Piotr’s crushed form is to your right.

Piotr’s crushed form is to your right.

Piotr’s crushed form is to your right. The giant just snatched Vigo and smashed him into the rocks. The wind howls, and the giant hefts its enormous, jagged sword. It’s definitely spotted you, Fighter. What do you do?

The rest of the party is clambering up the slope behind him, trying to get into that cave they spotted earlier, hopefully safe from the giant and the elements. Not the Fighter, though. “I’m holding my ground. Hefting my shield, planting my feat. Let him come! Defend?” The Fighter is standing in defense, for sure. He rolls it. 10+, gets 3 hold.

Everyone’s looking to me, so make an obvious move and tell the consequences and ask. “Okay. It swings that mighty sword at you, straight across from your left. There’s no way you can just block that thing, it’ll send you flying if your lucky or cleave straight through you if you aren’t. What do you do?”

“I wait to the last moment and drop to a knee, planting my shield at an angle so it just glances off overhead.”

Cool, but how do we resolve this?

Option A The Fighter suffers the giant’s attack, taking d10+5 forceful damage, but spends 1 hold to halve the damage and effect. So he takes only 3-8 damage (less armor), knocked around but doesn’t go flying. Maybe there’s a crack down his shield. He’s still got 2 hold. “The giant’s a little off balance after that swing, what do you do?”

Option B The Fighter rolls to Defy Danger (based on his description, could be with STR, CON, or DEX… that’s not important).

On a 10+, the blow glances off the shield and rattles him a bit, but it does no real harm and the giant’s a little off-balance from the swing, what do you do?

On a 7-9, maybe I give the fighter a choice… hold his position but his shield shatters under the blow, or the shield holds but he goes flying… either way, no real damage. Regardless, he can spend 1 hold to halve the attack’s effect, so the shield is cracked rather than destroyed or he staggers back a bit rather than going flying. The giant is a bit off-balance from the swing, what do you do?

On a miss, d10+5 forceful damage (sending him flying) and I’m probably shattering that shield at the same time. Spending 1 hold would cut the damage down to 6-8 (less armor) and only stagger him and crack the shield.

41 thoughts on “Piotr’s crushed form is to your right.”

  1. So the reason I went with either, probably B is that the fighter’s Defend is fictionally more about protecting their companions then it is about themselves. They can use the hold to mitigate some of the DD but it’s at a cost to later options of defending the companions.

  2. With that clarification, I changed my answer to be less definite. I think I would go with A, but now I like option B as well. I think it depends on how fictionally powerful we’ve established giants to be. Do they have experience with giants? In actual play, or as backstory etc. Is this something the fighter has done before? That could help determine my call.

  3. I would not have let him roll for Defend that soon. There was nothing to defend against at that time. After he says he’s gonna take the blow, then I’d have him make his roll.

  4. Question for anyone choosing A (or leaning towards A):

    Is the Fighter’s description of their action giving the GM a golden opportunity? Is that the reason you lean towards A? Or is it some other reason?

  5. If one of the two, then A. But why Defend in the first place? What is the fighter defending and against what? Is anyone attacking him or anyone else yet? Not as I understand the story. There’s nothing to spend the Hold on yet.

    If the giant were to attack the fleeing party, then I’d call for Defend if the fighter wants to save them. But if the giant attacks the fighter and the others can flee anyway, then it’s not really Defend but Defy Danger.

  6. I agree with Mike Bauer ; the fiction doesn’t really call for Defend unless you’re actively standing up to an onslaught. I view this as looking to the GM to see what happens moreso than making a move.

  7. Could be either, but probably B.

    I’d not let the Fighter roll Defend beforehand, though – even though I agree that one can Defend oneself. I’d ask what he wanted. If to beat the Giant, maybe kill it?, – H&S (or Defy Danger), but to secure the other’s escape I’d say he/she succeeds if they stay, but getting away would be dangerous, i.e. Defy Danger

    I totally agree with Greg Gelder that the intent of the Defend is to protect the Fighters companions, (so I would find something else to roll, after another move of mine to escalate! 😉

  8. I would let the fighter hunker once behind his shield and spend a hold to successfully defend at the absolute cost of the shield. Unless it’s magical, that bad boy is going to be wrapped around the fighter’s forearm in no time. This means that the fighter has to do something else aside from hunker down behind his shield now. Narrative success!

  9. Chiffre Indigo, Mike Bauer, Mark Weis (and to a lesser extent Michael Esperum)…

    I don’t agree, at all, that it’s too early to roll Defend.

    The move has two triggers:

    “When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location under attack,” you roll and on a hit, generate hold.

    Then, “As long as you stand in defense, when you or the thing you defend is attacked you may spend hold…”

    The move is clearly worded to be a move that you can “set up.” If you never rolled until the actual specific attack (i.e. the GM’s move that established imminent assault that will inflict harm unless you do something about it right now), then the move wouldn’t have two triggers and it wouldn’t use “hold.” It’d be a roll-and-choose move, not a hold-and-spend move.

    I’ll admit that the “under attack” part of the initial trigger is debatable, but I don’t think it’s meant to be read as “someone is trying to stab you, right this split second” but more in the sense of “help! we’re under attack!” I think it’s meaningful that the “under attack” part isn’t bolded/italicized in the trigger text, and I think it’s just there so that you don’t trigger Defend outside of a fight or other dangerous situation. If it was meant to apply only mid-sword-stroke, then it wouldn’t need that second trigger.

    As for whether the Fighter or the party are “under attack,” I think it’s pretty obvious that they are! Piotr has already been crushed by a boulder, Vigo just got smashed by the giant, and the party is trying to flee it and get away. The giant is definitely attacking the party as a whole. The party (and the Fighter as a part of it) are definitely “under attack.”

    As for whether the Fighter is standing in defense… the GM made a soft move at him (show signs of an approaching threat… the giant hefting its sword and spotting the Fighter), and asked what he did. His response was to dig in, put his shield, wait for the attack to come… all so that it engages him and the others have a chance to get out of there. That sure as hell sounds like “standing in defense.” I have a hard time imagining a clearer example.

  10. Nicholas Hopkins are you saying that the Fighter has given you a golden opportunity, because the GM announced “there’s no way you can just block that thing” and the Fighter is trying to block it? And the spent hold is allowing him to keep his footing and go unharmed, but at the cost of the shield?

    And if he tried that without the hold from Defend, it’d be full d10+5 damage, sending him flying, and probably shattering the shield?

  11. Jeremy Strandberg ,

    I haven’t read rules in awhile but just reviewed the Defend move. The move allows a hold to “Redirect an attack from the thing you defend to yourself.” I think that I would allow the fighter to divert the hit to the shield by spending a hold (avoiding the hit entirely, why not?) but lose the shield. The Fighter could spend Hold to take half the damage but that’s going to HURT. I think anytime in a narrative when a hero takes a passive defense any and all mechanics should be brought to bear to ensure that doesn’t happen again. Taking a knee behind a shield is kinda boring. It creates a cool picture but doesn’t actually move the action any closer to a cool resolution. Because the player narrated it I’d let it happen once. Because it’s a passive action I would only let it happen once. Smash the shield and ask, “What do you do now?”

    EDIT: Shoot. Just found a much better way to state this that conforms to the rules. The fact the Fighter is hunkering down behind his shield, to me, is a Golden Opportunity. Make the GM Move, “Use up their resources” to break the shield. Then ask “What do you do now?”

    Any way you handle it I believe this is a narrative issue, not a mechanics one. Reward players for doing cool, proactive stuff. They will catch on quickly.

  12. Jeremy Strandberg Exactly what you said, but you highlighted the wrong part.

    “When you stand in defense of a person, item, or location UNDER ATTACK…”

    There is no attack yet. –> Nothing to Defend.

    The Defend move doesn’t make much sense if you allow to Defend oneself, because you’d take at least half damage anyway (not when you defy danger). If the fighter wants to Defend himself, he’d roll for Defy Danger, I’d probably rule +CON, because he probably wants to keep his ground and not be blown away by the hit. On a 7-9 his shield will be lost or he’ll be pushed out of the way.

  13. Mike Bauer Attack /1: to set upon or work against forcefully/ (merriam Webster)

    That giant is definetely working forcefully against them at the start of this example. Being under attack doesn’t have to be blades swinging at your body this very instant, it covers the whole aggressive action.

    As for defending yourself, that is covered in the discussion about defend in the rules. See the srd: http://acodispo.github.io/Dungeon-World-HTML-SRD/moves_discussion/#title3

    acodispo.github.io – Basic Moves | Dungeon World HTML SRD

  14. Asbjørn H Flø Webster won’t help you when dealing with game rules, I believe. If you take your Webster approach, I could also roll Defend against someone attacking a castle with a siege engine, or against someone printing flyers with propaganda against the king, or something. Doesn’t make sense for me. “Work against forcefully” covers way too much, in my opinion.

    Also, where is Defending yourself covered in the discussion? It says it’s “certainly an option”, but how does that make sense in the move’s mechanics unless you rule that spending 2 Hold removes the first and second half of the damage done? Defending yourself would mean you at least take half damage, which doesn’t make sense.

    Say, you Defend yourself and get 3 Hold. What can you spend it on? Half damage, Open up attacker, and Deal damage. When there’s no one else around to attack, and you’re unarmed, the last two options are probably not working in the fiction. So you’re left defending yourself against 3 attacks, all for half damage. That’s a pretty weak defense and I’d advise any player against it, as written.

    The way I understand “Defending yourself” is that you can spend Hold on halving the damage against you, after you direct the attack on yourself. Also, when you’ve just Defended someone and you get attacked and you keep Defending, you may spend leftover Hold on Defending yourself. Or, you opt to stop Defending and try to Defy Danger so you won’t get damage at all.

  15. I’d usually go for A, but with probably harsher consequences. Broken shield, numb arm, pushed to the ground or flung about, something like that. With a regular, known player, at least. I might even go all “golden opportunity” and forbid the Defend hold spend.

  16. Mike Bauer we are discussing when defend triggers in this situation. As I understand your position, the fighter isn’t under attack until the moment the giant swings his blade towards him? Please clarify if that isn’t what you mean. While I would argue that they are absolutely under attack for this whole scene, and defend triggers when he declares he is in fact standing in defense. He then gains hold he can use to counter later moves from the giant.

    If the fighter still has hold after the giants initial move, he can choose the same option several times.

  17. Jeremy Strandberg

    The problem I have in how the situation is handled is that you’ve already asked him what he is doing.

    The giant will attack you, what do you do ?

    I defend

    The giant attacks you, what do you do ?

    Well … I’m still defending ?

    So yeah, he can roll Defend the first time, but why bother if you’re gonna ask him again ?

    The question I’d ask would be : “How do you defend, given that if you just try to block the blow you’re gonna fly away or be cut in half ?”

    “I wait to the last moment and drop to a knee, planting my shield at an angle so it just glances off overhead. So, that would be spending one hold to halve the damage, and maybe another to open up the attacker to an ally.”

    “All right, you only take X damage and are just pushed a bit to the side. The giant is now off-balance, Thief, what do you do ?”

    If the fighter decided to dodge the blow, then he’d lose all hold, obviously, and I’d go with your B – though, on a 10+, the giant probably won’t be off-balance and he will go for the group no matter the result of the Defy danger roll (as the fighter finally backed away from defending his group)

  18. One thing to consider is: does the fighter think they described how they are blocking or how they are doing something else ? My interpretation is that they are describing a block, so giving a golden opportunity to the MC. But it might not be the player’s intent / interpretation.

  19. Gherhartd Sildoenfein my original intention was that the Fighter’s maneuver (duck, plant, deflect) was a dangerous-but-valid way to bypass the “you can’t just block it” consequence established by the GM. I.e. use a combination of timing, angular momentum, and strength to deflect the unstoppable attack.

    In retrospect, that’s obviously not clear and very much up for interpretation. Which is why I asked earlier if folks who leaned towards A though this was a golden opportunity.

    If you didn’t think this was a golden opportunity, how would affect your interpretation?

  20. Mike Bauer, as Asbjørn H Flø says:

    As I understand your position, the fighter isn’t under attack until the moment the giant swings his blade towards him? Please clarify if that isn’t what you mean.

    If that is your position, is that also your position in general? That you’d never trigger Defend unless there was an in-progress attack, like an arrow in flight or a sword being swung or a boulder crashing down a mountain at someone?

  21. Chiffre Indigo

    Seems like I just made a pretty hard move (squashing Vigo) right before this scene kicks in. Then I (arguably) make a soft move at the Fighter (probably shows signs of an approaching threat), saying that the giant hefts his sword and spots the Fighter.

    Softball move, largely giving the initiative to the Fighter.

    The Fighter then decides to hunker down, prepare for the attack, hopefully buy his friends some time. That sounds awesome, cool, and heroic. But he’s also handed the initiative back to me. It’s my turn to make a move.

    (In actual play, we might very well cut over to the other PCs at this point, ask what they’re doing… maybe tell them the requirements… “you can get away if you run now, but you’ll each need to leave something behind…what do you do?” and let’s say they all make a run for it, leaving behind rations or adventuring gear or whatnot. We cut back to the Fighter)

    Now I make a harder move, but still a soft one. I’m establishing the attack, and the consequences if the Fighter tries to “just block it.” But I don’t make any presumptions, I ask the Fighter “what do you do?”

    The conversation flow being:

    > Soft move (announce threat) >> Defend >> Soft move (establish attack, tell consequences >> what do you do?

    It’s not my job to make presumptions about how the Fighter will respond. Just like it’s not my job to say “the gnoll fires its arrow at you, Defy Danger with DEX!” It’s my job to make moves and say “what do you do?”

  22. Chiffre Indigo also: “If the fighter decided to dodge the blow, then he’d lose all hold, obviously”

    Why would he “obviously” lose his hold? If he described rolling under the blade and coming up on his feet, shield up and inching closer… that sounds like Defying Danger with DEX to me, but it also sounds like (on a success at least) he’s still standing in defense.

    (If he was like “oh, screw that I dive backwards down the hill, away from this guy” then yeah, no longer standing in defense and hold is lost.)

  23. I think, even though it’s evocatively written as the best of these examples, there’s to much missing. At the least I’d be more lenient to understand were the player wants things to go if I know what level the Fighter is.

    Btw: Armour still counts against DMG from Defend, right?

    (A level 3 Fighter Vs a level 6 Fighter is a big difference in this example.)

  24. Michael Esperum Yes, armor applies (both for the defending PC, their ward, and the attacker if the defending PC spends hold to deal damage).

    As for knowing the Fighter’s level (and thus the damage they could potentially inflict), I don’t see how it affects anything. The Fighter didn’t do anything that would involve inflicting damage. Even if he wanted to, he’s probably no where near being in range.

    The question is whether he’s:

    Option A: spending hold to halve the damage/effects of the giant’s swing


    Option B: defying danger, with the option to spend hold to halve the effect

  25. Per RAW Defend rules, the majority (according to the past few polls) concur that a Defy Danger move would rid the Fighter of their Hold.

    I don’t like that part of the RAW Defend move. Which is why i prefer option B.

    I’ve always allowed other moves to be used, and keep Hold, provided the fictional position of the defender makes sense.

    Otherwise id never use Defend. Just Defy Danger using CON or other means to defend. Maybe a Taunt to redirect an attack to myself?

    What ever the means, i dont think Defend is worth the possible failed roll if im going to lose my holds so easily.


    Others have made good points too about the Defend move, when no other move is allowed without also loosing your Hold, slows the momentum of the story. “I stand in defense. I stand in defense. I stand in defense.” And i definitely dont want to give up a Golden Opportunity to the GM!

  26. Definitely option B: As I’ve said before, if the player states something in the narrative that triggers Defend, it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s all he can do. Defending is just something the player is paying particular attention to. Something (s)he is concentrating on while still being able to answer, “What do you do?” and reacting to whatever is going on in the narrative.

    The hold gained from the roll just represents the limit of the player’s efforts to Defend himself, an ally, or a position. By triggering the move, he’s limiting himself in the narrative to an extent. Usually giving up freedom of movement, but depending on what’s going on in the narrative, it could cost him in other ways. The roll to Defend itself carries the chance of failure and triggering a hard move from the GM. If the player moves or does something in the narrative, or something happens within the narrative itself, that makes it implausible for him to continue in his defense, then he loses the hold.

    So the Defend move as a mechanic has it’s own benefits and drawbacks. It’s give and take. At our table, we do not think Defend is meant to cripple the character. By not allowing a character to react to attacks against him, whether it by Defying Danger or Hacking and Slashing, it diminishes the value of Defend. Why, when, and how often would Defend be of use? If triggering Defend meant not being able to trigger moves like Defy Danger or Hack and Slash, it means the player is dooming himself to an automatic and successful attack til he spends his hold, or loses it by giving up his defense. Why would a player choose to do that over simply Defying Danger or even Hack and Slash where it’s possible to avoid all damage? If this is the way the Defend move was meant to work, why use it for any reason other than to intercept an attack against another player? If I was defending myself or a position, I can do that using Hack and Slash or Defy Danger. My position in the narrative would determine whether I was holding a doorway, not the Defend move.

    Around our table, we feel that triggering the Defend move carries enough chance and restriction to justify the benefit of the 1 or 3 hold. It doesn’t make sense to us why a character concentrating on defense should automatically be hit so he can spend hold to half the damage when it can be avoided altogether by Defy Danger or Hack and Slash. That’s why B sounds like the right choice. By concentrating on defense, by angling his shield, the fighter rolling a 10+ on Defy Danger should yield a glancing, but otherwise harmless blow. If the roll failed, he should then be able to spend his hold to halve the damage. That sounds more reasonable to our table.

    Bottom line, Defend at our table is a move that narratively reflects a player’s concentration on defense. It comes with it’s own risks (in the roll) and places some limitations on that character’s freedom in the narrative. The hold reflects this extra effort on defense and measures the limits of the character’s efforts and ability do defend. It’s not meant to deny them their reactions to the narrative.

  27. Asbjørn H Flø That’s how I see it, yes. The fighter rolls Defend when he or his companions are under direct attack, because otherwise the move doesn’t make much sense, as you can’t spend your Hold.

    I gave it some thought and I agree that you could say that directing the attack against the fighter (1 Hold) can also mean that the giant no longer follows the companions but concentrates on the fighter.

    But as soon as the giant swings his weapon, the situation has changed enough to ask again – “What do you do?”, because as written the Defend move doesn’t make much sense to me then. Defy Danger would be much better, as the fighter himself is in immediate danger now.

  28. If you don’t mind, those who say you can Defend yourself – can you please explain how you handle it, then? As far as I can tell, no one has explained how you would actually Defend yourself (just like the rulebook, btw).

    I saw an explanation here where you use your Hold after Defy Danger. That’s at least a start, although I disagree. The way I see it, when you use another move, you stop Defending (the move, not necessarily in the fiction) and you can no longer spend the Hold.

    And to explain my own position a little better:

    The fiction might have been that the giant follows the party. The fighter can then get into position and Defend the party’s retreat, using 1 Hold to direct the “attack” (in a wider sense) onto himself. Then comes the part where the giant swings the weapon; What do you do? -> Defy Danger.

    But since the giant already wants to attack the fighter, the original intention of Defending the party while retreating is no longer applicable as a move. In the fiction, it’s still part of the fighter defending the party’s retreat, but it’S no longer the move.

  29. Jeremy Strandberg if it was clear that the Fighter’s action isn’t blocking but something else, I’d go with B if I were held to these options.

    What I would probably do is: tell the consequences and ask, as many times as necessary to reach a clear understanding on all sides of the table.

    Barring that, what I’d do is: ask him to spend a hold to keep the giant’s attention fixed on them (to me, it’s defending the party, redirecting attacks on him ; as for the party, they’re escaping but leaving something behind: the Fighter) and the Fighter they’re Defying danger. On a miss, I would propose to spend hold again to reduce damage.

  30. You are right Jeremy Strandberg , this was the first poll that directly talks about DD and its implementation along with Defend. I should have been more broad when i said Defy Danger. Rather, ‘Any move at all’ would rid the player of their Holds. This current poll and the poll regarding H&S leads me to deduce most people feel this way.


    plus.google.com – “Uh-oh! Ranger, you’re surrounded! Three of those mutant goblins appear out…

  31. Mike Bauer

    The fighter rolls Defend when he or his companions are under direct attack, because otherwise the move doesn’t make much sense, as you can’t spend your Hold. (emphasis added by me)

    You don’t need to spend your hold at the time you roll the move. You spend it later, as desired, when you or the thing you defend is attacked.

    That’s the whole point of being a move that gives you hold to spend, instead of the move having you “pick 3” (on a 10+) or “pick 1” (on a 7-9).

    those who say you can Defend yourself – can you please explain how you handle it, then?

    The original post is exactly this. GM makes a soft move to announce danger. Player describes bracing for the attack, readying to defend themselves. GM makes a soft-but-aggressive move to establish the imminent attack. Player then either:

    Option A) just spends hold to halve the damage/effect (but otherwise taking the hit); if they have more hold, they might spend more hold to deal damage, or open the attacker up to an ally.

    (Theoretically, the PC could just take the hit and spend the hold to deal damage in retaliation.)

    Option B) triggers some other move (like Defy Danger, maybe Hack & Slash) and then, if desired, spend hold to mitigate the effects.

    Whether it’s option A or option B is the whole point of this poll… and in this particular case, it’s almost a dead heat.

    I suspect that if the giant’s attack wasn’t presented as so powerful, the results might have tilted more towards B. But the other polls I’ve done indicate that most folks think that you can’t keep hold after you Hack & Slash.

    My personal opinion is pretty close to what Krynos Pentegarn describes, but I admit that it’s a bit of a drift from the text as-written and the examples in the book.

    For my own projects, I plan on rewriting it to help clarify all of this.

  32. To me, one can keep and spend Defend-holds “in” other moves if this other move answer the question “how do you defend?” The player gains a (short lived) advantage for defending while they keep within the (narrative?) constraints of defending.

  33. Jeremy Strandberg So when you Defend yourself, you will always take damage. OK then, but that’s not a very clever idea to me, especially against a mighty enemy.

    Concerning Hold – I know you can spend it later, but how long can you hold on to Hold, in your group? Can I Defend the camp and spend my Hold an hour later when finally some orcs attack? Or would I have to roll again?

    My point is, you can of course spend Hold later, but it still has to be the same situation and you’re not doing other things in between, like dodging blows or outright attacking (if you want to harm the enemy while Defending, you can spend Hold).

  34. Mike Bauer So when you Defend yourself, you will always take damage.

    That’s the (somewhat) majority opinion, though I’m not convinced it’s how the move should work. I lean towards option B, where you can use other moves as long as you continue to do so from the “stance” of defending yourself or your ward. Basically what Gherhartd Sildoenfein just said.

    OK then, but that’s not a very clever idea to me, especially against a mighty enemy.

    Not against a mighty enemy, no. As written, it’s pretty boss in the right circumstances. E.g. a level 6 Fighter with armor 4 faces off against group of gnoll hunters (d8 damage, 6 hp, 0 armor). Let’s say there are 3 of them. The Fighter defends, waits for them to attack and spends 1 hold to halve their damage. They do d8+2 (for numbers), but that 3-10 damage is halved to 2-5 damage. Very good odds that he’ll soak it entirely. And if the Fighter rolled a 10+ to Defend, he could spend 2 hold to just flat out drop two of those gnolls (6 damage per hold).

    My point is, you can of course spend Hold later, but it still has to be the same situation and you’re not doing other things in between, like dodging blows or outright attacking (if you want to harm the enemy while Defending, you can spend Hold)

    Again, I don’t think that’s entirely true. I don’t see any problem in, say, Discerning Realities while you stand in defense, or dodging a blow (Defying Danger) as long as you’re able to keep standing in defense as you do it (e.g. roll under the giant’s swing and come up on your knees, still at the ready).

    Personally, I don’t even think it rules out H&S as long as you’re doing it reactively. Like, in real combat, the line between a defensive maneuver and the counter attack/riposte can be basically non-existent. But I’ll admit that’s a strained reading. And it does run up against the “spend hold to damage the attacker” option.

  35. Jeremy Strandberg Thanks for the insight on how you use Defend.

    I agree that Discern Realities, for example, won’t stop the Defend move and won’t take away Hold. That’s what I meant when I said you’re still in the same situation, doing the same thing.

    For me, H&S, for example, isn’t just as single attack but a series of attacks and probably also movements, in which case it is hard to keep standing on the same spot and Defending something or someone. Similarly, the damage you can deal with Hold from Defend is a series of small attacks when the enemy launches itself against you, trying to get around your cover etc.

    I see combat more abstract, similar to OD&D (where a combat round lasts 1 minute) and a lot can be covered by a single roll of the dice.

    I guess in the end it’s everyone’s pick. That’s what the DM is for, to make a ruling, when folks don’t agree. As long as it’s working for you all, who can say you’re doing it wrong?

Comments are closed.