothers come out on top in all their evil glory.

[Kublai]

It's definitely a decision to be made. Consider that same duel of sorcery. Would you have acted differently if you knew he only had 1 Forte die left? The wizard was also in a pool of darkness which you could not see in. Would you have acted differently if you saw the effect your White Fire had on him vis-a-vis the dice?

[Thor]

Quite possibly. Although I figured I was dead. I thought he'd thoroughly kicked my ass. Honestly I thought you had him leave because you didn't want him to annihilate my character right there. :oops:

I had no idea I was holding my own against him.

I don't deny there are valid reasons to keep rolls hidden, and I certainly don't begrudge it. My preference is for open rolls, but it's not a deal-breaker for me at all.

However, I'm VERY glad we rolled the DoF for my spirit's attack out in the open. Somehow, I don't think it would have come up with such a long-term effect if it had been behind a screen. Though i could be maligning you. :lol:

[Kublai]

Oh, DOF's are an entirely different thing! I always roll them out in front of the players!

[Kaare Berg]

I am going to hold one up for the screen here. Be warned this is a pet peeve of mine so its gonna be rantish.

Picture this:
You have a character that you love, he has been through hell and you have been there with him. Then during the opening stages of tonights game he is ambushed/ordered into a fight he can not avoid. Like the bad-ass mother he is ,he kills nearly all the mooks. There is just one whimpy, badly wounded guy left, who despite common sense continues to stumble towards your character, pulls out his pistol and fires a shot at fifty yards.

clatter bang splat your beloved character takes a bullet between the eyes and while your friends continue the great campaign you are stuck making a new character.

or clatter, sigh, by some fluke he hits you, wounding you badly, what do you do?

This is why I fudge.

As for

Because I feel a genuine sense of accomplishment (or relief!) when I make the right choices and pull through.

Right choices here being scripting block/strike instead of strike/block?

Or choices being I'll summon a demon and damn the consequences?

Saying my players are invunerable because I fudge would get them quite upset. I am all for having them face the consequences of their choices. You choose poorly and you get hurt, mayebe killed. Period. I do, however, keep this completely independent of the dice. It is not: you roll poorly and you die, which is impllied by the no-fudging mindset. It is a trust issue.
They know I cheat, but they also know I only go so far.


Great stories do come from not fudging.

Ouch, means I haven't told a great story, ever :wink: . I fudge, less in BW than in other systems, but I fudge. And I fudge to tell a great story. It is why my players come to my table.

To get the Oh-Shit factor going I build up the players assumptions of the opponents skill. They fear character death, because I will kill if they fuck up, but what hurts more is the knowledge that if they fuck up the badness wins a victory in the game world, and somehow I've made them care about this.

Which brings us back to the philosophical question at the beginning.

Do you give Artha to NPCs?

I fudge, why should I? Well to me it fits with my sense of propriety.It limits and justifies my fudging. But mostly it fits my game world where good and evil are fighting with proxies.

Paka says he found that he enjoys not fudging, so giving NPCs artha lets him keep them in the fight a little longer without having to fudge. NPC artha then becomes justified fudging within the rules.

[Judd]

Paka says he found that he enjoys not fudging, so giving NPCs artha lets him keep them in the fight a little longer without having to fudge. NPC artha then becomes justified fudging within the rules.

If it is in the rules it ain't fudging.

Hero points, karma, artha, whatever you want to call it, if its in the rules or you house rule it it isn't fudging.

Shall we agree to disagree and move on?

[foxandwarlock]

Hey Neg,

I was not trying to imply that - sorry if it came off like that. I was just lending my support to Paka's statement about finding that some great stories have come from not fudging. I was just saying that I have had the same experience.

I was not trying to imply that fudging does not resultin good stuff - sorry, man. I'm sure great stories come out of screen-up school too - I just don't know when my GM has saved my hide. :D

Damn email for its lack of tone.

[Viper]

Maybe the solution is to give NPCs blartha too, to nudge (or is it fudge?) rolls downward. :twisted:

[Thor]

Right choices here being scripting block/strike instead of strike/block?

Or choices being I'll summon a demon and damn the consequences?

Both! In fact, I was thinking about the unleashing of a Nameless spirit, which I described in the Magic Burner section (and alluded to with the DoF discussion in this thread). I had staked everything on my plan, and had been building up to that one moment for nearly two sessions. I unleashed the spirit and everything depended on it working for a good bit of time. It all depended on the DoF, which was rolled out in the open. The spirit could have performed its task for moments, or just a few days. Either would have been bad news for me. But the roll came up as 6 years. I was ecstatic. I had gambled everything and won.

Believe me, I don't think your play style is wrong. I'm just stating my preference.

If a character dies, he dies. To me, that's okay. I don't want it to happen, and I'll try my best not to let it happen, but the story will survive. After all, if it's not an important, dramatic, climactic moment, why am I even rolling dice in a do-or-die situation anyway?

As for creating characters, we typically burn up our loyal contacts when we create characters, and even play them fairly regularly. My sorcerer isn't much in a toe-to-toe fight, but his cousin, the assassin, is (or was until Kublai stabbed him repeatedly with a knife in our last session!). When it's muscle that's called for, I play him. If one character falls, it's fairly easy to slip into the other character.

[Kublai]

Maybe the solution is to give NPCs blartha too, to nudge (or is it fudge?) rolls downward. :twisted:

Speak not of what you do not know!!! To mention Blartha is to invoke Blartha! The consequences are all too real for doing so! You have been warned!

[Thor]

Maybe the solution is to give NPCs blartha too, to nudge (or is it fudge?) rolls downward. :twisted:

Speak not of what you do not know!!! To mention Blartha is to invoke Blartha! The consequences are all too real for doing so! You have been warned!

Kublai is the only player that has ever been...awarded...Blartha. Ever. :lol:

[Viper]

:lol: wouldn't want to spoil that distinction...

[Thor]

:lol: wouldn't want to spoil that distinction...

:lol:

[Kublai]

Some GMs just don't appreciate my unique brand of comedy. :oops:

[Thor]

Some GMs just don't appreciate my unique brand of comedy. :oops:

That GM is a real Abzu! That's all I'm sayin'.

[Manicrack]

I think there are other ways to save your players than to fudge die rolls.
So far, in judd's games I hav ebeen really screwed by the dice two times.
One was actually in our small Dogs in the vineyard camapign where I, in an attack of pure stupidity, tried to exocise a demon all by myself. I badly failed, but before i was killed/possesed, a NPC saved me.

The other time was in what was supposed to be oneshot and turned into a two session game.
I was trying to get into a city under siege, and in the progress, I was attacked.
I got a traumatic wound with the first hit and was out for the rest of the session.

I can see how such wounds(especially in BW) can keep your character from the action for quite some time. But there are different ways to speed up healing rates.


Coming back to the original question, I belive giving NPC's, especially the main ones, creates a mystery around them.
It makes them seem stronger than they are, if you are not taking note of every single dice they roll for every single test.


-Crack

[luke]

I'm staying out of most of this discussion, but what 'Crack said sparked off a thought:

The GM controls the NPCs actions utterly in BW. There is absolutely no reason to ever be caught in the "well that's what they would do" scenario and thereby destroy your player's characters.

NPCs can do weird and fucked up shit, too. They can bring a knife to a sword fight, they can script badly, they can Forfeit to laugh at the flailing weakling and they can walk away because they don't think you're worth it.

In my mind, these are far better fudges than ignoring the roll of the dice. I was once an inveterate fudger. It wore thin, my players just knew they weren't going to die. Even though the kept pushing the envelope. Eventually, once everyone was comfortable with the system, I took down the screen and started rolling in the open. Don't want to be caught in a fucked up, life or death situation? Then think ahead. That goes for players and GMs alike. Once the fucked up situation starts, the stakes are on the table.

Like Pete, I do keep Sorcery rolls reasonably private. Forte and shields are not necessarily information I want desperate players to have. But for the most part, even with Stealth and Perception rolls, I just put it out there. Using the Let It Ride rules, it doesn't matter whether you pass the test, you're still going forward!

-L

PS I give NPCs Fate and Persona, not Deeds. Did I say that already? I'm getting into the habit of telling the players how much artha npcs have so they don't think I'm cheating. Also, I mention in the new rules that players can nominate NPCs for artha. The GM is obligated to accept.

[Kaare Berg]

I am not on a high horse here.

Nor am I offended, nor do I feel slighted.

Like Paka said we disagree.

No biggie.

Peace.

I can summarise my attitude like this


The dice are not involate, only the player enjoyment is

If you get your rocks of by rolling in the open, Great. I can see the virtue of this. I've had fun doing this, and in the example put forward by Thor I couldn't agree more. I would do the same.

Personally I've lost too many a character (with the proper emotional investment) to dice-venerating GMs in battles that are storywise insignificant.

I also object to the "here is a badguy and he has this many dice" approach of scaring players (due to the same GM as above). GM Intelligence goes alot longer than a an extra die.

However
This is my way of doing it. I'm a screen monkey.

Guess what I was doing was looking for a philosophical discussion on this theme:

Is rule breaking within the rules okay? And why must it then be within the rules to be okay.

To quote Eruditius:

I have always said that rules are for people who can't make decisions (and recently has been expanded to "and players that do not trust their GMS.")

Is this entire discussion then about Trust. We as players want to feel that our characters are at risk or emontional investment in the game becomes futile. The "Oh I have to bring this ring to Mount Doom, okay, here we go" syndrome. Because we do not trust the GM to put a characters at risk in fear of fucking up his storyline, aka dice-invunerability.

Do our reliance on rolling in the open become a substitue for the "the GM will beat me over the head fairly" belief?

Or does it, for us the GMs, become a shield against the "look I'm sorry but he guts you, why?" discussion?

And finally is this really a "K, dude, it is a gameand this is how we play" issue and I'm ranting aimlessly. Could be.

And no worries Foxandwarlock, I do take all written here to be in good nature. Hope you all do the same to me.

Oh Luke,
Also, I mention in the new rules that players can nominate NPCs for artha. The GM is obligated to accept.

This is now adopted.

Like you I do not give deeds to NPCs.

[Judd]

I also object to the "here is a badguy and he has this many dice" approach of scaring players (due to the same GM as above). GM Intelligence goes alot longer than a an extra die.

Is rule breaking within the rules okay? And why must it then be within the rules to be okay.


I agree that scaring PC's with numbers always sucks. I don't do it. We are in full agreement here.

I think this trust issue works on both sides of this GM's Screen issue.

"Trust me?" I am saying to the players.

"Then trust me to make your death cool and even when the dice say you fail, I will make it work for the game and make it work for you."

I have been running games like this for a while now and I'm finding that I don't run into situations where the goblin hits the knight with a stick, rolls tons of success, and lops off his head. Just doesn't happen.

Trust is the paramount issue here, I agree.

Trust me and trust the system. We'll turn even the most gruesome failures into something story-cool.

Iam sorry that I dismissed your point of view so quickly. I just watched a thread on this exact issue explode into a 13+ page bout of back and forth idiocy with no one reading each other's post and no one doing anything but screaming at the top of their lungs. I was tired of the issue but if you want more friendly debate I will do my best to discuss it.

[foxandwarlock]

Yeah, your RPG.net thread did kind of blow up.

[Thor]

Personally I've lost too many a character (with the proper emotional investment) to dice-venerating GMs in battles that are storywise insignificant.


Kaare,

First, do you throw in battles that are insignificant to the story (reading your Actual Play posts, I doubt it)? If not, this is a non-issue.

Much like The Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel asks you: "Given your BITs, what's worth fighting for? What's worth dying for?" If the players feel that this particular battle isn't, they should walk away.

Also, haven't you been playtesting the "complication" rule? Shouldn't that obviate the need to fudge rolls to save characters' lives?

[Kaare Berg]

Also, haven't you been playtesting the "complication" rule? Shouldn't that obviate the need to fudge rolls to save characters' lives?

It does, it does. Like I stated early on, I fudge less in BW than in any other system. After this rule I nearly never fudge.

And yes there are no random encounters in my games.

There are however moments like;

The PCs need to enter that guarded tower. Super slick stealth ranger god Liam then sneaks up and rolls abysimal (this is a guy with B6 stealth forked with different skills depending on situation).

The lowly wood-troll, half asleep at the guard post proceeds to roll just sixes for an escalating 20 successes. Do I now:

A. let the ranger biff ala Han Solo in return of the jedi.

B. decide, awell fuck it. I don't want a fight right now, and let Liam sneak past.

Here is the entire fudge dilemma. Not to save PC ass, but to control the narrative flow.

Me as the GM have no artha. I have Authority and nominal control (in name at least). So to exercise this I have to fudge.
This explains why I raised the question about trust.

Which is why I must repeat my original question:

Why does rule-breaking within the rules gel, while just rule-breaking doesn't? (artha vs fudging).

I see that there is a distinction, I just can't see why.

Unless it is a matter of trust.

But then as Paka says, his players trust him and he dosen't fudge. (apologise for any presumptions here Paka). So what is it that makes fudging so "bad"?

Am I making sense?


*edited to add that I would choose
C. let Liam succede but comlicate matters by having a troll patrol come out and chat with the guard, seperating Liam from the group and forcing them to rethink their plans.

[Viper]

Well, one way of avoiding insignificant PC death in this system is to just cap your NPC/monster damage at your players' average Mortal Wound, except in special cases, like when they're fighting a big monster, or big, important bad guys, or whatever. Just don't give the henchmen and the guards the ability to kill the characters outright (with say, a B11 hit on a character with a B10 MW)

The reason is, it is possible, albeit har to recover from a MW, but impossible to recover from insta-death.

For example, say a player gets sniped by a crossbow. The sniper rolls extremely well, armor fails, all that. Don't have the books on me, but normally, I think that's a B13. Say your character's an average joe, with a B10 MW. He's toast. Well, why not just say the crossbow does B10 on superb? That way, he's probably still toast, but if the rest o the party acts quickly and smartly, they might save him. Certainly more opportunities for good roleplaying than "sorry bob, go burn up a new guy while we finish this up"

Of course, if you're going to nerf NPC crosssbows, you should nerf the player's crossbows as well.You could rule that Run-of-the-mill crossbows max out at B10, and it's only superior ones that do B13. If the players really want those extra points, they can pay for them, and you can have higher powered NPCs use them.

This way, you can roll with abandon- there's real risk to the players, but you're not forcing a no-win situation on them, i.e., you're going to die no matter what you do.

[Judd]

But then as Paka says, his players trust him and he dosen't fudge. (apologise for any presumptions here Paka). So what is it that makes fudging so "bad"?

It isn't bad. I'm not saying it sbad or that I'm right and you're wrong.

Don't take it that way just because I am challenging your position on the matter.

More on this topic later.

[luke]

While I agree with Viper in spirit, I must advocate the use of different weaponry/methods rather than fudging the damage numbers. Players catch on to that pretty quickly -- there aren't a lot of crunchy options for weapons in BW.

So stick to those hunting bows for your assassins.

-L

[Judd]

[quote="Viper"]
Of course, if you're going to nerf NPC crosssbows, you should nerf the player's crossbows as well.You could rule that Run-of-the-mill crossbows max out at B10, and it's only superior ones that do B13. If the players really want those extra points, they can pay for them, and you can have higher powered NPCs use them.
quote]

I discovered this in my apprentice one-shot when the Witch-Hunters were called and they whacked the entire party with crossbows.

In my game world, I believe I will hold tothe notion that most people are hesitatnt to take out crossbows against humans. It is seen as bad form. There are those who will do it but they will be mostly used against Orcs and foreign invaders.

[Durgil]

...I see that there is a distinction, I just can't see why.

Unless it is a matter of trust.

But then as Paka says, his players trust him and he dosen't fudge. (apologise for any presumptions here Paka). So what is it that makes fudging so "bad"?

Am I making sense?


*edited to add that I would choose
C. let Liam succede but comlicate matters by having a troll patrol come out and chat with the guard, seperating Liam from the group and forcing them to rethink their plans.
I like your option C, negilent, but I feel there is another aspect of trust that I don't think you're taking into account. I want to trust that the rules, as well as the treatment of players, are going to be followed consistently and fairly. We are all human, and as such are fallible. If you save one character from what should have been certain death, then you have to save them all. When I first started playing RPG's back in the early '80's, the DM was a real hard-ass, and we were very lucky to have a character that made it to 5th level. I wouldn't want to run or play in a campaign like that, but the possibility of death, even when the player isn't doing something stupid, should almost always be there.

I also don't see the argument of the death of key characters stopping a campaign. All players should have a stake in what ever adventure they're on, and the play of the character that died needs to make up a new character.

[Thor]

*edited to add that I would choose
C. let Liam succede but comlicate matters by having a troll patrol come out and chat with the guard, seperating Liam from the group and forcing them to rethink their plans.

I would choose that too. I think that as long as you are always looking to complicate the characters' lives with a failed roll, rather than declare it an outright failure, you won't ever need to fudge.

[Viper]

So stick to those hunting bows for your assassins.


Yeah, what Luke said. My point was more that if you do the work on the NPC/monster design side, you don't have to worry about rolls so much.

[Kaare Berg]

Yes Thor I agree, but in the spirit of the rules I still fudged.

The contest was simple:

Does Liam sneak by unseen or is he spotted.

The dice and the rules clearly states he was spotted.

I complicate matters but Liam is still undiscovered, hence I violate the dice and the rules.

Durgil makes an important point:

If you save one character from what should have been certain death, then you have to save them all

This is a good argument against fudging. That the no fudging approach ensures fair treatment of Players rules-wise. But again this just ensures it rules-wise.
I've spent two hours waiting while the GM and another player had a solo because the GM didn't like me. And this GM rides the dice no matter what.

Fudge or no fudge, you can not guarantee fair treatment unless you as a GM is fair. Thus this argument falls dead.


I also don't see the argument of the death of key characters stopping a campaign. All players should have a stake in what ever adventure they're on,

Again I agree with you. If there is no risk then there is no exitement.
I am arguing against the goblin with the stick killing a knight (because it does happen, quite frequently to my knights).

So to summarise (and get on with my work):

We agree that trust (in GM fairness) needs to present and that this independent of fudging or not.

We all agree that risk must be present. I argue that risk is present if you have trust as above. Fudging = invunerability is false.

If you got the two above I'll repeat my question:

Why is fudging bad?

I am beginning to wonder if fudging really represent a wanted level of narrative control, and thus a different outlook on gaming.

New theory:

Me, the fudger, want to keep my narrative control independent of the dice I roll.

The non-fudger embraces the random nature of the dice, and lets his narrative flow along these lines.

Is the the question of giving Artha to NPCS a way to return a level of narrative control back the GM by giving him a bit more control over the dice?

[luke]

Hi guys,

this has been an interesting thread and it's brought up a lot of good points about BW and roleplay in general.

I split off some of my questions into this thread: Player Characters and Trust (http://burningwheel.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5265#5265)

please come on over and chime in.
-L