Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

[Furry Fox]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

These days my design style is explicitly aimed at building "complete" characters. The essential idea is that they will seldom if ever receive enough experience to significantly vary from their original state' date=' and therefore should possess all their key abilities right from the very beginning. Ideally, they should be able to spend all of their experience on skills and perks, and not on characteristics or powers. In some cases, adding new multipower slots and similar "greater experience" changes may be appropriate, but should never be necessary. [/quote']

 

 

If possible I like to hold back 10 points right off the top to spend latter. This way I am not dependent on the GM to grant me XP during play to expand my character. 10 points might not sound like a lot but can go far to buy Multipower slots, KS,SS,Contacts or upgrade skills or skill levels. Just a thought as I often think up great ideas for my characters during play and wish that I had the points to pay for those ideas. This way I don't have to wait as long.

[Chimpira]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I think you are conflating two different things here: min-maxing munchkinism and building "complete" characters.

 

These days my design style is explicitly aimed at building "complete" characters. The essential idea is that they will seldom if ever receive enough experience to significantly vary from their original state, and therefore should possess all their key abilities right from the very beginning. Ideally, they should be able to spend all of their experience on skills and perks, and not on characteristics or powers. In some cases, adding new multipower slots and similar "greater experience" changes may be appropriate, but should never be necessary.

 

Adopting this approach was a conscious reaction to my bad habit of trying to design characters who did too much, which meant that they could only be rough sketches of a character design which would never actually come into being.

 

But the important thing about this completeness is that it is achieved by limiting the characters' capabilities, not by point crunching. I simply don't try to play a character with life support, enhanced senses and a honkin' big multipower of "stuff", and instead play one who is more focussed on just being a brick. And, of course, such characters are, or can be, every bit as interesting.

 

In other words, instead of playing the 1938 Superman, I settle for playing Hourman.

 

With this kind of build, experience is gravy, rather than a way of patching up deficiencies in the design.

Actually much like in my history above about how my players and I had two different ideas, we seemed to be talking the same way.

 

You see when I talk about Complete I mean it as

1.To bring to a finish or an end: She has completed her studies.

 

When you speak of complete you mean it as

2.To make whole, with all necessary elements or parts: A second child would complete their family.

 

I see nothing wrong with #2 of the verb complete when it comes to gaming in a campaign. With the emphasis on all necessary. When the child is brought into the family the family still continues, changes and grows.

 

It is when they speak of the verb as #1 when problems arise. When we have squeezed every last point to make sure that we have everything that we will ever need with little to no room for growth (dependent on the character concept). Because around about that time, when every reasonable avenue has been explored, we should be thinking about how we should retire this character.

 

Although Hourman is a complete character he is far from finished. He would have quite a lot of room to grow, some really bad disadvantages that you would really want to get rid of, maybe develop a multipower for brick tricks, develop a base to do experiments on Miraclo pills, make very good case for having absolute time sense after playing the character for awhile and etc... Hourman can be presented as a well balanced character with quite a lot of room to grow. (By the way, Hourman is one of my favorite characters. The Golden Age one that is.)

[Chimpira]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Not saying you do this - in fact' date=' I'm guessing you don't, based on how you described wanting "designs for the long haul" - but some GMs out there don't give clear ideas to their prospective players as to what they can expect in the campaign. If I go into a 4-Color Supers game knowing it has power levels "like the Justice League animated series", I'm expecting quite a bit of high-end combat, and maybe the occasional slice-of-life bits here and there. If the GM says "think Kim Possible" I'm going to go low-end Supers, several "hobby skills", Contacts and Favors, and weird personality quirks out the wazoo. If all I get is "250+150, 80 AP cap, lots of movement, so be prepared" and a bunch of stories about the last campaign in this world - and the mighty battles thereof - I'm going to maximize my combat skills, add Flight (and probably T'port), and throw 15-20 pts toward "personality". Frankly, I won't have any reason tot hink I'll need more.[/quote']

I, totally, agree. I have played in games were you are led to believe one thing and quite another is what happens.

 

I made a character for this game where you roll fo your powers and I rolled quite a whopper. The GM sighed and said "I was hoping for a lower powered game." I told him no problem and designed my characters background so that he hated the idea of using his powers. The idea was for him to play so long that the other characters would not know that he had powers until the fit hit the shan and I was forced to use them. I was quite happy with him.

 

Then we played. First he had a large army with superior alien technology devastate California. He, then , made us confront villians that we had no hope of every fighting. Next, he blew up Las Vegas when one of the players said that he just wanted to get to his girlfriend that lived there and get her safe. Everyone we met were either Cosmic powered or Magically high powered or Scientifically high powered. We stole some advanced weaponry and then had that taken from us by people on our side because it should not get out that there is alien tech in the world. They later on gave us badly designed versions of the weaponry we stole. (It had a tendency to explode but hey it no longer looked alien) Did I mention they were blowing up whole cities with alien tech. We quit playing soon after.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

A lot of it depends on what you imagine the focus of the game to be.

 

If everyone has to design characters who are all capable of soloing, then specialists are right out. If the focus is more on group action, then you can build imbalanced characters who are not entirely useful on their own.

 

If all of the PCs have to be solo capable, then it's harder to avoid stepping on eachother's toes.

[Outsider]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I'd say character design is more engineering than economics. If it was economics, then 'market forces' would make powers that nobody ever buys cheaper...

[assault]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

If everyone has to design characters who are all capable of soloing, then specialists are right out. If the focus is more on group action, then you can build imbalanced characters who are not entirely useful on their own.

 

My general approach is to build characters that aren't entirely useless by themselves. In particular, they can both fight to some extent, and have some non-combat capabilities. Granted, they can then still find themselves out of their depth, but they are capable within their own fields.

 

Obviously you can't expect a scientist to do a mystic's job, and vice versa, but at least they should both be able to actually talk to people.

 

Of course this approach rules out pacifist healer types, but who cares?

[Steve]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I don't know. Is character building a science or an art? It seems to be a little of both, since creativity with advantages and limitations can come up with some amazing things.

 

I find building the character and crafting the concept I have in mind with points to be almost as fun and sometimes more satisfying than actually sitting down and playing the character.

[Chimpira]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

A lot of it depends on what you imagine the focus of the game to be.

 

If everyone has to design characters who are all capable of soloing, then specialists are right out. If the focus is more on group action, then you can build imbalanced characters who are not entirely useful on their own.

 

If all of the PCs have to be solo capable, then it's harder to avoid stepping on eachother's toes.

Hmmm. I was thinking about starting a thread about how other GM's Plot out there campaigns and now I think I shall. I generally found that one could run a game with character that do not step all over each other toes and still run solos that played to their strengths. Most of the time when I run solos (which I refer to as Solo season, mainly because I try to schedule my players all in a row for them) I try to find that one niche that their characters are interested in, as well as focus on their background and give them a little something extra that will give them a boost in the game.

 

As an example, one of my players ran his character Shadow Wolf (more of a martial arts specialist) in a solo game. Because of his skills and background I have developed an ongoing storyline involving him in street level crime with gangs, Jade Phoenix, Eagle Eye and have managed to sneak in a little martial arts mysticism with the prophecy of the ones fated to defeat The Death Dragon. I, also, introduced, my version of Sanctuary (The Darkside Moon) to this character. This hook interests him but might not interest the other players.

 

Because of his solo, during the main game, when the group was tracking down a drug ring Shadow Wolf had made contacts that he can ask about it and he had developed street credit to cut certain deals (as long as they did not go against his morals.)

 

In short, I always believe that you should make solos that each individual would find appealling and not simply just throw out whatever. A comic book about a group will be plotted differently than a comic book about an individual.

[zornwil]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I think that the reason why we don't see more 45 DEX bricks is due to the fact that most GMs will not allow them in the game. Not to mention that responsible players do not want to step on the toes of other characters. It is not that the game system is economically viable but the diligence of fellow players and GMs that keep the game on an even keel. Soft caps of all sorts are necessary to keep players from running amok.

I have no AP limits in my games, and I have never seen a 45 DEX. A 200 INT, yes, but not 45 DEX. Even in a world where the highest-end DEX is 60.

 

I find that without limits, players establish a group dynamic naturally and new variables become important. We've had no DEX "arms race" at all. But due to 2 characters with high INTs and their interplay and gaming, INT was the arms race for them. It's way too cheap at 1:1.... ...whereas STR has stayed much more limited in use.

 

On the other hand, this game as someone put it is a mixture of X-Files, Rockford Files, and more standard superhero fare. As such, just from the 1st 2 variables, you can see where INT becomes more prized and is cheap.

 

SPDs have skyrocketed after 5 years of play, but in my mind SPD has always been where supers differentiate from the rest of the population.

 

OTOH, multi-power type attacks and Autofire (which I just tend to discourage, I don't really like its effect generally, so that's my own "thing") and various other repetitive attacks are mostly not embraced much.

 

I have said no to a few constructs and where one PC or another will become too unbalanced against the others to a degree I think is too much. But I think as Treb implies the play group is capable of mostly self-policing and our campaign economy, so to speak, is unique but still reflects the issue of priorities versus costs. Or at least for the first few years did, I think as you get into higher point values players start to let things go and tend to not build some constructs since they are content for a time, until they see a real need, i.e., new and interesting villain constructs, needs to "move worlds" (perhaps literally), and otherwise react to a new level of campaign power. Right now my (long neglected, since we've been playing other games, but now getting back into swing) supers game is in a transition state, so the top end PCs who have been around a long time are quite powerful relative to the world and don't feel a pressing need to spend points. They probably won't until the universe and its new power levels becomes in view, as they will now start facing galactic-level challenges and the like.

[Mentor]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I'd say character design is more engineering than economics. If it was economics' date=' then 'market forces' would make powers that nobody ever buys cheaper...[/quote']Market forces seldom work that way. No demand is as bad economically as too much demand. In the game universe, the GM has the option of making powers that nobody buys more valuable than average to the PC who bought it due to concept by making that ability the key to defeating a specific villain or enemy power.

[Gary]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

There was a thread a while back where Gary tried to "prove" STR was too cost effective by building a brick with super-high DEX and SPD. I had to laugh; because you don't prove something is too good by using something else. That's like proving SUVs are too good by road testing a Lamborghini Countach.

 

 

Treb,

 

You missed the whole point of the Earth Lightning example. There's something called "diminishing returns". For example, at a cost of 1/10, I think everybody on these boards would consider PD too cheap. Yet nobody would ever purchase 3500 PD with a starting character even with that cost.

 

I don't understand why you think providing a character who purchases more than just Str is somehow an argument against Str being too cheap.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I'd say character design is more engineering than economics. If it was economics' date=' then 'market forces' would make powers that nobody ever buys cheaper...[/quote']A game system is an artificial economy with price fixing by the game designers instead of the government.

 

If it's not economics then just why do we have so many heated discussions here about "Is DEX/STR/CON too cheap?" or "Is Amibidexterity overpriced?"? Fundamental laws of economics still apply - if consumers (players) think something is overpriced then relatively few will buy it. If it's essential (like a minimal level of DEX or a vehicle) then virtually everyone will buy some of it (Kia) and some will buy a lot of it (Suburban). Some things will be still considered luxury items, so to speak. For example, you can build a perfectly good MA without buying Defense Maneuver I - IV, so in my experience most MAs don't. The one who do tend to be lower powered ones who more typically fight groups of agents rather than groups of supers, and thus Defense Maneuver becomes correspondingly more valuable within the context of that particular campaign and for that character. My Champions MA Zl'f, with a 43 DEX, sees absolutely no need for Defense Maneuver. OTOH my Dark Champions MA Justicar, with a 20 DEX and often fighting street gangs, is desperate to buy it with XP despite having 150 fewer Character Points to play with. For him it's a better (maybe essential) buy.

 

Every campaign's "economy" will be different, just as real estate costs more in San Francisco than Kansas City. My own experience over the years reflects Zornwil's - artificial caps ("price controls" or rationing) on Powers and/or Characteristics typically produce shortages (In Hero, the shortage is often in originality and/or individuality in design). Everyone ends up doing roughly the same damage, having roughly comparable SPD, etc. When I started my Champions campaign in 1993, I assigned a 12 DC damage cap and every single character did 11 or 12 DC's. Letting laissez faire run things allows for far greater design flexibility and individuality. When I discarded the caps with the introduction of Fifth Edition, even with 100 more Character Points to spend the characters settled into max damage ranges of 10 - 16 DCs with an average of 12 (Yes, one character actually went to lower max damage.). That might seem a subtle distinction, but it makes a big difference in actual play. Variation in defenses, SPD, and DEX also increased.

 

Your engineering analogy is not without merit - engineers must routinely factor in things like durability, strength, mass, cost, size, safety, etc., when they design things. Items that used to be made of steel or wood are now made of lighter and/or less expensive materials like aluminium or plastic. The tradeoff is that aluminium or plastic is also generally less durable than steel, and also why few MA's have a 50 CON - they're supposed to be less durable, but not get hit as often as a brick, so for the typical MA a 50 CON is "overengineering." It's simply not cost effective when for that character those points would probably be better spent on DEX or SPD.

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Treb,

 

You missed the whole point of the Earth Lightning example.

That's because you didn't actually prove your point, Gary.

 

I don't understand why you think providing a character who purchases more than just Str is somehow an argument against Str being too cheap.

Because if STR had actually been "too cheap" then you should have illustrated that by building an nigh-unstoppable brick with "ordinary" DEX and SPD and an absurdly high amount of STR. All you "proved" with your example character was that SPD and DEX are good buys; which we already knew (and why DEX is three times and SPD ten times as expensive as STR). That wasn't the point under debate.

[Gary]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

That's because you didn't actually prove your point, Gary.

 

Because if STR had actually been "too cheap" then you should have illustrated that by building an nigh-unstoppable brick with "ordinary" DEX and SPD and an absurdly high amount of STR. All you "proved" with your example character was that SPD and DEX are good buys; which we already knew (and why DEX is three times and SPD ten times as expensive as STR). That wasn't the point under debate.

 

That would be as absurd as using someone with a 3500 PD with "ordinary" other stats to "prove" that PD is too cheap at 1/10 cost.

 

I bought a good amount of Str which covered Earth Lightning's damage, defenses, and resistance, thus freeing up gobs of points to make him lethal.

 

Just like if PD was 1/10 cost, I could spend 6 pts for +60 PD, 3 more points to make it resistant, and 2 more pts to harden it, thus freeing up gobs of points to purchase other stuff.

[Kenn]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I have so gotten over the "Economics" aspect of the game. I minored in Mathematics. I'm comfortable with Math. I like Math. And I could minmax with the best of them. In my group, there were quite a few people with "Math Anxiety" so as often as not, I'd help them get as much Ooomph out of every point as well.

 

But the fact is, point balance is a sham.

 

Two characters built on the same number of points. One has a fairly low OCV, but does a lot of damage. The other has a high OCV, but doesn't do a lot of damage. They're fighting a villainous set of twins. The high OCV guy hits every time, and whittles his oponent down. The low OCV guy swings and swings, misses a lot, but finally connects, and his opponent is down. It's all balanced right? In a pig's eye!

 

Two things: #1, that lucky roll where the low OCV finally connects and drops his foe ... it could come early. All of a sudden, he's out an opponent while his buddy's still fighting. And if he then proceeds to help his buddy, well, I don't care how balanced the points are. Odds are the high OCV guy is going to feel diminished. Now granted, it's also possible that the lucky roll never comes at all, and the high OCV guy has to help the low OCV guy. But we're talking more time, and more attack rolls. It's a lost less likely. #2 is that players are going to remember the single shot that dropped the opponent. Twelve seconds of game time can take an hour or more depending on the size of the group. The fact that Bob rolled his dice and got a hit and rolled damage every fifteen minutes or so is not a detail people recall. It'll blend into the background. "Yeah, Bob was there fighting." But when Frank misses, and misses and misses, and then POW! puts his foe across the street with a single shot... people will talk about that and remember that.

 

And in a few years, if the campaign lasts, Bob's bought his character's damage up, so he drops his opponents faster, and Frank's bought up his character's OCV, and polishes them off faster too. It might achieve balance, but that's because they've achieved sameness.

 

Or, maybe the campaign doesn't last. Maybe it ends. And when the group tried again, Bob builds the low OCV high damage guy, and Frank has the high OCV low damage guy. Roles are reversed, so now it's balanced right? Wait, but now while Bob is kvetching because he's missing and missing, waiting for that one low attack roll, Frank with his high OCV character martial throws his opponent into a passing car or off the building or into Bob's character's swinging fist.

 

People are still talking about Frank and his character.

 

Player creativity and panache can, and will, make point balance moot.

 

I've recently started playing in a game where most of the players have been playing for two or three years. I've been playing for nearly nineteen - two years more than the GM has been playing. I bring in my character, 330 points, 20 points below the starting level, and 50-90 points less than the other player characters. Five heroes, seven villains. Guess which character bagged three of the villains himself, and had "the assist" on a fourth (whittled him down for someone else's coup de grace.)

 

There are so many things role-playing requires that aren't governed by points, that all the game balance in the world can't help the hard feelings from happening.

 

And a mature player says, "You know, Thor and Hawkeye aren't point balanced, and it's not really fair. So instead of ME kvetching about the inequity and pissing everyone off... I'll talk to the GM about starting a subplot where Hawkeye is kvetching, and borrow's Hank's growth serum to try to gain some form of balance, though really in a few years I'll be back to status quo."

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

That would be as absurd as using someone with a 3500 PD with "ordinary" other stats to "prove" that PD is too cheap at 1/10 cost.

 

I bought a good amount of Str which covered Earth Lightning's damage, defenses, and resistance, thus freeing up gobs of points to make him lethal.

 

Just like if PD was 1/10 cost, I could spend 6 pts for +60 PD, 3 more points to make it resistant, and 2 more pts to harden it, thus freeing up gobs of points to purchase other stuff.

Yes, and STR would be vastly overpriced if it cost 96X as much. So? You still manifestly failed to prove your point; and if you are still unable to understand why then I'm clearly not capable of explaining it to you.

 

In any case, it is not my desire to reopen that tired debate in this thread. If you so desperately want to rehash it, I suggest a bit of judicious thread necromancy on your part would be time better spent than derailing this thread. Just don't expect me to participate.

[zornwil]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Kenn, I completely agree and well said. I am not dismissive of points balance, and as a basis for comparison it should give insight, but the reality is it all depends on the players and how they deal with their characters. Balance is an illusion.

 

Other than that more general point, I don't want to turn this thread into "why STR is underpriced..." and hope we can avoid further repetition on that.

[Gary]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Yes, and STR would be vastly overpriced if it cost 96X as much. So? You still manifestly failed to prove your point; and if you are still unable to understand why then I'm clearly not capable of explaining it to you.

 

In any case, it is not my desire to reopen that tired debate in this thread. If you so desperately want to rehash it, I suggest a bit of judicious thread necromancy on your part would be time better spent than derailing this thread. Just don't expect me to participate.

 

I proved my point.

 

It's amazing that you think that to prove something is too cheap requires purchasing as much of it as you can. If the 3500 PD example can't convince you that this isn't a viable line of thought, I don't know what can.

[zornwil]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Proven or not, not the topic of this thread and no need to go pinging on the topic.

 

(NB - this is a personal, NOT a moderator, comment)

[Gary]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Kenn, I completely agree and well said. I am not dismissive of points balance, and as a basis for comparison it should give insight, but the reality is it all depends on the players and how they deal with their characters. Balance is an illusion.

 

Other than that more general point, I don't want to turn this thread into "why STR is underpriced..." and hope we can avoid further repetition on that.

 

Well, an axiom of this thread is that if something is too cheap, people will purchase as much of it as they can. That's not necessarily the case since people have multiple needs to fill. They can simply purchase the "too cheap" item to a reasonable level and use the cost savings to enhance their characters in other ways.

 

I think "diminishing returns" trumps the law of scarcity in this case.

[zornwil]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Well, an axiom of this thread is that if something is too cheap, people will purchase as much of it as they can. That's not necessarily the case since people have multiple needs to fill. They can simply purchase the "too cheap" item to a reasonable level and use the cost savings to enhance their characters in other ways.

 

I think "diminishing returns" trumps the law of scarcity in this case.

Fair enough.

 

But I would continue to say, then, that strength is a fundamental asset in action-adventure RPGing and the source material it derives from and the abundance of "above-average" strength for a very large number of protagonists points to the cost and element as more of a minimal point of entry at the lower levels. Which is different than an effectiveness or economic argument, it goes back to incenting a certain behavior for various settings, as an element of Treb's initial argument.

[Gary]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Fair enough.

 

But I would continue to say, then, that strength is a fundamental asset in action-adventure RPGing and the source material it derives from and the abundance of "above-average" strength for a very large number of protagonists points to the cost and element as more of a minimal point of entry at the lower levels. Which is different than an effectiveness or economic argument, it goes back to incenting a certain behavior for various settings, as an element of Treb's initial argument.

 

Hey, if you're going to assert that Str is subsidized (not 'market value'), who am I to argue with you?

[Gummibear]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

I have no AP limits in my games, and I have never seen a 45 DEX. A 200 INT, yes, but not 45 DEX. Even in a world where the highest-end DEX is 60.

 

 

SPDs have skyrocketed after 5 years of play, but in my mind SPD has always been where supers differentiate from the rest of the population.

 

 

I try to have no AP in one current game, but it becomes a bit difficult. However I have a 48 Dex character with a speed that goes to 12. I have a 40+ int character that has skill rolls on less than 40 or 45. It works at that level but it can be a challenge sometimes. Although I find the int more of a challenge than the speed as I've used above 12 speeds for years before the "speed zone."

 

As far as your statement "SPDs have skyrocketed..." I'm curious what you consider skyrocketed?

[zornwil]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Hey' date=' if you're going to assert that Str is subsidized (not 'market value'), who am I to argue with you? [/quote']

[Trebuchet]

Re: Economics 101: Character Building in a Point-Based System

 

Well, an axiom of this thread is that if something is too cheap, people will purchase as much of it as they can. That's not necessarily the case since people have multiple needs to fill. They can simply purchase the "too cheap" item to a reasonable level and use the cost savings to enhance their characters in other ways.

 

I think "diminishing returns" trumps the law of scarcity in this case.

You've really reinforced my point - that even in real world economics purchases are done according to priorities and not simply cost, much less a simplified game system with price fixing.

 

If I have $100 per week to spend on gas, food, clothing, books, utilities, cat food, etc., then I still have to prioritize those needs and desires. I can't just buy $100 worth of frozen dinners and hope I don't run out of gas or cat food until next week. Nor can I fit $100 worth of gas in my minivan even if I wanted to any more than a PC with a 352 PD is a viable character. If my cats starve or I lose my job because I couldn't get to work then I've also hit the point of "diminishing returns." I have to prioritize based not only on what I can afford but what I need; and if I run low on cash then I've got to cut back on something. The same fundamentals apply in Hero: Character Points are resources; and there are never enough resources to go around. For one thing, not everybody values the same things. I spend about $800 a year on books; I know people who haven't spent that much on books in their entire lives but spend thousands a year on fancy cars or CD collections whereas I couldn't care less about either.

 

STR is generally more important to a brick than to an MA; and DEX is generally more important to an MA than to a brick. That doesn't mean a little bit of either isn't quite useful to both. How much of each is up to the individual. That's my biggest problem with all "_______ is too cheap/expensive" arguments (and one reason I started this thread):

 

_______ simply isn't equally important to everyone.

 

That's Economics 101.