Speed vs. Realism ... revisited

[Andrew Morris]

Okay, a while back, I posted a thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=10474&highlight=) asking for opinions on the idea of single-roll combats. There were may great comments and discussions on this (most notably, that people just didn't like the idea of a character dying based on a single roll), which led me to offer up a more fleshed-out concept. This might run a bit long.

Any thoughts would be appreciated, but I'm specifically looking for any "danger spots" in this model and the questions listed at the end.

My goal is to create a fast combat resolution mechanic. In the game I'm working on, combat is no more or less important than any other sort of conflict, so I don't want it to have a host of overly specialized combat rules. I'm not fully up to speed on GNS, so I'm not sure where the game falls in that model. I do know that I don't want the mechanics to support Gamist play. Whether they should support Narrativist or Simulationist play is where I'm uncertain. If anyone can comment on whether these rules support a particular style of play, please let me know.

A combat challenge is handled by adding the relevant statistic (2-8) to a die roll (2d4) and adding or subtracting any appropriate situational modifiers (-4 to +4).

The two results are compared, and the higher wins. "Winning" a combat challenge simply means that you have eliminated the other character's short-term ability to harm you. The thematics are decided either by the GM (if the losing character is an NPC), or the player who lost the challenge (e.g. the losing character is chased off, his weapon is destroyed, or anything similar).

At the start of a combat challenge, either side can attempt to "raise the stakes," changing the severity of the outcome. This incurs a penalty (in addition to any negative situational modifiers) based on the hierarchy of stakes, as follows:

By taking a 1-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Win in a fashion that embarrasses the opponent/Win in a fashion that makes the victor look "cool"

By taking a 2-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Win in a fashion that provides the winner with some benefit (e.g. stabbing the other character in the arm, forcing them to drop their weapon, which you can then take; chasing the guard over a ledge into a river, from which it will take him an hour to climb up; etc.)

By taking a 3-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Fatal wound/Capture with injury

By taking a 4-point penalty, the following stakes could be set: Fatal wound without making any noise/Fatal wound in a specific fashion (e.g. stabbed in the heart)/Capture without injury[/list:u]

In these examples, "fatal wound" means an injury that will kill the character over time if he does not receive medical attention. It can be assumed that this entails a lot of yelling and thrashing about -- if the character wants to kill someone without drawing attention, he must take the 4-point penalty.

I should point out here that no result from a combat roll will directly kill a character. Even "fatal wounds" offer the character several opportunities to roll to avoid death. This does not apply to NPCs, unless they are particularly important NPCs. Another important point (in my opinion, at least) is that there are no "hit points" or "health levels" or anything of that nature.

The difficulties for capturing are the same as for killing. First, because capturing does seem at least as hard as killing someone to me. Second, a captured character could easily be killed if the character chooses to do so. Therefore, there is no metagame benefit to capture (with the intent to later kill) over simply killing in the first place.

So, to sum up, characters will have a number between –6 (the most inept character in the worst situation attempting the most difficult stakes: 2 – 4 – 4 = –6) and 12 (the most skilled character in the best situation attempting a basic combat challenge: 8 + 4 + 4 = 16), added to a roll of 2-8. The highest total wins, causing either the basic effect or a specific "raised stake" effect. Attempting to raise the stakes makes it less likely that you will succeed. Also, if your opponent chooses to raise the stakes, you are free to roll without penalty, and, if you succeed, apply the raised stakes. So, if you are attacked and your attacker tries to kill you, he must roll with a 3-point penalty, while you do not. If you win, you may choose any stake up to the opponent's declared stake. You could choose to drive the attacker off and look good doing it, or disarm him and drive him off, or deliver a fatal wound.

1. Would this system address all the concerns raised in the initial thread?
2. Does this system seem too biased toward non-lethal combat?
3. Does this system seem too biased toward the defender?
4. What would you dislike about this if you were a player?
5. Do these rules support Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist play?
6. Do you have any suggestions or questions?
7. Are there any other games out there that use similar systems?

[Andrew Norris]

Hi, Andrew. (I keep confusing your posts with mine; I can't imagine why.)

I know that it was mentioned in the previous thread, but I'd definately consider looking at how HeroQuest handles this kind of thing. They allow for simple conflicts, resolved with one roll, as well as multi-roll conflicts in which players bid Advantage Points (and can turn a large winning bid into wounds, allowing multiple ways to raise the stakes of the conflict).

HQ, by default, has the outcomes of a one-roll conflict determined based on the definition of the conflict -- so a total victory, where your goal was defined as escaping, might do no damage at all to the loser, or might instead damage them in a non-physical way (such as lowering their self-confidence or reputation with their peers).

There's a short summary of the rules on the HeroQuest site, as well as a few examples of play. Even if you don't read through the full rules (or the Hero's Book, which is a good value at $10) I think looking at how they handle the issues you're addressing would be useful to you.

[Andrew Morris]

Thanks Andrew. I can't imagine why you confuse our posts. You can call me Drew (so can anyone else) to avoid confusion, if you want. I'll check out the HeroQuest rules -- honestly, I'd forgotten that they were mentioned before.

But do you have a personal reaction to the rules? Hate it? Love it? Just feel blah about them?

[Ben O'Neal]

1. Probably. But more importantly, does it address the issues that are important to you?
2. No. Saying "you cannot die" is biased towards "non-lethal" combat.
3. Biased how? Do you mean advantageous? If so, do you think it should be?
4. My opinion? I like more detailed combat rules. I like more detailed any rules. I like detail and options in my rules. I like having lots of crunchy bits to manipulate in various ways to achieve various effects. But that's me, not you.
5. IANAL*, but I'd guess that these rules alone are not enough to support any particular style, but depending on where you take them, and how you use them, and everything else that supports them, they may lean a bit towards narrativist, simply because they are not crunchy enough for gamist or simulationist play.
6. How do these rules work for non-combat situations. Like what if my character wanted to do something that is unopposed by a challenger?
7. Most likely. I'm not a game library though, but there are plenty of game libraries around, I'm sure they could give you some links.

-Ben

*IANAL: I Am Not A Lawyer: Anything I say is not meant to be taken as expertise or verdical in any way, and is solely presented as my limited knowledge and opinions.

[Andrew Morris]

Ben,

1. My main concern was making conflict resolution (especially combat) fast and simple, but without turning players off.

2. So...yes?

3. Yes, by "biased," I mean advantageous. No, I don't think it should be.

4. Thanks for the feedback. You're right, we seem to have totally different preferences as players.

5. Again, I'm not to up on GNS, but I didn't think the amount of rules had so much to do with it, rather the important factor was if what rules were present supported a particular style of play. For example, the Kill Bill-style system you proposed doesn't seem to have a bunch of rules, but my gut says that it supports Sim play. I'm still learning to swim in the waters of GNS, though.

6. The rules work the same outside of combat. You roll against either the opponent's roll (if opposed) or against a target number (if unopposed).

7. Heh, I hope so.

[frictorious]

It definitely seems very biased toward the defender, because of the part where if the defender gets a higher total than the attacker, he gets to turn the stakes against him.  I think that something like that should only happen on a botch/critical failure of the attacker/one raising the stakes.  
While I'm far from an expert on the subject, I'd say it definitely leans towards narrative play, but also supports gamist play.  
The reason I say it supports gamist play is because the goal of the system is to determine quickly who wins, with rules/modifiers for how well they win.  
I believe it supports narativist because it resolves things per conflict/encounter/scene.  To further support narativist, I think that you could include modifiers for how detailed the player describes how they're going to handle the conflict.  
I don't think that it's sim, because it's so simple.  As I understand it, sim games are based on simulating reality more accurately (wether it's combat, research, seduction, sailing, etc.).  And let's face it, real life is is very complex.  At least as far as conflict resolution.  
Your ranges for bonuses, stats and die roll/randomization seems ok to me.
The biggest problem I see is there's nothing in the rules for the victor getting wounded in battle.  The results of combat are victory with various degrees of how well you defeated your opponent, and failure with various degrees of how well your opponent defeated you.  There is no, "the winner knocked him out with a punch in the jaw, but he got cut a few times by the losers knife and needs some first aid badly to stop the bleeding."
What I would suggest, is assign modifiers to the roll based on player descrition of how his/her character deals with the situation (like bonuses for details), and the victor gets to decide what happens/degree of victory by how much higher his/her roll is than the losers.  This seems more ballanced to me.
Personally, I like more complex systems, and I'm not fond of D4s, but that's just me.  Hope some of this helps.
-Craig

[Andrew Morris]

It definitely seems very biased toward the defender, because of the part where if the defender gets a higher total than the attacker, he gets to turn the stakes against him.  I think that something like that should only happen on a botch/critical failure of the attacker/one raising the stakes.

Hmm...I must have been unclear on this point. If the attacker raises the stakes and the defender wins, yes, he can turn the stakes back on the attacker. But it works the other way, as well. If the defender chooses to raise the stakes and the attacker wins, he can turn the stakes back on the defender. I apologize for not making that clear. Also, the system has no rules for critical failure/success. Those rules never seemed to add much to the game for me, but if someone can give me a good reason for using them, I'd appreciate it.

While I'm far from an expert on the subject, I'd say it definitely leans towards narrative play, but also supports gamist play.  
The reason I say it supports gamist play is because the goal of the system is to determine quickly who wins, with rules/modifiers for how well they win.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way. Anyone else have any theories as to what GNS mode this style of rules would seem to support?

The biggest problem I see is there's nothing in the rules for the victor getting wounded in battle.  The results of combat are victory with various degrees of how well you defeated your opponent, and failure with various degrees of how well your opponent defeated you.  There is no, "the winner knocked him out with a punch in the jaw, but he got cut a few times by the losers knife and needs some first aid badly to stop the bleeding."

That's true, there are no "rules" for injuries. The game was not meant to be exactly like real life, but more like a story. Any injuries the PCs take are purely up to them or the GM to describe, but they have no (or very little) effect on the game. In pretty much any movie or book, I can't think of any examples (though I'm sure there are some) where the hero can't accomplish a task because he's too beat up or injured. At most, the injuries are just there to color the story and add drama. So, personally, I don't see this as a problem, but if I'm the only person who feels this way, I'd like to know.

What I would suggest, is assign modifiers to the roll based on player descrition of how his/her character deals with the situation (like bonuses for details)

I've seen this in Sorcerer, and while it works there, I'm just not sure it would enhance this particular game.

and the victor gets to decide what happens/degree of victory by how much higher his/her roll is than the losers.  This seems more ballanced to me.

That's similar to how it works now. The winner narrates the events. If an NPC wins, the GM narrates. Are you suggesting that the narrator (be it GM or player) have more story control (including injuries, character death, etc.) based on the amount by which they beat the opponent's roll?

Personally, I like more complex systems, and I'm not fond of D4s, but that's just me.  Hope some of this helps.

All feedback is useful, Craig. Thanks for yours. Oh, and to be honest, I'm not really a fan of d4s either. They just happened to evolve because the number 4 just kept popping into all aspects of the game, so it seemed appropriate. Also, I wanted a mechanic that could be easily used with cards instead of dice (for reasons that I won't go into at the moment), and 2d4 can be reproduced exactly with a 16-card deck (2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7, 7, 8), which is pretty manageable and can be created from a single regular deck of playing cards.

[Garbanzo]

Hey, uh, Drew.

I don't have anything marvelously constructive to add, but I really like what's been presented.  I don't have any problem with one-roll combats, as long as we're not talking about death.  And you're not, so that smells fine to me.

And I really like the stakes modifier.  Clever.

As far as GNS, seems to me that we don't know.  This is a sub-system out of context.  Clearly the game doesn't prioritize long, drawn-out kewl fitez.  

So what does it prioritize, and how is that handled?

=====

I'm looking at your odds, and my math works out differently.

2-8 is base skill
+4 to -4 for situational modifiers
-0 to -4 for severity of win conditions.

Novice | in quicksand | going for the kill = 2-4-4 = -6
Olympian | behind crenelations | flat win = 8+4-0 = 12, not 16, right?

At first blush, the randomness : skill ratio felt high (Novice vs. Journeyman = 2 vs 5, with a spread of 2-8 from the dice).  Because you're using 2d4, though, adding in the two curves should make it all fine.

-Matt

[frictorious]

I can see your point about wounded chatacters is stories, and why there's no mechanic for a wounded victor in combat.  Perhaps that's what could happen in the result of a tie.  I understand your perspective on upping the stakes in combat, it just seems awfully risky.  If that's what you're going for, the great.  Maybe the modifiers the gm dictates for the situation smooth it our.  I think that using 2 dice is a good idea; alot less random than one die.  This definitely seems like a game that would work well with some alternate randomizng device, such as cards.  It's so different, simple and story-centered it almost begs for something besides dice.  If you ever sell it, I think that it could be a good idea to make your own cards.  This also provides you with even more possibilities.  
-Craig

[Andrew Morris]

I don't have any problem with one-roll combats, as long as we're not talking about death.  And you're not, so that smells fine to me.

Right. I was pretty much stuck in the mindset that character death had to be a possible result of combat, but a few Forge folk showed me the error of that line of thinking, and that in some games, character death is impossible. I don't want to go that far, so what I came up with is a compromise between the two extremes. Character can die, but it's unlikely. This is good, because my game is not meant to be overly realistic. Yes, of course, I want it to be consistent within itself, but it should also tell a good story, and having main characters die at random doesn't usually make for the best story.

And I really like the stakes modifier.  Clever.

Thanks, but I can't take full credit for that. That was something I added in to address the concerns raised by many people in the first post on this topic. I would like to know if you or anyone else think that it makes more sense for the increased stakes to be represented by a modifier (as it stands now), or simply of function of how much you beat your opponent's roll by.

As far as GNS, seems to me that we don't know.  This is a sub-system out of context.  Clearly the game doesn't prioritize long, drawn-out kewl fitez.  

So what does it prioritize, and how is that handled?

Are you asking how characters would be encouraged by the rules to handle challenges? If so, then the ways that the characters will be most effective are through scheming, magic, and betrayal. The game is set in the modern world (with a few changes, obviously, if magic is present) and the characters are likely to be people who draw a lot of attention from the media and paparazzi, so their actions must be somewhat subtle. Combat's not really the best way to handle your problems when you're a celebrity. Hiring someone else to do your dirty work is another matter, but PCs will rarely find it beneficial to enter combat themselves.

I'm looking at your odds, and my math works out differently.

2-8 is base skill
+4 to -4 for situational modifiers
-0 to -4 for severity of win conditions.

Novice | in quicksand | going for the kill = 2-4-4 = -6
Olympian | behind crenelations | flat win = 8+4-0 = 12, not 16, right?

Quite right, my mistake. Thanks for pointing that out.

At first blush, the randomness : skill ratio felt high (Novice vs. Journeyman = 2 vs 5, with a spread of 2-8 from the dice).  Because you're using 2d4, though, adding in the two curves should make it all fine.

Well, since we've seen that my math skills are suspect, could you (or anyone else) elaborate on this a bit? To my way of thinking, this system created a situation where skill was more important than chance, since the roll will usually be 4-6. So it seems to me that skill and modifiers (usually gained through planning) are more important than chance. Am I wrong?

I understand your perspective on upping the stakes in combat, it just seems awfully risky. If that's what you're going for, the great. Maybe the modifiers the gm dictates for the situation smooth it our.

If you mean that just trying to kill someone out of the blue with no planning is risky, then I agree with you. It is my hope that the modifiers would make killing someone require a good amount of planning and coordination (in order to get a situational modifier that balances out the penalty for the raised stakes). As they say, it's a feature, not a bug. If this system doesn't appear to encourage that sort of thing, please let me know.

This definitely seems like a game that would work well with some alternate randomizng device, such as cards. It's so different, simple and story-centered it almost begs for something besides dice.

That was one of my design goals, and I'm glad you think it works.

If you ever sell it, I think that it could be a good idea to make your own cards. This also provides you with even more possibilities.

That's true, but I don't plan on selling it. I do plan on publishing it (though that's still on the horizon) if people like it, and I'll probably make it available for free. So, I don't think custom cards are...well, in the cards, so to speak.

[Callan S.]

Wow, this is so much slicker than before! But I will say, narrativism has nothing to do with describing your characters actions really well, and simulationism doesn't have to be about realism. Currently it's very sim, to me, but you'll find it can become gamist via situational modifiers. Players can get a game out of anything, and that includes the tactics of fighting well. But I really don't think you can do much about this.

1. Would this system address all the concerns raised in the initial thread?

From my perspective in that thread it does. You've taken rather too easy PC death and instead turned it into something that will inject drama, while still having the potential to latter be fatal (dieing from wounds). Good work! :)

2. Does this system seem too biased toward non-lethal combat?

Can't see what's wrong with this. In the real world most people have a lot of trouble killing other people, psychologically, for some crazy reason. I think non lethal combat is encouraged more by your mechanic, but surely that'll mesh well with a setting where people don't kill each other too casually?

3. Does this system seem too biased toward the defender?

A little. You know that stakes turn around, where the defender can take no penalty, but then at the end take anything up to an equal stake to the attacker? Perhaps it should be still checked acording to how well the defender passed. For example, the other dude tried to kill the defender (-3), but the defender only beat him by three points. Now you make each ramping up of the stake for the defender reduce his roll now, so he can only reduce it two points (otherwise he'll equal the roll of the other guy). Thus he can only raise it to two stakes, perhaps taking the other guys sword.

Actually it might do well to extend that, making it cost two points per stake raise. So in my example he could only raise it by one point. This means characters don't benefit as much by rolling and seeing what happens, then raising their stake latter. They are better off doing it from the start (though waiting still has some advantage).

4. What would you dislike about this if you were a player?

Lack of gamist options. But you don't want gamist and I think its good you've set a personal goal rather than trying to please everyone.

5. Do these rules support Gamist, Narrativist, or Simulationist play?

Sim, as I said. Gamist next, as there is a tiny amount of play to be had with situational modifiers. There is no assistance in addressing premise, so its not narrativist in the least (players can do narra with rules like these, but the rule itself doesn't help them or reward them for it).

6. Do you have any suggestions or questions?

Not right now.

7. Are there any other games out there that use similar systems?

Not that I'm aware of. It looks quite slick now, and you've probably got a market niche you can fill with this! Well done! :)

[Andrew Morris]

Wow, this is so much slicker than before!

Thanks! It started off (in the first thread) as just an idea, and everyone's comments (especially yours) helped me see the big flaws, and steer it in another direction.

For example, the other dude tried to kill the defender (-3), but the defender only beat him by three points. Now you make each ramping up of the stake for the defender reduce his roll now, so he can only reduce it two points (otherwise he'll equal the roll of the other guy). Thus he can only raise it to two stakes, perhaps taking the other guys sword.

Actually it might do well to extend that, making it cost two points per stake raise. So in my example he could only raise it by one point. This means characters don't benefit as much by rolling and seeing what happens, then raising their stake latter. They are better off doing it from the start (though waiting still has some advantage).

I like that idea a lot. In fact, I'm going to incorporate it at the 2-points-per-stake-raise level.


Now, does anyone have any problems with the probabilities? I took at look at the breakdown and there are lots of occasions when certain scores guarantee either a loss or win. For example (noncombat), if your score in something is a 5, you'll succeed on an average task (static difficulty of 10) more often than not (62.5% chance of success). But if your score is 8, you will always succeed at average tasks (100% chance of success). I don't have a problem with that, as having an 8 in something is pretty much the ultimate limit of human capability. But does it bother anyone else?

I was thinking that instead of having static difficulties I could always make everything an opposed roll -- instead of a static difficulty being a 10, it could be a 5, with a 2d4 roll added to it.

Or I could say that rolling a 2 or 8 has some special result (e.g. critical success/failure). There'd have to be more to it than just that, of course, since there's a 6.25% chance of either roll. I don't really like this kind of mechanic, though.

Any comments or suggestions?

[frictorious]

I think the 2:1 stake turn-around is a great idea.  That was my biggest problem with the mechanic, and this fixes it.  
Your static odds seem ok.  It all depends on what you decide is a moderate task.  I don't have a problem with someone who is the max for mortal men always succeding at a moderate a task; besides there are still situational modifiers.  
Personally I think that all opposed rolls works best.  I've been turned on to that idea recently, and now I'm in that camp.  Math/odds wise, I really think that it's better with small dice/randomization ranges.  It also gives the possibility (however slim) of the expert failing the simple task, or the wimp defeating the badass.  It really depends on what you want from your game.  
I wouldn't do a critical failur/success mechanic with this system for a couple of reasons. 1st is since it's just 2D4, I'm assuming a critical success would be rolling two 4s, and a botch would be rolling two 1s.  That meand the chance of a crit/botch is 1/16 for each.  Personally I don't find those odds right, but again it really depends on how you want the reality of your game to work. 2nd reason is that you already have the stakes, so I feel that adding critical success/failure isn't necessary.  Besides, the more rules you add, the more gameist it feels.  
-Craig

[Garbanzo]

Hey, Andrew.

As for GNS stuff, lets see if I can clarify.  
If you present to me the game as a whole, I can look at where the majority of the rules fall, and how the game treats those bits.  Walla!  I come up with my own evalutation of what GNS viewpoint the game best facilitates.

If this combat stuff is the heart and soul of the system, I don't know what I'd call it.  Highly-driftable vanilla.  There's nothing about making hard choices (although nothing to prevent that), not too much crunchy Gamist goodness (although a GM could make a challenge of maneuvering for best terrain, putting yourself in a position where you can strike from advantage, whatever.  Amber DRPG-style.).  Sim is the default, so maybe that's where you are.  

So it seems to me that the dressing you put around this mechanic will determine the overall spin.   Whether rules or text, the other stuff will bring me to a place where I can make a GNS decision for myself.  Examples: is this Conflict resolution or just Combat resolution?  Can I use skills like "Winning Smile" to oppose a sword?  What's the feel of the setting?  What's implied about PvP?  What's a character look like?  What's at stake?

You see what I mean, right?

====

As for the chance/ skill thing, we're on the same page.  If the randomizer was a d8, the randomness would outweigh the skill.  But you're not doing this.  Going with 2d4, or esp 2d4 vs 2d4 gives a hefty weighted middle, and crazy fluke upsets will be more like crazy flukes, and less like an everyday occurance.

-Matt

-- Craig's concerned about the possibility of over-common crits and botches.  Because the resolution is always-opposed, you could make a crit/ fumble come from the intersection of the two rolls.  When one rolls a 2, and the other an 8.  Oh, wait.  Odds = 1:256. Yuk, nevermind.  I like the idea of combining crit chances across participants, but this ain't the application.

[Andrew Morris]

If this combat stuff is the heart and soul of the system, I don't know what I'd call it.

No, it's not. I'd prefer if combat were very rare. But, since poor combat systems can easily derail an otherwise good game, I wanted to hammer this out.

So it seems to me that the dressing you put around this mechanic will determine the overall spin.   Whether rules or text, the other stuff will bring me to a place where I can make a GNS decision for myself.  Examples: is this Conflict resolution or just Combat resolution?  Can I use skills like "Winning Smile" to oppose a sword?  What's the feel of the setting?  What's implied about PvP?  What's a character look like?  What's at stake?

Okay, let me address those questions.

This sytem would be how all conflict is handled, I just proposed it as a combat system to see how it held up from that perspective.

My gut response is that, sure, you can use "Winning Smile" to oppose a sword...why not?

The setting is pretty much the real world, but magic exists. It's kept out of view of the public, for the most part, but most of the world's movers and shakers know about it and use it for their own means. Magic users are very rare (and the players are magic users).

I'm not sure what you mean by PvP -- I've only come across that in the sense that PCs can kill other PCs. If that's what you're referring to, I wouldn't want to restrict that in the rules, but rather leave it up to the players. It probably will happen, since the characters may often have different agendas and beliefs, and are forced by their situation to work closely.

Characters "look like" anyone else. Nothing sets them apart physically from the rest of humanity. I don't think that's what you were looking for, though.

Likewise, I'm not sure what you mean by, "what's at stake?" If you mean from the characters' POV, then they need to figure out why magic is vanishing from the world, since most would be quite old (well over a hundred) and would die without magic to keep them alive.

You see what I mean, right?

Honestly, not really. But hopefully, answering your previous questions will give you the information you and others need to give me some GNS feedback. Let me know if I can clarify or add anything.

As for the chance/ skill thing, we're on the same page.  If the randomizer was a d8, the randomness would outweigh the skill.  But you're not doing this.  Going with 2d4, or esp 2d4 vs 2d4 gives a hefty weighted middle, and crazy fluke upsets will be more like crazy flukes, and less like an everyday occurance.

Okay, glad to get some confirmation of this. As we've seen, my math skills can be a bit spotty at times.