Wises, Declarations, and Saying Yes/No

I disagree. I want to know information on what religion the local mayor worships. I’m just asking for information. Are you saying that isn’t an Intent?

EDIT: Are you saying that the player has to declare that the mayor worships Mitra and can’t just solicit that information as above? What if you have the NPC sheet in front of you and one of the mayor’s Beliefs is: “I will continue to abduct and ritually slay for Set in order to bring about his arrival” and maybe has another that says: “worshippers of Mitra do not deserve life and Set will reward me for their sacrifice of life-blood”. Really?

  1. The fact that I have something planned for the Big Picture is not important (to me anyway). The actual play it is. So if a player contradicts some plan of mine with a successful wise test, or any other test, I drop the plan.

Not important to you is the key here. Reread the AdBu page 300+ on dragons and Anthony’s Big Picture. It was important to him and the campaign and was the focus of at least an arc of the game.

The way I see it is that either: 1) it isn’t that important so you tell the player the information 2) it has the potential for a fun conflict and doesn’t contradict anything important so you have the player roll 3) it is important to your Big Picture and the players need to find out that information and shouldn’t contradict what you have. [Notice I’m just paraphrasing what is said in the AdBu!]

You drop the plan? You don’t have a Big Picture? How about a Premise? I’m not saying you can’t play that way, obviously you can and do. But I’m going off of cold hard page numbers and rules for Burning Wheel not personal drifts.

EDIT: see, also, what I said about the mayor worshipping Set above. Assuming you’d made the NPC-mayor, you’d change the mayor’s religion and Beliefs just because the player wants to declare that the mayor worships Mitra with Mayor-Wise or Mitra-Wise or Religion-Wise or whatever? Even though it negates what you have about the NPC? And possibly negates the whole Situation of that arc?

Are you saying you are reactive to the players and not proactively throwing out crap they have to deal with? You don’t bring in information, you put that only on the player’s shoulders? What about what Luke said:

Whew wipes brow and finally:

  1. If there are not interesting consequences of failure, I simply say ‘Yes’.

Absolutely you should say Yes in that instance. But I get the feeling you are saying you’d say yes to silly declarations as well, “I declare all orcs wear funny hats and silly walk while in battle!” or “I declare that the chamberlain smells bad”. I could be wrong, but there are instances when saying No is fine in BW. You know that right? But again I’m not going to call the secret BWHQ police and say you are having badwrongfun either. Do what makes you happy.

EDIT: Tangent…

Not important. He was specifically referring to Fiasco though (black tokens) and saying that Story Games shouldn’t be lumped with games like Sorcerer, Dogs in the Vineyard, Burning Wheel, etc. [Full discloser: I was just being a douche and bashing on Story Gamers and their propensity to pass-the-stick].

Forgive me if this was meant to be a two-way debate, but I’d like to jump in with my own thoughts on this matter. I’m somewhat on the fence on most of the issues:

1. A player wanting to know something (assessing for information) is usually a valid intent, but not always. In most cases, the GM can just say yes and offer the information, or go to dice if something interesting is going on. It doesn’t always work out that way in practice though. Sometimes the player pushes their knowledge skills a bit too far. Sometimes the GM just honestly doesn’t know the answer to their question, and can’t think of something interesting to say. Sometimes the intent is too vague. Sometimes the player is pushing for information that would unravel the whole story and “win” the game with a simple “I know the answer” test. It’s always situational, and a GM must assess each and every Intent separately.

To be honest, when a player asks me for an assessment test, I almost always ask them if they can make a declaration and answer their question themselves. If they can’t think of something, I’ll allow the assessment, but I prefer to work with them to come up with an interesting declaration. It’s much more fun that way.

2. The Big Picture is very important to keep the campaign’s story coherent and focused, but the GM shouldn’t be afraid to let that Big Picture be challenged from time to time, and should be even open to considering letting it be discarded altogether in favor of a new Big Picture. The main thing to keep in mind is to always make sure the story is about something. As has been pointed out, Burning Wheel is a narrativist game, not a story game, but all this means is that the GM has more responsibility to make sure that a good story is evolving through the use of the rules. And a good story must always have a theme (anybody who thinks otherwise either doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or reads a lot of crap fiction).

Now, what’s interesting in narrativist games is how themes can change over time. This is cool, it means many stories get told. The tricky part is knowing when to let those themes change. Say one of the PCs wants to use a knowledge skill in a way that directly challenges the Big Picture. Do you acknowledge his Intent as valid and let him try? Really, it all depends on the timing, where you are in the story at the moment, and whether the other players are on-board with the potential change. Are you near the story arc’s climax? Will the change in theme drastically change the story in an unfun way? Will it challenge the credibility of already established facts? Etc. Sometimes it works just fine. Most times you have to say no. Other times you have to say no, but can drop a hint that the player should try again later…

Be aware that it works both ways. In the campaign I’m GMing, I recently changed the Big Picture with a surprise move that wasn’t very popular with the players. We ended up discussing the matter and changing back to the original Big Picture with some creative explanations. It worked out fine in the end, but the point is, a change of Big Picture isn’t something that should happen just anytime. It doesn’t always have to be planned, but it has to make sense, and the entire group of players has to approve of it.

3. Say Yes or Roll doesn’t mean never say no. This was stated above, and I stand by it. If an Intent is invalid, say no. However, I also believe in the GM’s ability to wield his GM Stick with authority when the situation calls for it. This might go against Burning Philosophy at times, but whatever, it’s the way I play my game.

On a side note, I’d like to point out that not everybody plays the game with the same amount of seriousness. Allowing silly declarations is fine if you and your group enjoy a silly game. There’s nothing wrong with that! In my group, we have a running Bear-wise gag that gets used almost every session. Good fun.

4. Actors have a role-playing job, but we play role-playing games. I think some people tend to forget this. It’s all fine and dandy to say that the GM has a responsibility to create enough information about the world to make sure the knowledge-based characters are adequately challenged. But the truth is, most of us are busy people, and GMing is NOT a job. It’s a hobby. It’s a game. We GMs are just players like the rest of you. Really.

I’m a relatively lazy GM. I fully admit that. I put as little prep into a game session as possible, and sometimes show up with no prep at all. My games run smoothly for the most part, with only the occasional hitch. But I’m not about to feel bad that I didn’t spend a dozen hours last week creating material for a six-hour Saturday game. In fact, one of the reasons I migrated to Burning Wheel was because I was tired of feeling like I have to put so much prep-time in for games like D&D. I play BW because it is a nice low-maintenance system that more or less runs itself, mechanics-wise. The GM and players provide the story, and most of the creation process is done together.

Which is why I am MUCH more in favor of using knowledge-based skills for declarations than assessments. I don’t want to pre-plan details about the setting. Playing the game with your friends is more fun than playing it by yourself. If the GM is willing to loosen his reins a bit, and give players a bit of creative power, I think you’ll find your “job” becoming a whole lot more fun. And most players are quite capable of keeping declarations serious and setting relevant. It works just fine.

GM authority is baked into Burning Wheel. There’s no conflict there.

I don’t think the advice to think up some stuff for a character to find, and calling it a job, really endangers any GM’s fun. If it did, we’d have tons of “I’m too exhausted to GM” threads. I trust that people know theyre playing a game. If someone has a bunch of investigative skills, of course spending some time thinking about that is a good idea.

Dean: I agree with nearly everything you’ve said and the rest is totally fine because you said “Just the way I play” or “in my opinion” or whatever.

My only sticking point is do people who play all [Forge-talk-warning] “No Myth” bother to even make up NPC BITs or Bangs for their games? That is the part I really don’t get. For me: other than a little bit of interesting setting stuff that directly affects the PCs, BITs and Bangs are 90% of my “planning”.

Noclue: yes!

My pre-planning is mostly in Bangs, which I try and make sure revolve around the PCs’ BITs. I develop NPC BITs to an extent, but allow lots of wiggle room in that regard. As I mentioned in the other thread, I believe it’s more important to keep the story centered on the PC’s BITs, not the NPCs’. NPC BITs should be used only for the generation of Bangs.

Edit: Actually, when I am prepping my adventures, I also plan for possible declarations that might be called for in play. Not the declarations themselves, but identifying which Wises and knowledge skills might be applicable, and coming up with interesting consequences of failure for them beforehand. I can’t plan for the PCs’ successes, but I can surely plan for their failures.

Edit: And honestly, I have no idea what you’re going on with about Forge stuff for. I’d reckon most of us never visit the Forge site. I’ve only briefly glanced over the topics there myself.

“No-Myth” means that, in a game, there is no information about the setting that is both 100% true and initially hidden from the players. It’s a completely relevant concept to this discussion.

Burning Wheel is clearly intended to be Low-Myth, but not No-Myth. (Per the AdBu citations, etc.)


I think it is not. Do you want to get information? That can be a good Intent.

That’s not an Intent neither, IMO. Why do you want that information? What do you want to accomplish? What do you pretend to do with such information?

I don’t know. What if? Tell the players! Why hide it from them?

I don’t have plans. My NPCs have plans, but I don’t. I do not plan what will happen. As Vincent says, I play to find out.

I have a Big Picture. I made it with the other players during the world burning (or the clan burning or whatever).

I’m not sure about the Premise. Do you have any example of a valid Burning Wheel Premise?

Anything like that ever happened to you? I can not think of any real situation where I saw something similar.

No, I don’t saying that. Read the other threat. I never said that. But when “I” want to know something, so often I prefer to ask it to the players. Maybe it is not your way, but it is my way. I learned it from Lady Blackbird and Apocalypse World, and I think it is quite compatible with BW. It’s the way I prefer to play. In what way it affects you what I prefer?

I think I’ve ever seen anything even remotely similar happen in a real game. Why would anyone say such a thing?

I have no idea what does this have to do with anything, but whatever. What is a SG for you?

Ah, thanks. In that case, no, I am not a No Myth player. However, I may be somewhat lower myth than what BW is designed for, in the fact that while I do create my myths, I would be not be adverse to players changing them IF their ideas are actually better and more interesting than what I had originally intended. To be honest though, I don’t think I’ve ever had my “myths” be contested in a way I didn’t like. shrug

I allow more declarative power than the norm in my games, and it works great for me and my players. Bear-wise can declare bears into existence in the forest, and weather-wise can declare a blizzard in December. Declarations must remain within the standards of the setting though, so no declaring bears in the closet, or blizzards in July. The players know this and respect it.

Actually, a lot of my GMing experience was with Spirit of the Century, another game that allows declarations via skill checks. The genre of that game is pulp, and I run my SotC sessions very over-the-top, full of ridiculousness and hilarity. One of the most-used declarations in that campaign was “There’s a ramp!” I allowed almost any sort of declaration in SotC. However, I started my BW campaign because I wanted a more serious-toned game that still allows for declarations. And I’ve found that so long as everybody is on board and on the same page about the setting expectations and what is and what is not acceptable, nobody is ever going to abuse declarations. It’s a shared investment in the world, something that all the players work together to maintain.

I think wises are the way players can fill in the blanks about setting so you don’t have to make all the crap, virtually in the same manner as circles and resources. You can make stuff on the fly in this game. You don’t have to ple-plan anything if you don’t want to. Yes, you can use Bangs if you want. But y’know what? To me the best Bang is the Bang you did not have to use, because the game played itself (thanks to the players’ proactivity).

I hear ya. As I mentioned above, I usually plan for failed declarations. Like, once I prepped some stats for an owl-bear, anticipating a failed Bear-wise test. The Wise was used, but the test passed, and my owl-bear stats were wasted. But showing that page to the other players at the end of the session really gave the whole group a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that they averted a potential crisis. ^^

Okay, so this thread got away from me while I was gone! I’m not going to parse all of those posts, so…

Remember my silly example of a smelly chamberlain, yeah, there was a reason I used that: Secrets and the Smelly Chamberlain. That link pretty much sums up what is going on in this thread I think – each of us uses different techniques! Whatever, I’m fine with that! I’m not at your table, what do I care?

Some are being honest that they allow more-than-the-norm declarations: super! And I mean that, at least you are being honest.

You have never had a player trample on your “myths” - such as a declaration that would invalidate an entire arc (as per pg 300 of the AdBu), or try to declare a fact on an NPC which would invalidate an entire arc. Cool! I really wish I was that lucky. I’ve had players trample more than just that. I’ve had players use Let it Ride to swim in zombie-bear organs, or burn down towns that the character supposedly cared about, or generally have no regard for character integrity. I have examples that I still have baggage from.

Here is the important part of this discussion for me: I used actual page numbers from a BW book to support my argument. Not Lady Blackbird or Fiasco or Apocalypse World or Polaris or whatever. That is pretty much all I was looking for from the Say-Yes-to-every-declaration-ers. EDIT: And using other games is like invalidating what Luke Crane said in his “Game Design is Mind Control”.

This is not fruitful without those links to actual Burning Wheel rules.

On a more personal note: I use Bangs and NPC Beliefs aimed at PC Beliefs are the #1 way to bring those in for me. Not that that has anything to do with Wises, Declarations, or saying Yes/No.

Yeah, I’ve had troublesome players in the past, and it’s important to keep a tight grip on the GM stick in those situations. I’m lucky with my current group though, as we’re all like-minded individuals who respect the fiction we create. In fact, all of us save for one are elementary school teachers – we spend so much time during our days saying “no” to bratty kids that we are more than happy to just get along and have some fun at the game table.

The problem as I see it here is that while you quote from the book, you’re applying your arguments to ridiculous theoretical situations. Really. You make it sound as if we’d Say Yes to declarations of pink marshmallows falling from the sky, but that simply isn’t the case. I can’t speak for Etsu, but I assume he’s in a similar situation with me, in that we both have gaming groups that respect the integrity of the shared world we are creating. Respectful players are not prone to ridiculous declarations. Far from it.

I think the thing that is irking you is how we are admitting we’d Say Yes to a declaration that contradicts something the GM had already planned (but not yet disclosed), or to something that directly challenges the Big Picture. And again, I say, we would not Say Yes to pink marshmallow rain. I would consider a declaration that contradicts a GM myth or the Big Picture, and might Say Yes if it’s cool and interesting in some way. Consideration of declarations is a subjective process, not a purely objective one. To make a solid rule that such declarations are impossible is to discount the really cool ones with potential.

Here are some (paraphrased) quotes from the book, since you asked for them:

No problems there that I can see. Declarations contradicting “GM Myths” falls directly under the second option, in which I should set an Ob and call for the dice to be thrown. Contradicting previously established facts falls mostly under stuff the PCs have already seen, as is described on that page and elsewhere in this chapter of the book. Contradicting actual facts the GM knows to be true but hasn’t shared yet with the players should either be denied (contradicts actual monster stats and stuff), or should be subjectively considered (see below).

Now we’re getting into some meat, but it’s important to realize that this is also talking about theoretical situations. The declaration might contradict the Big Picture? How? That’s the sticking question. Not all contradictions are bad, and quite a few can be used by the GM to spin the story from an entirely new angle. So, what the above quote is really saying, IMHO, is: “If you want to declare something that could possibly contradict what the GM has planned for the Big picture, the setting, or the situation, run it by the GM to see if it’s cool first. Don’t be surprised if he says no, but so long as you’re respecting the fiction as much as the GM is, chances are good he might just Say Yes, or set an Ob and ask to go to dice for it.”

As a GM, I think I tell a pretty good story. But you know what? There are four other people at my table, all just as smart as me (and a couple who are probably smarter). They have good ideas too, and sometimes their ideas are better than mine. That’s cool, I’d rather use the best ideas we’ve got, so I’m quite happy when players pitch new ideas to me via declarations. Doesn’t mean I have to accept them – I’m the boss, tough luck kids – but I’m glad to consider them.

Also, one habit I have is that whenever a player requests a skill test that I am iffy about, I don’t say no right off the bat – I ask the table. It goes to a player vote. Nine times out of ten, if I am iffy about it, the player’s peers will turn it down too. Sometimes they change my mind. Cool beans, let it slide and game on.

How about a concrete example from my campaign, so that we don’t muck around in theoreticals forever?

After their disastrous failed Read test, the players started talking amongst themselves, trying to figure out who the smuggler Karthos’ mysterious benefactor had been. I had already planned out who the benefactor was: a mercenary Lord named Kirsch who was the arch-nemesis of one of the PCs. But the players decided that the benefactor must be the powerful Tristeid Guild itself. They were sure of it.

I immediately Said Yes. No dice were rolled. Hell, it wasn’t even an in-game declaration. It was just the players talking amongst themselves OOC. It could have been a declaration; one of them could have mustered up an appropriate Wise, and they would have had I asked for it. But I just Said Yes and accepted their assumption as fact. Truth was, their idea was WAY BETTER than mine! The Tristeid Guild is uber in our campaign, controlling a port city and the entire region beyond, and Kirsch, while powerful, is just one guy in a castle by a mid-sized town. They actually tied this plot element more tightly to the Big Picture than I had intended. I have no problems with that!

It did drastically change the setting though, and the Big Picture was highly intensified. Instead of having a local mercenary lord funding a goblin uprising in the city of Katarren, it’s now the Tristeid Guild itself who is doing so. The campaign started with Katarren in dire straits because the Tristeid Guild had been leeching trade away from the west coast, but now it’s escalated into outright war. Wow.

So, how would you have handled this? Would you have stuck to your guns, keeping the plot element tied to the small fry, or would you also have changed your mind about the Big Picture, accepting your players’ suggestion? Note that I also admitted the truth to the players. I didn’t keep it a secret. I Said Yes, and I said it out loud.

~ Dean

I don’t know what the “Myth” thing is. When I play, I play with friends. (Even if I don’t know the guys, I hope they play friendly.) I don’t play alone, and it’s not my fiction. It’s our fiction, our world, our characters. I don’t see what a “arc” is neither, and what it has to do with what we read on page 300 of the AB.

Well, now we see what the problem is. You should talk to your players.

The problem is that nobody said anything even similar to “Say-Yes-to-every-declaration-ers”. You don’t say ‘Yes’ when there is a conflict. You roll dice. (And you must to aim to conflict.)

I read the AB and I still don’t know what your argument is and why you are so confrontational with something I said in a foot note in another topic.

BW is not alone. It exists in a gaming culture. I started to play with Star Wars D6 and then Call/Trail of Cthulhu and then The Burning Wheel. BW taught me how to play this way. But then others games came, like Lady Blackbird and Apocalypse World, and taught me some new things. Do not like it? Good for you. But I really do not understand why you feel this need to turn canon your hard way of play as a result of having apparently some disruptive players. (I don’t know if that’s the case.)

The way I play is the way I play. I did not change or alter the rules in any way (I think) because I like the game. I hope to learn new ways to play BW in the future, from here, this forum, or from anywhere else.

This is what I don’t understand. Just read the whole Gold book. (And you can read the Dean’s post.) But if you want some link, here you have one. See? You can play this way and nothing bad happens. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to, I suppose.

Dean: once again we agree, even if it isn’t fully. I don’t even consider the book thing much of a declaration in my mind. And it isn’t problematic in any way and I’ve done much the same. I never said declarations are bad. But I will say I prefer them to be framed as a question to the GM not a statement to the GM.

Everyone: My Mitra/Set example is not theoretical - it actually happened when I first started playing Burning Wheel in 2006 (almost exactly 6 years ago - neat!). I could try to write up the AP, but I don’t have any of my old notes (BITs for PCs or NPCs).

Etsu Riot: this is where I’m having a problem…

You can say No - the rule isn’t literally Roll the Dice or Say Yes to everything. That is why I keep quoting the AdBu.

I read the AB and I still don’t know what your argument is and why you are so confrontational with something I said in a foot note in another topic.

I warned in that other thread…

And you specifically said…

Which is what started all of this.

BW is not alone. It exists in a gaming culture…Do not like it? Good for you. But I really do not understand why you feel this need to turn canon your hard way of play…

Burning Wheel is a game and I feel that every game should be played the way the game is designed to be played. I don’t mix and match rules from other games. Side note: I DO like those other games. My favorite games at the moment are: Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Dogs in the Vineyard, Sorcerer, and more besides – but that doesn’t mean I’m going to start to use MC Principles in BW or use hard and soft moves.

The way I play is the way I play. I did not change or alter the rules in any way (I think) because I like the game. I hope to learn new ways to play BW in the future, from here, this forum, or from anywhere else.

Cool! Me too. And as I’ve said a bunch of times: play the way that works for you! (Just don’t state it as a factual way of playing without backing it up with cold hard facts and page numbers).

See? You can play this way and nothing bad happens. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to, I suppose.

Again, of course you can play any way that works for you. But realize it is a drift.

Sorry, but I don’t think it’s a drift in any way whatsoever. Yes, I have a problem with number 3 for the reasons I explained to you in the other topic, but whatever. It seems that you only allow players throw dice when it is not important for the Big Picture. I think you have to roll dice only when it matters. Wises are not a tool for extract information from the GM, IMO. But yes, if a player says something that contradicts something you had in mine for the Big Picture, you can consider the Intent invalid and say so, but be honest with the player about that. Don’t hide it in secret. Tell him. If he does not agree with you then you two have a conflict. BW has a lot of tools to deal with conflicts. (Skill tests for example.) I prefer to use the game system instead of be a dick GM saying ‘No’ to good ideas. As a Game Master you can rarely say ‘No’ in this game, it is not something that should happen very often.

And yes, games should not mix, but is not the case here. Certain principles of AW not only are compatible with BW, but I can’t imagine playing BW without them. ‘Play to find out what happens’ and ‘Sometimes, disclaim decision-making’ particularly. Usually when you play any game you are playing this two, or you are not playing at all. Vincent did not invent all this things, and the same goes with John Harper’s GM Tips. They just put in words things we already knew -or should have known-, and this is awesome. But you can prefer to be a more “traditional” GM if you want to, I guess. It does not affect the issue and it is not related to what was being discussed in the other topic, IMO.

I feel like some goal-posts have been moved here. :confused:

I agree with everything you said above.

Uhm. No. I use the rules pg. 32 BWG.

Wises are not a tool for extract information from the GM, IMO.

This is where we really disagree and we aren’t going to ever agree, so I’m going to drop it. I’ve even quoted page numbers and you won’t acknowedge it.

Don’t hide it in secret. Tell him.

Where did this even crop up in the discussion? I’m confused. And I also disagree here. Occasionally, sometimes it is fine to keep a GM secret if it has to do with a future event [page 300+ AdBu] - something I feel they need to work to find out and not just declare.

If he does not agree with you then you two have a conflict.

Sure, but once again I don’t let the players run rough-shod all over my NPC BITs.

I prefer to use the game system instead of be a dick GM saying ‘No’ to good ideas. As a Game Master you can rarely say ‘No’ in this game, it is not something that should happen very often.

Whoa there! No need to name call! I don’t say no to “good ideas”, just to ideas that would otherwise ruin a Situation by invalidating NPC BITs.

But you can prefer to be a more “traditional” GM if you want to, I guess. It does not affect the issue and it is not related to what was being discussed in the other topic, IMO.

Again with the trolling? Seriously I play “indie” games. I love indie games. I don’t know what you are on about.

Also I think this blog post by Eero sums up most of what I’m talking about: here.

Because nothing you quoted has nothing to do with what I can understand from your words.

You seem to have implied that some GMs keep certain elements of the Picture Big in secret. That can be truth, but in my opinion you must to drop your secrets if it hurt the game.

I don’t see when in the AdBu you can read that the GM has future events pre-planned in advance. How could the GM know what will happen?

A Bang is not a pre-plan. It is a contingency.

NPC BITs are not important. Are just a guide.

If the player knows that a particular NPC has Beliefs, why he would want to invalidate it?

Note: I was not talking about you. I was talking about a GM attitude. In fact, I was talking about me.

Calling other people ‘troll’ is not an argument.

Keeping Big Picture secrets from the players is, for me at least, very traditional. Besides, there are indy traditional games. I’m not calling ‘traditional’ to you, but the technique. We are talking about techniques here, I hope.

Maybe it is a language barrier but that isn’t the definition of a “Bang”.

NPC BITs are not important. Are just a guide.

Without them I don’t even have a Situation!

If the player knows that a particular NPC has Beliefs, why he would want to invalidate it?

The player wouldn’t. But sometimes, occasionally, rarely, etc. I see it as important to keep a secret about an NPCs BITs – as in the case of the Set possessed mayor.

Keeping Big Picture secrets from the players is, for me at least, very traditional. Besides, there are indy traditional games. I’m not calling ‘traditional’ to you, but the technique. We are talking about techniques here, I hope.

All I can say is read the blog post by Eero I linked to. He explains my position extremely well.

Since you might have missed my prior post I’ll quote it here:

Eero is saying what I’m saying, but as usual is more articulate in doing so.

All I can say is that I disagree with him on some of the things he says.

Anyway, I see your point. But I’m not sure why this is so important to you. Are just different levels of flexibility.