Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

[schir1964]

This is to discuss the benefits and detriments of using a biased Default Template for game design.

 

For the Hero System, it uses as it's Default Template the Human Template. It also has several other Templates that it uses. These other Templates are designed for AI, Automatons, Computers, and Bases.

 

First we have to ask why the Human Template is used as the Default Template?

 

The simple answer is that the majority of Characters built will be Human, or at Humanoid enough that there are more similarities than not. Plus, it is easier to play a character that you can relate to as far as perspective goes. Playing a Rock Creature that has a life span of Millions of Years where the race tends to simply sit and think about Quasi Dimensional Formulas for making decisions is much tougher than playing Goru that has Six Arms and is Noble Warrior trying to take over the earth.

 

By making the Human Template the default, we can then grant automatic abilities at no cost. This creates a baseline of comparison for Humans/Humanoids, but it does little to define baseline comparisons for creatures that radically different from Humans/Humanoids.

 

So it makes sense to have the Human Template as the default since the majority of characters built will be Human or Humanoid (as defined above).

 

The second question we need to ask is why are there different templates for AI, Automatons, Computers, and Bases?

 

Shouldn't we use the Human Default Template for these builds also? An AI, Automaton, Computer, or Base is just as valid a Character as any other creature you might imagine. Even the source material has shown each of these types being treated as Characters. So why not build them using the Human Template?

 

The simple answer is that they distinct enough from Humans or Humanoids to be built with different defaults.

 

Humans get tired, need sleep, need to eat, have to breathe air and so forth or they suffer specific consequences. These are some of the basic things that define what a Human is. No one tries to buy the Disadvantage: Needs To Breathe Air for the Human Template, since that is one of things that defines the Human Template.

 

So for some of those creatures that have a different default definition have been given a different Template to build off of.

 

This makes sense. A computer doesn't automatically get Arms and Legs, but neither is it required to Breathe Air.

 

So this begs the third question. Why if AI, Automatons, Computers, and Bases get their own Template to build off of, why should the system then require that every other kind of Creature imaginable be built using the Human Template?

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I'm pointing out how this one doesn't work with the current default. But the concept has some merit.

 

If you're going to create a new rule it should either

1) Work with the current default system - which is, BTW, to have all animals, people and living things, built with the default Character Template (4 Limbs, 2 of which are Manipulatory).

 

2) State the entire rule structure and cascading changes it will effect - like creating a new template for each Base Form. A why would help here. Like why we need to redefine a Character Template every time we're making a new animal.

 

 

The idea of a known default is so everyone is operating under the same premise. Otherwise we might as well all use different systems.

 

If I'm going to redefine the Template every time why have this mechanic? Why not say I'm using the Centaur Mechanic which has 6 Limbs instead of the Person Mechanics + Limbs Power.

 

Where's the balances in this system. When are different Base Templates used? Not Used?

Moved here for discussion.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[ghost-angel]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

First, Computers & AI are the same Template - it's the Computer Template. "Normal Computers" are built without the EGO Stat, otherwise the rules are the same.

 

Vehicles are likewise similar to Bases, though they have STR/DEX/SPD added.

 

And the Biggest difference between the Character Template and the others is that the others are Equipment and cannot be played by Players. Thus the Non-Player Templates are customized to function.

 

The Player Template is used for anything a Player may play - such as a super intelligent badger with laser-beam eyes.

 

And while we're just assuming it's Human or Humanoid, due to personal bias (and all Templates will have some kind of bias) we make it that way.

 

What the default template really has is:

Five Limbs: Two are manipulatory, Two are non-manipulatory but provide propulsion, one contains most sensory information

Four Sense Groups (Sight, Hearing, Touch, Smell/Taste)

 

You can easily reshape this piece of clay...

 

Pulling out the Bestiary we look up a Snake.

It has running (Ground Movement) but no Legs. It does not have any Disadvantage or notation that this is the case. You just know snakes can move, they don't use legs.

It does have a Limited Manipulation Disad, that's to remove the Manipulatory Limbs it doesn't have (on humans those are Arms).

 

Pulling out Monsters, Minions, And Marauders we look up Lamia (halfsnake/halfhuman).

It has no Disadvantages to represent the loss of the legs (from our "Human Template") and still has "Running" though obviously it slithers, and still has arms.

 

So our Default Template is closer to:

Manipulatory Limbs (assumed 2)

Propulsion Limb (generally assumed 2, but that's human bias for you)

Sensory Limb (contains the eyes/mouth/ears - even this is a human bias assumption and may not be true)

Four Sense Groups

Needs To Eat/Sleep/etc...

 

So, if you're going to introduce new Templates you have to ask what they really contain. What do they add that the Player Template really doesn't cover with the appropriate modifications.

 

And how many? I bet we could fill a book the size of 5ER with the "Templates" and then we run into a problem of how do we balance these Templates against each other? Do Canine Templates get a Killing Attack for free to represent teeth?

 

The Player Template, however you see the bias working, provides both ease of use and a common point of reference for everyone involved.

 

The idea of creating many different Templates looks good on paper, I can't fault that, but I'm not sure it's just way more trouble than it's worth and would over complicate things to the point of unplayability.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

[copied from originating thread]

 

The system is human biased because we're humans, so it's what we understand. I'm sure the Blob People of Anturas XVII have RPG's biased to Blob People for the same reason.

 

There needs to be a baseline for a point-based system to work. You pay for gaining beneficial attributes that depart from the baseline. You get points back for losing abilities provided as part of the baseline. We measure the characters by their deviations from the baseline.

 

Another approach could certainly be multiple baselines. Let me suggest an approach. The "Warrior" baseline is harder to kill/KO and better with attacking. It gains abilities that assist it in physical combat.

 

The "Priest" baseline is also hard to kill/KO, and skilled with attacks, but not so much as the "Warrior" baseline. However it also gains access to certain abilities granted by divine powers, including te ability to heal.

 

The "Rogue" baseline is not as sturdy as the "Priest" baseline, but has simialr skill with attacks, although in different ways. It gains access to considerably greater levels of skills, however, and also to certain special abilities related to stealthy fighting and agility.

 

The "Wizard" baseline is the least sturdy, and the least effective in normal combat. However, it gains access to powerful abilities outside the norm for combat which aid it, and/or its fellows, in other ways.

 

In other words, your "different baseline/different template" approach merely introduces "classes" to the system.

 

Under your template approach, can a PC be any template desired? Is Millipede Man (the man with the powers of a millipede) required to buy 996 Extra Limbs and a horrific amount of Shrinking, while Man-Milliped (the millipede with the powers of a man) entitled to those exra limbs for free, but required to purchase the ability to use two with greater manipulation, and some growth to get him up to human size? If both end up with exactly the same abilities, should they not both have exactly the same cost?

 

The answer commonly tends to be "well, these other baselines are for NPC's only - don't bother balancing them". I dislike that approach - the system should be able to permit a PC the same abilities as an NPC. In some cases, the PC may not be permitted to have the ability (it may be beyond campaign maxima, for example), but it should be possible to build the same abilities into a PC assuming available points are adequate and the GM has not restricted this.

 

In discussing this, that's a key reason I despise the "classes of mind" rules. "Oh, an NPC can be of the Alien mind class, and thus get free immunity to virtually all mental powers in the game. And it's free. But PC's can't have that. Not at any cost."

[Zeropoint]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The way I rule it, especially in a supers game, is that the "alien" class of mind means REALLY alien.

 

Vulcans don't get the Alien class of mind. The Hounds of Tindalos get it.

 

Basically, any being that a human could have a meaningful conversation with, assuming the language barrier is bypassed, is a human class mind. Some of them may ALSO be other classes. For instance, a sapient computer system would be both human and machine class. It might have a lot of mental defense, Only Vs. Powers That Target Human Class Minds, but it doesn't get to be immune to them for free.

[casualplayer]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

It's not free to be Humanoid. All the attributes do have a value. It's just that the scale has been tared, zeroed out, so that we don't make 450 pt heroes and you have to start by paying 100 pts to be baseline human. Personally I wouldn't mind if we started from a point and built upwards, but that is just me.

 

For the low, low price of sitting down and making a character you get 2 manipulatory limbs, 6" of ambulatory movement on ground, 2" in the water, 10 pts in all your primary stats, the ability to perceive light in a narrow range, hear in a similarly narrow range, touch, smell, taste, etc. Set the norm and then spend or net points by deviating from it.

 

Every additional template introduced to the game has caused problems because of clashing operating systems. Dumb, frickin' Takes No STUN! They can play nice together for awhile but eventually under stress you get the Big Blue Book Screen of Death. You can't fix the conflict by adding to it.

[casualplayer]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The way I rule it' date=' [i']especially[/i] in a supers game, is that the "alien" class of mind means REALLY alien.

 

Vulcans don't get the Alien class of mind. The Hounds of Tindalos get it.

 

Basically, any being that a human could have a meaningful conversation with, assuming the language barrier is bypassed, is a human class mind. Some of them may ALSO be other classes. For instance, a sapient computer system would be both human and machine class. It might have a lot of mental defense, Only Vs. Powers That Target Human Class Minds, but it doesn't get to be immune to them for free.

 

Lotta work to patch a dumb idea. Classes of Mind was a unalloyed mistake. Thanks for the suggestions to fix it though.

[Blue Jogger]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I like this idea for Robots. When you built a robot, it should start from a box.

 

You want arms, legs, that was "Extra" limbs. Otherwise, you settled for wheels and floopy things that look like arms but didn't do anything. (And don't forget Running, or hoverbots had flight)

 

You want it to see something? That was usually IR vision (it was cheap, and it made a certain amount of dramatic sense).

 

You want it to understand sound? Ok, the ears were free, but to understand English, you needed to buy up its English and a 1 point program call Accept Verbal Commands.

 

You want stats? You buy it up from zero. INT determined how well it multitasked (this goes back to Champions II) and EGO was neccessary for it to be creative and free-willed but opened it up to the whole mentalism. (Although most robots had a psych-limit to be all loyal, which made up for a low EGO in some cases.)

 

So, why go through all this mess?

 

Because Robots aren't human, they often look more like R2-D2. So, eliminate the default human bias and suddenly creativity was boundless.

 

And if you think about it, 0-point vehicles look alot like a "box" (although I got to wonder about that 6" Running) .

[ghost-angel]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I think the human bias is user created and not part of the system.

 

Like a pointed out, Snake-Men don't need to do anything to change "legs" to "snake body" to have ambulatory movement. As CasualPlayer pointed out - we don't have "legs" but 6" of ambulatory movement to start with. How we get that is Special Effects (and sure, 99% of the time we choose Legs as our SFX for Running).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

The way I rule it' date=' [i']especially[/i] in a supers game, is that the "alien" class of mind means REALLY alien.

 

Vulcans don't get the Alien class of mind. The Hounds of Tindalos get it.

 

Basically, any being that a human could have a meaningful conversation with, assuming the language barrier is bypassed, is a human class mind. Some of them may ALSO be other classes. For instance, a sapient computer system would be both human and machine class. It might have a lot of mental defense, Only Vs. Powers That Target Human Class Minds, but it doesn't get to be immune to them for free.

 

The way I believe it should properly work is that mental powers affect anything with a mind (a subclass of mental powers that affects machines that lack a mind is required under this model). If a creature's mind is so alien that mental powers do not affect it, that's why we have mental Defense, Ego scores and mental damage reduction. If mentalists familiar with such creatures can effect them more easily, these defenses can be limited. If a specific mentalist wants to affect them more easily, he needs to buy bonuses to his abilities only to affect such creatures.

 

If I envision a character to be made of solid steel, and thus resistant to damage, I buy him extra defenses. He doesn't get the extra defenses for free because I note in his background that he's made of solid steel. A mind that's hard to effect should also pay for the defenses. If I, as GM, want a creature invulnerable to mental powers, then I can easily add those abilities to the creature.

 

I recall a GM who once posted on using an alien race that was like "Thing" [fixed from It] from the Adams Family - just an ambulatory hand. Of course, that meant he was very resistant to damage out of the box - all hits were on the "hand" hit location. I consider calling it "Alien Mind Class" to grant invulnerability to mental powers to be about the same level of reasonableness.

[MorpheousXO]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Man, using Thing from the Adams Family (Cousin It was the hairball) and saying that since he's a hand he only uses the Hand hit loc... that's just dumb. Obviously you need the hit locations of palm, finger, wrist, knuckle, and a thumb

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I think the human bias is user created and not part of the system.

 

Like a pointed out, Snake-Men don't need to do anything to change "legs" to "snake body" to have ambulatory movement. As CasualPlayer pointed out - we don't have "legs" but 6" of ambulatory movement to start with. How we get that is Special Effects (and sure, 99% of the time we choose Legs as our SFX for Running).

 

So where do users dictate a need to breathe air - and drowning rules are all part of the rules??

 

Where do users dictate that default senses are human visible spectrum, human aural spectrum etc?

 

They dont, they are part of the default human template.

 

Hero goes a long way to providing a blank canvas upon which to make characters but some of the constructs are twisted simply because you shouldn't start at the default Hero position to best make the construct.

 

This is not about introducing character classes, it is actually about deciding if it is possible to get to a blank slate and whether there might be some useful templates, beside default human, that might usefully be applied to that blank slate for the benefit of the game....

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

So where do users dictate a need to breathe air - and drowning rules are all part of the rules??

 

Where do users dictate that default senses are human visible spectrum, human aural spectrum etc?

 

They dont, they are part of the default human template.

 

Hero goes a long way to providing a blank canvas upon which to make characters but some of the constructs are twisted simply because you shouldn't start at the default Hero position to best make the construct.

 

This is not about introducing character classes, it is actually about deciding if it is possible to get to a blank slate and whether there might be some useful templates, beside default human, that might usefully be applied to that blank slate for the benefit of the game....

 

All legitimate issues that pull much further back than adding a tail of an extra pair of arms.

 

I would suggest the starting point is to cost out the default abilities that the base template receives, including:

 

- Life Support - Can breathe oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere

- Life Support - Temperatures neither extremely hot nor extremely cold

- Requirements for food

- 2 Manipulatory Limbs

- Sight

- hearing

- taste

- touch

- smell

- Everyman skills

- 10 Primary Stats

- 6" run, 2" swim

 

and whatever else I've missed.

 

Now, what do those cost? Presumably, it would be reasonable to design other templates on the basis that they have the same cost - if you add something the "human baseline" does not have (say, sonar and flight), you have to take something away to balance the score (perhaps Sight and ground movement). Thus, we end up with baseline templates which are "equal but different".

 

If the template can't be balanced (and doubtless some can't be), the difference is the cost of adopting that template. Thus, a PC could have the Dragon Template, rather than the Human template, but it doesn't come for free. Let's assume it costs 200 points - then it's not a viable option for a 75 + 75 point Fantasy Hero character, but it could be selected by a 200 + 150 Champions character, or possibly be an alien race for a 100 + 100 Star Hero game.

 

But you don't get to write "Dragon" instead of "Human" on your character sheet and pick up 200 net points worth of freebies. And, just like "can't see" and "can't walk" are physical limitations (disadvantages, not sellbacks) for humans, "can't breathe fire" can "can't fly" become physical limitations (disadvantages, not sellbacks) if you're a dragon.

[Checkmate]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I would change the Life Support instead of can breathe, I would suggest it's a disad: Must breathe. Let the player define what gas, liquid, or solid the character has to breathe.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I think that's more of it.

 

Must Breathe X Atmosphere.

Must Eat Y Food Type (after all you can redefine rock elemental to needing minerals instead of living matter for energy)

 

As for the Sight/Hearing... since we buy Powers to expand these I might even say it's the same route:

 

Restricted Sight: Narrow Spectrum "Visible Light"

Restricted Hearing, Restricted Taste/Smell, etc...

 

But of course, we can build all of these with Powers to:

Detect: Physical Objects In Visible Spectrum, etc...

 

tough call on that one.

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

I'm not sure what is meant by "template" in this context. If it's just a collection of typical abilities a being has based on its species, then it's essentially a Racial Package Deal. Is that what we mean by template? I hope no one is advocating that extra abilities beyond those posessed by the base, 0-point human must be given for free because the character is of another species. And I hope that no one is advocating that default human abilities lacked by a character because of its species don't earn any disadvantage points.

 

Just because ogres typically have 30 STR doesn't mean than an ogre character doesn't have to pay for the extra STR above what the default character has. And just because pixies usually have -30 STR doesn't mean they don't get any points back for their lack of STR compared to the base character.

 

The system is human biased because we're humans' date=' so it's what we understand. I'm sure the Blob People of Anturas XVII have RPG's biased to Blob People for the same reason.[/quote']

Exactly! And if Bob the Blob of Anturas XVII wanted to play a human character in such a game, he starts with the base character - a typical or perhaps slightly heroic Blob Person - and buys all the abilities that a human has that blob people don't have, and takes disadvantages for all the abilities blob people have that humans lack.

 

And by "abilities" we mean useful things that a character can do that have a game impact.

 

So since blob people don't need an atmosphere to breathe, Bob's character would take a Dependence Disad: Must have oxygen to live. And since blob people can't survive in temperatures above 60 degrees, Bob's character buys Life Support: Survives in Heat up to some temperature. And since blob people slither along the ground at default of 6" per phase, Bob's character pays nothing for his 6" of running, since there is no game-functional difference between slithering 6" and running 6".

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

It's not free to be Humanoid. All the attributes do have a value. It's just that the scale has been tared' date=' zeroed out, so that we don't make 450 pt heroes and you have to start by paying 100 pts to be baseline human. Personally I wouldn't mind if we started from a point and built upwards, but that is just me...[/quote']

That is basically the ideal situation, but for sake of making the majority of builds (Humancentric) simpler a Human Template makes sense. But I think you've got the gist of the idea.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

So where do users dictate a need to breathe air - and drowning rules are all part of the rules??

 

Where do users dictate that default senses are human visible spectrum, human aural spectrum etc?

 

They dont, they are part of the default human template.

 

Hero goes a long way to providing a blank canvas upon which to make characters but some of the constructs are twisted simply because you shouldn't start at the default Hero position to best make the construct.

 

This is not about introducing character classes, it is actually about deciding if it is possible to get to a blank slate and whether there might be some useful templates, beside default human, that might usefully be applied to that blank slate for the benefit of the game....

 

Doc

Doc has perfectly described how I view this and the basis by which I introduce many mechanics (not all of course).

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Under your template approach' date=' can a PC be any template desired?[/quote']

And here is where the disconnect is (mainly my fault).

 

The system I proposed doesn't automatically make any and all Templates available to any player. The GM decides all this when he creates his campaign. He decides what the Default Template would be (Zero Cost) and then all other Templates would naturally cost the difference starting out and modified from there.

 

That is why I think it is a Kludge to force the GM, who decides to run a Sci-Fi campaign where the Template will default to being a Non-Human creature, use the Human Template to build the majority of the Characters with.

 

BTW: Each Template (even the Human One) should be built with mechanics from the ground up, so all Templates have "value" which hopefully will reflect more/less powerful Templates when compared from zero, not necessarily the Human Template.

 

That should hopefully clear things up a little.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

...Just because ogres typically have 30 STR doesn't mean than an ogre character doesn't have to pay for the extra STR above what the default character has. And just because pixies usually have -30 STR doesn't mean they don't get any points back for their lack of STR compared to the base character.

Of course not.

 

However, if the campaign is designed so that all th characters built are going to be Ogres, then there is no need to charge for that extra cost since it is now the Baseline for the Campaign. Then if someone wants to play a Human, they are going to get a lot of points back.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[Maur]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

They already handle this by using the Racial Package deals. I think the big problem with trying to do this is truly defining everything that makes something a human to determine the base points that being a human costs. Things like perception capability based on distance, etc... How much does it cost to have eyes that are 20/20 vs a baseline of 20/10 or 20/200?

[schir1964]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

They already handle this by using the Racial Package deals. I think the big problem with trying to do this is truly defining everything that makes something a human to determine the base points that being a human costs. Things like perception capability based on distance' date=' etc... How much does it cost to have eyes that are 20/20 vs a baseline of 20/10 or 20/200?[/quote']

What I am suggesting is a bit more than just a racial package, since in the Well World there are creatures that don't have a physical form even.

 

But yes, Hero presumes that characters are "perfect" human beings in that they don't suffer any minor deficiencies such as vision problems. But that isn't really what I'm talking about.

 

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

Of course not.

 

However, if the campaign is designed so that all th characters built are going to be Ogres, then there is no need to charge for that extra cost since it is now the Baseline for the Campaign. Then if someone wants to play a Human, they are going to get a lot of points back.

OK, I understand what you're saying now, and I fully agree.

 

The only problem comes in when you want to mix ogres and humans (as PCs) in the same game. Not that it's a "problem" per se, it's just more work, because you have to actually stat out the differences to keep the game balanced. Or you could just let the game be unbalanced, if the players agree to that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

What I am suggesting is a bit more than just a racial package, since in the Well World there are creatures that don't have a physical form even.

 

But yes, Hero presumes that characters are "perfect" human beings in that they don't suffer any minor deficiencies such as vision problems. But that isn't really what I'm talking about.

 

If we assume Ogres are just like Humans, except they get STR 30, CON 20, BOD 15, INT 8, EGO 8, PRE 15, COM 8 and the related figured characteristics, and 7" running, that costs 50 points from "baseline human".

 

There's no real difference from running a 125 + 75 game and making the ogres buy their stats from 10 and a 75 + 75 game where the players get baseline Ogre stats automatically. If one of the 75 +75 players wants to play a human, he sells and buys stats to get to human norm under the "ogre baseline" or simply doesn't adjust to ogrish stats under the "human baseline".

 

For simplicity, I'd have the players use the "ogre baseline", but buy up from human would work just as well. It's when we have multiple templates where a problem arises. For example, telling that Human character's player he gets no points back for the decreased stats overall, and is a 75 + 75 point human will leave that character underpowered absent some other compensatory measure. Better to just say "no human characters".

[ghost-angel]

Re: Game Design: Philosophy Of Templates

 

If we assume Ogres are just like Humans, except they get STR 30, CON 20, BOD 15, INT 8, EGO 8, PRE 15, COM 8 and the related figured characteristics, and 7" running, that costs 50 points from "baseline human".

 

There's no real difference from running a 125 + 75 game and making the ogres buy their stats from 10 and a 75 + 75 game where the players get baseline Ogre stats automatically. If one of the 75 +75 players wants to play a human, he sells and buys stats to get to human norm under the "ogre baseline" or simply doesn't adjust to ogrish stats under the "human baseline".

 

For simplicity, I'd have the players use the "ogre baseline", but buy up from human would work just as well. It's when we have multiple templates where a problem arises. For example, telling that Human character's player he gets no points back for the decreased stats overall, and is a 75 + 75 point human will leave that character underpowered absent some other compensatory measure. Better to just say "no human characters".

 

This is a good point.

 

It doesn't matter - from game to game - what Baseline you use, as long as everyone uses the same one.

 

But then you aren't making a "new Template" to work from - you're simply moving the Starting Line to a different position. Which is all fine and good - On A Game By Game Basis.

 

The System Defaults to a particular starting line just to give everyone a common point of discussion.

 

Using multiple starting points (or "templates" if one insists) can at the least cause confusion, almost always cause unbalance, and at the worst hurt feelings on the part of the one left with the lowest bar.