A Theory: System doesn't matter for RPing moments

[contracycle]

So while you can say "specific systems can enhance an experience for me" and I'm fine with that, saying "a given system will appeal to everyone" just isn't true.  

Marco, Valamir is making EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE CLAIM.

You can't tell someone they're wrong for saying "if you can't appeal to me--and you really don't know how to--get your rules out of the way and let me do for myself ... "

No, but we can say:
1) maybe you should play something else which suits what you actually want to do better
2) if they do it for themselves, then regardless of whatever paid-for products they used as inspiration, those products were used only as inspiration.  They are not in fact being used in play.

While a given group may even feel, or think, that they are playing "our version of AD&D", what they are in fact doing is playing a game of their own devising which was inspired by AD&D.

That's one of the philosophies behind the toolbox theory of RPG design and a massive strength of them.

I think a much better one, espouse somewhere on the forge IIRC, is "If you do not expect that a rule will be adhered to, remove it".

[wyrdlyng]

No help from AD&D?  Sure it helped - by (e.g.) providing a Deck of Many Things, with consequences for draws stated in terms of game mechanics.

In this regard, all D&D did was provide a (more or less random) set of toys as "inspiration".

I have to agree with Contra on his point. The Deck served the role of Inspiration but there is nothing explicitly written in D&D on crafting and running stories. There are sections on crafting and running adventures but adventures and stories are two different beasts.

Going with the definition derived from the content (the sections of D&D's DMG) an adventure is a series of challenges and obstacles for the PCs to overcome. There could be a story attached to it or there might not be (which is along the lines of their site-based adventures aka Dungeon Crawls).

Using their definition, Diablo (the computer game) is a good adventure (there are many obstacles and challenges) but it is not a good story (go into dungeon and kill demon).

The point is that if you are running one system which emphasizes X and you want to do Y instead then the system you are running is not explicitly assisting you in doing Y.

[Marco]

Hi all,

Here's what I percieve Val to be saying (and then what I'm saying) to be clear:

Val:
1. "All the great stories told in AD&D were told in spite of the system."

Which I take to mean one of 2 things (both have been discussed):
1. Playing AD&D without character interaction rules isn't AD&D so playing it without those is telling the story in spite of the system.

To which I say: It's still AD&D by way of toolbox design. It passes all possible common-sense tests for being AD&D and the idea that it isn't AD&D I find to be an academic argument. (This is where you get that I'm setting up straw man attacks on that form of analysis. I'm fine with it--so long as it's understood the analysis is academic--that is to say, somewhat divorced from the mainstream way of looking at something). So it isn't in spite of the system.

Note: if a game designer knows that a rule will please some people immensely and turn off others, what're they to do? Perhaps someone will say: put it in if you (the designer) like it. I say: make it optional or just let the group decide (preferably with some designer notes--but hey, life is short). Is one of us objectively right?

OR
2. If you play with no interaction rules then it's still "in spite of" the system (which I read as "working against" the system) because a good set of social interaction rules is better than no rules.

To which I say:
That's fine either as a hypothetical statement ("there could be a game that's better somewhere out there or some day") or as a personal preference ("I like the Pendragon rules.") But to tell someone else they'll like a specific rule is clearly untenable (which is what I see being done in the quote--Val feels that it's provable fact that all great stories told in AD&D were done in spite of the system).

So: from a game design standpoint a designer risks alienating people with every rule put into a game--a great deal of gaming goes down without social interaction rules (we can debate what a rule is--and if we include the null set then fine, no rule is a rule--I mean no "your character is a knight--you can't mouth off to the King" type rules) so I find it dubious to include them if an objective is broad (I want lots of types of characters and interactions).

And: Telling someone that playing AD&D with no social interaction rules is somehow mis-using or transcending AD&D because it could (should?) include social interaction rules is presumptive that they'd agree that any existant rule-set would work better for them. It assumes that the speaker knows better what the person would enjoy.

2. There's a lot of GNS stuff floating around (A game design can reinforce a given type of decision).

This is all moot to me (sure it can--I agree) but then it goes further (which is where I'm disagreeing). The idea that "great stories" or "great RP experiences" somehow relate to a specific type of GNS decision is wrong. Narrativism doesn't produce "great stories" any more than anything else--that's Ron's whole point of taking "story oriented" out.

In any case, it is undeniably possible to more objectively measure the G/N/S theory, and whether or not system "x" helps or hinders the telling of a good story.

About the only thing which can be said is a game rule can reinforce a specific GNS choice and if you want more of that specific choice, use that rule. Again, without the "great story" assumption.

3. Was the Deck of Many Things help from the System?
Contra and Val say no. Edwards said yes.  I say:

I found it in the rule book. I understand that what people are saying is "it's not part of the resolution system for anything." And I can see the point of that.

I'd think, though, that if we're doing a page-count analysis and most of the book is in-game objects then the page-counters would conclude that whatever the mechanics said, the game was supposed to BE about all that cool stuff--and the cool stuff worked pretty well in the mechanics framework.

Also: I didn't roll for the deck--but I did roll for monster treasure (in fact having players roll for treasure after a kill is great fun--kinda like gambling--and yes, I know that's a house rule). You don't have to invoke a rule to include a specific magic item in a game.

4. The quality issue
Val asks if we can judge quality. He wants an objective measure: how well a game supports a specific GNS decision. When you divorce "telling great stories" from the GNS model and (as Ron does) disavow Suspension of Disbelief, then how is that definition of quality useful to me--especially if I like games that at different levels of abstraction support different GNS decisions?

If the assumption is made that a more focused coherent game will give me a better RP experience of some sort, I'd want to see that proven rather than assumed.

5. "maybe you should play something else which suits what you actually want to do better."

On a game design board this is playing to the crowd, no? To the average gamer it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I like all the AD&D spells and items. I like the monsters. I like the classes. I don't like the Charisma rules--damn better get net-searching and find a game that has all that stuff but leaves out the Charisma rules?

I mean, if someone's changed every rule in the manuals, okay, suggest another game. I'm there. If someone's chaning rules to cause a systemic effect (increasing weapons damage across the board)--okay, make a suggestion--but don't assume that they'll like, say, Warhammer as much as Dragon Lance just because they increased lethality.

6. People Matter More
I agree with this. Maybe everyone here agrees with it--but I doubt it. Valimir has said that a game with a big combat system will have more combat (i.e. shape the people playing it). I don't agree. I assume that people are pretty good at getting what they want.

Maybe if VtM didn't have a vampires-are-kick-ass killing machnes combat system it wouldn't have sold as well.

I don't think SDM is incompatible with PMM--not at all. But if we realize that SDM isn't System Matters Most then why don't we see "Well, AD&D's system doesn't reinforce Narrativist decisons which I find best for story-experience" Instead of "All good stories are at odds with AD&D"?

-Marco
(have a lota work to do--might not be back for a bit)

-Marco

[Valamir]

The idea that a system can enhance an experience or detract from one is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that what you think makes a system great for a given experience and what I think is great are (it seems) likely to be two very, very different things.

The system that you design with all the "angst enhancing" flavor-adding rp-experience generating stuff that VtM was "lacking" could leave me entirely cold. Worse, if the system is highly focused around your goal it could well make it *unplayable* for me.

Marco, purge yourself of the idea that I'm trying to tell you that I know the one true way you should be playing.  I'm not, I never have been, no one who uses the tools of GNS et.al. properly ever has been.  Once again, I cannot be held responsible for the behavior of others who are trying to tell you that your way sucks and their way is better.

Also a well designed system can be adding mechanics as you suggest, or it can involve using different mechanics, or it can involve removing mechanics that detract.  Speculating what you "might" feel about mechanics I "might" design is pointless.   It's also not a level debating field so I shant even attempt to go there.  

You can't tell someone they're wrong for saying "if you can't appeal to me--and you really don't know how to--get your rules out of the way and let me do for myself ... "

You seem obsessed with the idea that these tools are designed to tell people their wrong.  They aren't, and you really need to overcome that misconception if we're to be able to have continueing discussions on the matter.  

People who say that aren't wrong.  They are the living breathing example of exactly what SMD is all about.

[M. J. Young]

...who finds this entire thread a confused morass of miscommunication. I doubt I can do much to sort it out, but let me make a few stabs at it.

There seems to be a major confusion between "great role playing experience" and "creation of a good story/adventure/plot" or whatever you want to call it. I've had many great role playing experiences which were actually terrible stories. I remember crossing a chasm over a lake of magma in a way that was exhausting to me as a player for the tension levels it created, but which would in a story have been boring and unbelievable. We probably rolled the dice well over a hundred times in the process, but every roll had our lives in the balance and we would not have surrendered one of them.

There is also a confusion between the totality of a game and the distinction between system and setting. A Deck of Many Things is certainly part of OAD&D (and yes, I have more than once had one enter my game strictly based on a random roll, and it did not destroy the adventures but in fact enhanced them, as I was able to roll with the outcomes). But it is part of the setting--as all of the items are. In the sense that OAD&D is about exploring a particular narrowly-defined fantasy setting, it is part of the game. It is not at all part of the system; it in fact has its own completely independent system which was created strictly to run it, and which can be easily ported to any other game with very few modifications (and these only to the outcomes of specific cards).

Did I use all the rules when running OAD&D? I will confess that I never used the armor class adjustments by weapon types, at first because I couldn't make sense of them and later because they were too much work. I did use the castle building rules, and reaction rolls when the scenario did not dictate the reaction, and most of those mentioned in this thread. I didn't do anything that I recall with aerial or underwater combat, because my adventures never went there; there are probably other rules that I never used because they never came up (I actually forgot the existence of the poison section at one time, and someone had to call it to my attention). But I've run thousands of hours of OAD&D very close to the book, and had scores of gamers demanding my time to run it. Apparently it can create great role playing experiences when run by the book, even if it doesn't create the kinds of stories you find in Sorcerer or push for the sort of character development usually found in Multiverser.

But I have to agree that system matters. OAD&D is very good for creating very specific sorts of adventure game play, something not far from the popular CRPG stories but with greater flexibility. If you don't want that, it's going to require a lot of work to make it do something else, and it would be easier and probably more effective to find a game that does what you do want.

I've got to go.

--M. J. Young

[C. Edwards]

1) You like your job.  It fits your lifestyle and your goals very well and you enjoy the tasks involved in doing your job.  One problem though, the people you work with are right miserable bastards.  You can barely stand to be around them.  Your job requires that you be around them.
 
1a)  Job is great, people are great.

2) You dislike your job.  It doesn't particularly suit your lifestyle or your goals and you often find common tasks tedious.  One good thing though, the people you work with totally rock.  You love to be around them.  Fortunately your job requires that you be around them.

2a)  Job sucks, people suck.

This analogy is basically how I view the topic of SDM and "Great RP Moments".  Note that while the content of a "Great RP Moment" varies between individuals there seems to be a consensus in this debate that these moments, to be considered valid for this discussion, must involve interaction with the game system (as presented by the designers) and the other participants.  Now for the breakdown.

1) This person doesn't often experience their equivalent of "Great RP Moments".  As it is, they are probably very few and far between and mostly instigated by the system enforcing a certain dynamic into the social aspect of the game.  Remedy?  Find another group playing the same game.  If you enjoy their gaming company than you're gold.

1a) Let the "Great RP Moments" roll.  Rock on, all good here.

2)This situation isn't so bad.  Even with a system that falls short of expectations "Great RP Moments" can be had quite frequently because the people jive with each other and are on the same page.  Remedy?  Experiment with new games for a break while still using the incumbent game system.  Maybe a game will be found that makes the "Great RP Moments" that much better.  Jive is now a technical term.

2a) This is the tough one.  The human dynamic interferes with "Great RP Moments" and so does the system.  This is a veritable wasteland almost totally devoid of those special moments.  Remedy?  Referencing #1 we can see that finding a compatible system will increase the propensity for "Great RP Moments", not significantly but it's better than nothing.  If we reference #2 we can see that finding another group, regardless of the game being played, can offer a significant increase in "Great RP Moments".

As you can see, the human factor seems to trump the system factor when it comes to "Great RP Moments".  Why is this?  If we break it down in Game Theory terms it would be due to the dynamics of non-zero sum interactions.  These interactions, which result in win-win or lose-lose situations, are based on trust between individuals.  The better that people get along, the more they trust each other, the more reciprocal altruism that takes place.  Healthy relationships are based on give and take.  This requires some small sacrifice on every member of a role-playing group to ensure that everybody has fun and that those "Great RP Moments" can be experienced.  Every member of an RPG group is involved in a gaming relationship with the other members.

Does the system matter? Of course it does.  It just doesn't carry the same weight as the people factor when it comes to enjoyment of oneself during a gaming session, or any other activity.  People matter more.

-Chris

[Christoffer Lernö]

I'd like to bring up a point here

Which was exactly the original contention.  Almost nobody actually plays AD&D as writ; almost everybody was obliged to modify it to get the kind of game they wanted to play.  I could tell you my own vector of deviation, the house mods I introduced and rules I ignored.  But why on earth does anyone want to write a game that is not going to be actually played as written?  What good was it?  At best it was just a springboard.

But a springboard is also useful. For example, if I start with AD&D or Palladium fantasy and then run those two "inspite of their systems" they are going to be two different experiences. Even if I put in houserules to make the actual play mechanics come out identical, they are still distinct from each other.

What I mean is that AD&D as an entity creates a certain range of play and setting. Palladium Fantasy makes another, an that is despite them being similar in many aspects.

There are preconditions in AD&D and in Palladium which differs and that reflects in many ways and creates a distinct flavour. As you deviate from the rules, this flavour changes, but it is still a derivative of the original flavour.

I think this is why people will stick to a flawed system. Why AD&D "can" be responsible for good rpg moment. Because the flavour of AD&D is actually providing them with part of the set-up. Notice that noone does vanilla flavour AD&D, what I mean is that the house rule AD&D's will still be a variant of the original and not a wholly different taste.

Of course, if you want what flavour you're drifting towards in your group, you could build a game which supports that flavour from the start.

But notice that flavour isn't just mechanics and play. If our AD&D drifts towards Narrativist play, I won't get the right feeling just by doing narrativist mechanics, but I also have to make sure the system emulates the feeling and the quirks of AD&D or there is simply another game.

Maybe the appropriate word here would be context. As long as we play within an AD&D context we can change every bloody rule and still feel we're playing AD&D. However, remove the context and keep the (non-contextual) rules and it's not.

[Gordon C. Landis]

I'm with M.J.  I can't for the life of me figure out a way to focus the stuff in this thread sufficiently to get to a useful conclusion.

But since I stepped up to defend "the Deck" as a story-tool, I'll add this thought - folks may just disagree about where the line for "credit" of an effect should be drawn.  Some AD&D game is/becomes a really cool Nar-oriented story about the effects of power/disempowerment gained/inflicted by random chance as a result of the Deck.  Clearly, a LOT was added by the group to make that happen.  But is it EVERYTHING, or even everything significant?  Doesn't "the game" get some credit for providing an opening that could be explored in this way?

I'd say yes.  Now, in the case of AD&D, it also gets major demerits for how other aspects will shut down that opening at every opportunity.  If someone wants to say that "outweighs" the positive effect of the opening so that we shouldn't credit the system/game with any part of the Nar story creation . . . I guess they can.  Doesn't look/feel that way to me, but probably not the key point of this discussion anyway.

Sorry, that's all I can think to say right now.

Gordon

[Marco]

Hey MJ,

Of course system matters: system can effect flavor ... it can effect feel. It can effect the outcome of a given event. But all of those are *subjective.* What I don't like about the VtM combat system others do. An objective standard of quality has yet to be shown to me beyond adherence to requirements (and Age of Heroes is the only game I've seen with sufficient design requirements to make an evaluation of). When you get into story territory you're in the literary field (and belive me--if there was an objective standard for story-quality of literature academia would be all over it). That's critics and cannon.

To boil it down the SDM thing (for me--but feel free to address my point by point above):

Someone says: "I play AD&D and want to run a game with court intrigue. No matter what I do, my players just find ways to kill things in creative ways."

You (for purposes of this example) feel the overpowering urge to give them advice and you have two choices (the obvious answer is "I don't have enough information to say anything"). You must pick the one you think is *most* likely--because for this example they'll take your advice and make an adjustment. Do you tell them:

"Wrong game for that scenario."
[that's what you get with AD&D]

or

"Wrong players for that scenario."
[They sound like a bunch of guys who really enjoy interesting combats and they'll probably want to stick to that]

-Marco [Wrong players]
[Aside: if you assume that changing the game would change the way they play and keep the same level of enjoyment then how does system matter? If the conflict is with the content of the session and not the mechanical presentation why think a different engine will make the content more appealing? ]

[Marco]

From greyorm's thread in actual play:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3544

I didn't story-arc it, I didn't even dream of it...and unlike my old games, it isn't work, it isn't frustration. I don't have to try, I can finally just GM and enjoy myself.

But this is where the secret lies, folks.
It isn't "story someday" it's "story NOW."

Give your players protagonism.
"Silly gamism?" Hell, no.

More than that, we're using the system as it was meant to be used...the characters are powering up, gaining treasure and experience, planning out their future progression and knowing as players that it eventually boils down to bigger fights against tougher opponents...that those gamist choices actually end up mattering in the resolution of these conflicts. And that's a blast, too. I've never enjoyed a game on so many levels.

He's playing D&D3e--with leveling, with feats, with all that stuff. He's playing it in a player protagonism giving the characters choices that matter and letting them "create" in the context of the game he's running.

In other words, he's using the tool. Using it well, and using it in a way that's at odds with someone else's use of the same tool. Sounds like he's having a great time.

Is he succeeding "in spite" of the system? He even mentions how much of a pleasure it is to use the system and how well it flows for him as the GM. Doesn't sound like shifty or drify working-against-the-system (this was my experience with AD&D as well). His post doesn't read like someone trying to cut down a tree with the claw end of the hammer. It reads like someone who has a tool box that contains a chainsaw.

-Marco

[contracycle]

Hey MJ,
Of course system matters: system can effect flavor ... it can effect feel. It can effect the outcome of a given event. But all of those are *subjective.*

Right.  In which case, different groups of people will probably find the best match for their preferences in a wide variety of actual systems.  As you say, it can affect colour: magic is very different in Ars Magica to that in AD&D, and this affects the content of play.  Hence, its the very number of people who do use AD&D that suggests that for many of them, a different sysem may well suite them better.  It isn't impossible to play AD&D as writ, and have a good game; for some people it will be the right system.  But when those people are using "so few rules" that the fact they are playing AD&D is not apparent, then they're very good candidates for a group that might be better off using something else; something else whose rules they do not need to ignore to get what they want out of the play experience.  Probably someone whose ONLY modification to the as-writ rules is to ignore something like the weapon-AC mods is not such a good candidate.  Just off the top of my head, I'd think that if you needed to alter more than 10% of the rules, I'd think you should be scouting for an alternative.  From my perspective, as someone with aspirations toward design, I would find it unsatisfying to write a set of rules and then find they were ignored in play.  I might as well have just written a setting sourcebook.

[Marco]

I agree with everything you just said (maybe not the 10% number--I'd place it at "whatever percentage makes it unclear as to what the original system was--from a mechanical perspecitive).

I'd also point out that even if I modified/dropped 10% of the AD&D rules ... let's see ... bards, psionics, AC weapon mods ... Unearthed Arcana--the whole damn thing ... am I up to 10% yet? Instantly deadly poison (using a Dragon article modification), level draining Undead (same thing: using an alterna-rule) ... Hmm ... Charisma ... I think that's up there percentage wise ... there might be some things I really dug about the system that would make me not a good candidate to switch (tight niche protection, the spell list, the whole Illusionist class, etc.)

So while dropping rules is a good way to check and see if someone is ready to switch, also look for strong positives that might not exist anywhere else (I can buy porting the Deck of Many Things to another system--I can't see porting the entire AD&D spell list).

Finally: what about optional rules? Would you ever consider adding them to your design? (I'm not going to turn around and say "well then what if they were *all* optional--it's a legitimate question about designing to the purity of your vision vs. welcoming more players).

-Marco

[contracycle]

there might be some things I really dug about the system that would make me not a good candidate to switch (tight niche protection, the spell list, the whole Illusionist class, etc.)

If it were the actual specifics I really liked and couldn't bear to be without, what I'd be inclined do is photocopy a subset of the rules and use those as my rules.

OTOH, I think it would be worth investigating what other games are out there which might provide the things you like more elegantly, delivberately rather than inadvertantly.  In this regard, I think that GNS and other taxonomies provide analytical tools for identifying what it is we liked and the opportunity to discuss with others which systems suit those goals.

The point at which I stopped modifying AD&D and decided to start from scratch came about when I had essentially two rule sets; AD&D tp provide the systematic numbers for level and saves and spells and so on, and a homebrew resolution system built to interface with those values and reinterpret them as a result quality based mechanic outputting to specific hit locations.  I even had a full page chart for converting D&D spell damage numbers into the homebrew systems terms (magic missile became instantly unbalanced and arguably the most powerful spell in the game).

(I can buy porting the Deck of Many Things to another system--I can't see porting the entire AD&D spell list).

Having more or less done it, the main problem is the erratic power levels in spells.  However, given the level system all you need is a mechanicstic way for interpreting which level is available or castable when; so it would be simple enough to translate into say L5R - difficulty is spell level *5.  In BRP, *10.  It would take a bit more fiddling, but it wouldn't be that hard IMO.

Finally: what about optional rules? Would you ever consider adding them to your design?

Hmm, possibly but that would strike me as "inelegant".  What I prefer is when a single consistent mechanic can be "warped" under special circumstances.  One of my favourites is the psychic card system in Con-X; the normal level range is 1-5, so they set you up with a prop, those cards whose name I forget, with 1-5 opportunities (draws) to guess the right card.  If at least one of your guesses, is right, your get a success exactly as if you had used the regular mechanic.  In this case, there is also a way to do this through the normal mechanic, so there is actually an optional rule - but optional in the sense that you use one or the other.  Another example is Ron's Sorcerer, in which the expansions carry out some extensions of the basic mechanic and add contexts and consequences to those extensions, thus "deepening" it.  You can also switch, essentially, between Fortune and Karma resolution in specific contexts to provide alternatives to doing the same old thing.

[C. Edwards]

I think this whole argument about specific rules is failing to see the forest for the trees.

I still contend that most instances where the play experience is found to be lacking have little to nothing to do with the system.  Sure, you have a great deal of people that are unhappy with their play experience changing the rules to the system they are playing.  This is because they are under the assumption that changing the rules, or even trying another game all together, will have some substantial change on the play priorities and behavior of their group.

I find this similar to blaming high crime rights during the hotter months on ice cream consumption because ice cream sales spikes coincide with the crime rate spike.  Well, lets try some other delectable confection instead and send that crime rate right down.  Or maybe we should study every blade of grass on the lawn to come to a conclusion on whether the inhabitants of the house are happy.

In a situation where the play experience just doesn't measure up more difficulties can be connected to the people involved than to the system.  People just don't want to deal directly with the real issue though, for a multitude of reasons.  I think that Jack Spencer's threads, "Going to try anyway" in the Adept Press forum and "When the GM says better watch out" in the Actual Play forum, or fine examples of this.

I think that dealing with system issues gives you much less return on your investment than dealing with people issues.

-Chris

[Andrew Martin]

Someone says: "I play AD&D and want to run a game with court intrigue. No matter what I do, my players just find ways to kill things in creative ways."

You (for purposes of this example) feel the overpowering urge to give them advice and you have two choices (the obvious answer is "I don't have enough information to say anything"). You must pick the one you think is *most* likely--because for this example they'll take your advice and make an adjustment. Do you tell them:

"Wrong game for that scenario."
[that's what you get with AD&D]

or

"Wrong players for that scenario."
[They sound like a bunch of guys who really enjoy interesting combats and they'll probably want to stick to that]

-Marco [Wrong players]
[Aside: if you assume that changing the game would change the way they play and keep the same level of enjoyment then how does system matter? If the conflict is with the content of the session and not the mechanical presentation why think a different engine will make the content more appealing? ]

The rules of the game create behaviour in the players. The way to succeed in D&D, according to the rules, is to kill things. Your "wrong players" are playing right by the rules of D&D. With a better system that encourages desirable behaviour, then this no longer becomes a problem (once the players have overcome the change in rules and the social pressures of the GM).

I've tried out this tactic with my fellow players who are munchkins, ruleslawyers and roll-players, and it works every time, and I'm a poor GM! With bad systems like AD&D and RoleMaster, their usual behaviour comes out (because that's what those systems encourage). With the better systems I've designed, those disfunctional behaviours evaporate away, leaving role-playing behind, because that's what my game systems encourage. I don't have to discard "bad" players; I just change the rules the groups operate by and then I get the desirable behaviour automatically. It's so easy and effortless on my part.