8/8/14 Episode 146: Restraint

I’m pulling out of my driveway! We all know what that means! It’s time for another Drive to Work.

Okay. So today, I’m going to talk about something, a design topic that I think a lot of beginning designers aren’t particularly good at. In fact, if they ask me, if you said… okay, I’ve been doing Magic design now for almost 19 years. If you said to me, “What is the thing you most learned, the biggest difference between when you started as a Magic designer and where you are now, what skill have you picked up that is the largest differen… differen…  differen… differentation? Different… (???) the word. But the largest difference between when you started and now. I’m sure there’s a better word for that.

Anyway, the answer is, “restraint.” One of the things I find with new designers, and I was this way, by the way, when I say new designers, when I was a new designer, I did this completely, which is I think when… for example, to use myself, when I first started designing Magic sets, the question I would ask myself is how much could I fit in.

Like when I turned over Tempest, Tempest was my first design, I had—it was just overloaded with stuff. For example, the two keyword mechanics from the following year, from Urza’s Saga block, which were echo and cycling, were in Tempest block. There were cards that ended up going in Weatherlight.

In fact, Tempest had so much stuff in it that there were cards from Tempest’s design for like five, six, seven years showing up. Because I was like, “Ooh, what could I do? What else could I do? What else could I do?” And I kept sort of saying, “What else could I add?”

And what I learned through years of doing design is, the (???) question I ask now is, “How little do I need to do to do what I want?” And that what I’ve kind of learned is that the art of design, I’ll say game design, but probably of design in general, is you want enough to accomplish your task and no more.

So today I’m going to talk about sort of the why. Why is restraint such an important part of game design? And one might argue, design, but we’ll talk game design. Why?

So a couple things. So number one is, Magic—I’ve talked about this plenty. Magic is a complex game. There’s a lot going on. That even the base level of Magic has a lot of moving parts. And that when you do a new set, the goal is to introduce a few things to make it interesting, but you don’t need a lot of things to make it interesting.

One of my quotes, I believe, is, “It just takes a little to change everything.” That you don’t need to add tons to a set to make your Magic set feel different from other Magic sets. That just adding one mechanic that just has the right focus can do a lot of the work.

Now, be aware, I’m not saying that you… once again, I should stress. What I’m looking for is the least amount you need to get the job done. That’s not the same as the least amount you could do. Obviously you could do nothing. That doesn’t get the job done.

So a lot of times now, when I’m looking at design, I’m figuring out, “What do I need?” And I’m trying to make sure that when I can do what I need, that what needs to get done gets done.

But one of the things that I learn—for example, I did an article called, “Design 101.” In fact, I think I did 101, 102, 103, might have been 201. [NLH—104] Where I looked at talking about beginner design mistakes.

So one of the most common beginner designer mistakes is they just put too much on a card. There’s just too much there. Like, “Here’s a great idea, and here’s a great idea, and here’s a great idea,” and they just cram it all on a single card.

And a lot of my notes is kind of like, “You have three great card ideas. But they shouldn’t all be on one card.” And that it’s—I think there’s something when you start, and like I said, I did this, it’s not like I don’t understand it, is you’re just so eager to show what you can do, and you so much want to get out what’s inside you in the design, that you just are overflowing. And that you just keep piling things in.

So one of my (???), I’ll use my little metaphor here, is—so for a long, long time, since I was a kid, since I was a teenager, I’ve had a Swiss army knife. And for a long time I had—it was called the Champion. It was like just the biggest knife you’d ever seen. It had everything but the kitchen sink in it. It had a saw and a fish scale and it had an awl and it had a magnifying glass. And a pen. And all sorts of things.

And one day—I mean, I carried that thing around for years. One day I just realized that like, I was carrying a lot. And things were heavy. And like, I’m carrying too much around. So I ended up taking my knife out.

And then I started missing my knife, because there’s things in it that I use all the time. So I had to go to the store, and what I had to do is I said, “Okay. Here’s what I’m going to do. I want to figure out what I want in my knife, because I want to carry a knife, I like having my pocketknife around. There’s things I use it for, it’s convenient to have, it’s a good tool. But I just don’t want to carry the giant thing around.”

So I’m like, “Okay. What I’m going to do is go and figure out what is the smallest knife I could get that has the key components I need.” And so what I did is I spent some time figuring out kind of what I needed. I obviously wanted a knife. I used the scissors a lot. Having a screwdriver was handy. There’s certain things that I wanted to have.

And so I went through and figured out what the things—and went, “You know what, I use this enough that I would like to have this on my knife.” And then I said, “Okay. And I don’t… I try to like only have the things I wanted.” Now, the combinations—there were some things—by getting the things I wanted, I might have picked up one or two other things. Knives come in certain configurations.

But what I did in the end was, I got a knife that I now use, and it probably does maybe 90% of the work that my old knife did. Not that it does 90% of the functions, but a lot of the functions I never used. But now, when I need a knife, 90% of the time, before, when I could have pulled out my old knife, I could pull out my new knife and I accomplish the same thing.

And it is a third the weight, a fourth the weight. It’s way, way, way smaller. And I realized that’s kind of a good metaphor for design. Which is, you want your pocketknife to be as light as it can be, but to accomplish the tasks you need.

And that when you look at your design, it’s kind of the same thing is, “What do I really need? Do I need this? Do I need this?” And that you want to question anything in your set.

Now, there’s two different things you’re questioning. One is, you’re questioning the new stuff. Because the thing that you tend to overload on usually up front is the new things. Because you’re so excited by the new things. “I want this new thing and that new thing and that new thing.”

And one of the things, for example, that New World Order has done for us is, just sort of saying, “You know what? We need to make sure that there’s space for some vanillas and some French vanillas.” And just having some simpler cards at common says, “You know what? There’s only so much space at common to do the things we need to do. Let’s prioritize.” And that, by the way, a lot of simplification… (???) simplification. A lot of getting down to the bare bone is just figuring out what is doing the work for you.

So one of the things I find very interesting, and this is part of the iterative process and why iteration I think is very good is, you make a file. You fill up your file. Now, if you make a new card, if you come up with something that’s really cool, you have to—you can’t just add a card to the file. So what you need to do is, you need to remove something.

So every time I want to add something, I have to remove something. So, “Okay, I want to add this thing.” Well, is there something that it’s fulfilling the role of or something that this being in the file is duplicating something else? Now, if that’s true, that’s the easy swap. Sometimes like, “Oh, no, it’s doing something different,” and I have to figure out like, “Okay, well what is the least important thing I have here? What’s the thing the set could easily work without?”

So another metaphor for the day is—I’ll use my Jenga metaphor. So Jenga is a game where you stack the bricks, they go three by three, and then you push bricks out. And then you have to take the brick and put it on top. And then when the thing falls over, the other person wins.

A lot of design, I think there’s a Jenga-ish quality to it in that what you’re trying to do is figure out what is supporting your tower and what is not. That if you can remove a piece—I talk about this for my writing, I’ve mentioned this before, that when you take a writing class, they say to you, “If you can take out a scene and the movie works, bye-bye scene.” If that scene is not doing something that the movie would not work without, then get rid of it.

And game design is very similar, which is will your design work without that thing? I mean, and doing what it needs to do, I’m not saying… when I say will it work, I mean is it getting across what your design is trying to do. And if it doesn’t need it, pull it.

And one of the things about the iterative process which is nice is, because we’re adding things we’re constantly having to pull things. And so there’s a little bit like a survival of the fittest going on where it’s like, you as a designer have to sort of have a sense of what’s working and what’s not. And so when I’ve got to pull something, I just have to make the tough call.

Now, early on it’s not that tough. Early on it’s like, “Ehh, I don’t like that card. It hasn’t been working. That’s fine. “ Later on it’s like, “Well, everything’s working, what’s working the best?” Like, “Well, this part, it’s working and it’s good, but not as good as the other things.”

And usually what happens near the end is, like, “No, I can’t get rid of that. No, I can’t get rid of that. Well, I guess I could get rid of it.” And a lot of design is redesign. A lot of writing they say is rewriting, most of design is not the act of designing. Most of design is the act of refining. And figuring out how you need to improve what you’re doing.

And a lot of that is cutting the fat. The stuff that isn’t accomplishing what you need. And a big part of doing design is being very honest with yourself of what is holding weight. So today’s my metaphor-filled episode… most of my podcasts are metaphor-filled. But today’s extra metaphors.

So one of the other metaphors I use in designing a set is I talk about architecture. And I think I mentioned this before, but the idea of bearing walls. So when you build a house, there’s certain walls that the structure that holds up the house goes through those walls.

So you can’t tear that wall down. Some walls are decorative. They’re there just to divide up the room. But if you wanted to knock down the wall, it’s not a bearing wall. It’s not holding anything up. It’s there just because you want a wall. And if you want to knock down a non-bearing wall and make the room bigger or change how the house looks, okay, no problem.

But if you want to knock down a bearing wall, well now you have a problem. That is holding up the house. And so my metaphor here is, when you’re doing design, you’ve got to understand what your bearing walls are.

What are the cards and mechanics that are holding up your set? What are the things that are making it work? Well, you know what? If you have to take something out, don’t take that out. Don’t take out the thing that’s making it work. And so a lot of design is understanding your design well enough that you know what your bearing walls are.

So for example, one of the things we do is the process at Wizards is, we essentially have two stewards of the project. We have Design, and then we have Development. And the reason it’s important is, the designer does things, makes choices, but there’s just emotional attachments the designer will have. Just because things that they like. And when Development comes in, they get to be a fresh set of eyes. They get to say, “Okay, is this working?” And they’re not preoccupied by other things that are going on.

Now, one of the things that’s really important is that the development lead needs to  talk with the design lead. Because sometimes, something that might seem frivolous isn’t frivolous.

So for example, Erik Lauer is the Head Developer. And he and I—most of the fall sets, I will lead the design and he will lead the development. So Erik always comes to me to figure out what’s going on, to make sure that he understands what I want, and if he needs to make changes, that he’s not undoing something that’s important.

So Erik will often come to me and say, “Okay, I have this problem, I’m thinking of doing this.” And either I say, “Oh, that sounds like a good idea,” or I go, “Oh, well, Erik, if you do that, here’s a new problem you might introduce.” And I talk about things built into the set.

And sometimes Erik goes, “Oh, I’m aware of that, I think we’ll be okay,” and sometimes he goes, “Ohh, I hadn’t thought of that. Okay.” And so the goal is, Erik runs changes by me, because I’m the other person who’s an expert on the set, and that he is trying to make sure that he sees the things that I find important. But he’s also the fresh set of eyes.

And I think, by the way, one of the reasons that Magic sets I think have the quality level they do is it is very hard to always objectively look at your baby. It’s tough. You are attached to your baby. That’s my fourth metaphor today. I need like a metaphor count. “Ding ding ding! Number four. Metaphor number four. Design as baby.” It’s your baby.

I believe you have to be emotionally invested in your design to do your best work. I don’t believe if you are detached from your design that you do as good of work. That when you care about it, when it means something, when it emotionally speaks to you, you just, you care more. I think you do better work.

But the downside of that is that you get emotionally blinded to things. That it is hard to call your baby ugly. That you see what’s beautiful about your baby. Even if the outside world doesn’t see it as beautiful as you do. You see the beauty in your baby. And which is important, you should see your baby… but one of the things that a second set of eyes does is they might come along and go, “Whoo, this baby’s ugly! We need to fix this baby!” Or “This aspect of the baby needs fixing.”

And that one of the things that’s very interesting—and one of the hard parts. So when we talk about restraint, I’m talking about like why it takes time for restraint. Is I believe that you are emotionally invested. I believe that when you start designing, you are emotionally invested. And what happens is, it’s not that you get less emotionally invested, I’m just as emotionally invested, but I learn where to get emotionally invested and I’m a little more understanding of the process needs the cutting and the refining. That is part of the process.

And so what I’ve learned over the years is, you can’t fight for everything. If you fight for everything, you’re fighting for nothing. That if every time the developer comes to you and wants to change something, if you fight them on it, eventually the developer just learns, “Whatever, ignore them.” I won’t name names, but there’s some designers in the past who like would fight over every change. Every change, they’d fight over.

And what happened was, they stopped becoming a team member. Instead of being a collaborator in design, they started becoming combative. Because the developer’s like, “Oh, I have to fight for every change I’m trying to do,” and the developer’s honestly trying to make a better set.

And what I found was, when you the designer fight over every change, you really lose the ability to have an impact. And so what I do now is, I fight over the changes that matter. If I believe that Erik or whoever, the head developer, is going to change something that’s fundamental, I fight for that.

And because I don’t fight for a lot, when I fight for something, they go, “Oh, Mark’s fighting. I’d better listen.” I don’t fight over everything. In fact, I (???) fighting over very little. Because what I’ve learned is, pick your battles, fight over things that really matter.

And that most of the time, “I want to change this.” “Okay.” And  I try to think about why they’re changing it and what they’re doing. And that like it’s very, very important to understand that the Head Development is your ally. Not your enemy, he’s your ally. They are also trying to make the set better.

Now, it is possible that they prioritize different things than you do, and part of being a designer is setting a vision. One of the reasons Erik is a very good developer is, my job as designer is I set a vision. Erik tries very hard to match the vision. Not necessarily all the execution, but the vision.

Like, if I say, “I want this group of cards to act a certain way,” he’ll come back and go, “Oh, well that’s not how they’re acting. Is that how you want them to act?” And I’ll go, “Yeah,” so he’ll go, “Okay, well here’s what we need to do to make them act that way.”

And so it’s very important, like a big part of design is the idea of the vision of your set. So one of the things I do for example is, I have a tone and a mood. I have an emotion I’m going for on my set. I want the set to evoke something. When you play, I’m trying to make something—I’m trying to make some sort of feeling and some story. I’m trying—it’s about something.

And so what I want to make sure is that my Head Developer understands what I’m going for. But they are better at execution than I am. Development is just better at execution. In that—well, for starters, I’m not pricing things. Sometimes what happens is, you’re like, “Oh, well that’s neat in concept, but it’s never going to work when you actually try to price it aggressively.”

And one of the things I’m learning is that the area that I have more to learn, I mean just because it’s 19 years doesn’t mean I don’t have a lot left to learn. Is trying to get a better understanding of how to make mechanics that Development can put.  Not in Limited, Limited is much easier, but in Constructed.

Trying to get a sense of what mechanics they can push and can’t push, and that it’s tricky because there’s things that seem like, “Oh, it should be fine,” and when you actually get into Development, like, “Well, here’s the stress it’s causing that makes problems.”

Anyway, so a lot of what the goal of design is these days is to set your vision, push your stuff in the direction you want, create the necessary tools for Development to accomplish the task, and then say, “Okay, I’ve given you the tools, I’ve given you the vision, let’s see if you can accomplish the vision—can you match my vision with my tools?”

Now, they might need to add tools. That’s very common. Sometimes mechanics have to get added in development. Like scry got added in Theros  development because they needed something, they didn’t have it, they said, “Okay, there’s a pre-existing mechanic that will solve this problem, how do you feel about it,” I’m like, “Thematically it fits the set, fine, let’s go for it.”

And that a lot of the goal—here’s a big mental difference between where I used to be and where I’m now. Early on, my attitude was, “How much can I get in the set?” Well, I just want to get a lot of cool things in. How many cool cards can I make, how much just awesomeness can I cram in the set?

And what I learned is that—metaphor number five, ding ding ding! Design as a recipe. Let’s say I want to make an awesome recipe. The best way to make a recipe is not, “I like this ingredient. Oh, and I like this ingredient. Oh, and I like this ingredient. Oh, and you know what else is really good? This ingredient.” That doesn’t necessarily lead you—having awesome ingredients.

You could go out and hand-pick the best ever ginger found in the world, and you could go find the tastiest of… pick whatever food. I’m not a chef. You could go and search the land for the mightiest, the best version of eight different ingredients. And each ingredient is from the faraway land that it is naturally from, you went to find the best creator of this in its natural home. And you travel around the world and you come back, and you have eight samples of the greatest of that ingredient.

Mixing those together does not make necessarily an awesome dish. That what makes a good recipe is all the flavors are working together to make a combined dish. You’re trying to make something. And the way to make an awesome dish is, “Here’s what I need, here’s the ingredients I need.” Now, once I know the ingredients I need to make this particular dish, let’s get the most awesome ingredients I can. But getting awesome ingredients does not lead to an awesome recipe. And design’s the same way. That if your design is, “Here’s lots of awesome cards,” they might be awesome in a vacuum, but that doesn’t make the set awesome.

And remember, one of the things about Magic is, Magic is… I don't know how many sets it is. Sixty sets in? Seventy sets? Magic makes lots and lots of sets. We make four sets a year right now, and we make lots of supplemental products and there’s plenty—Magic is a hungry monster. I talk about this all the time. There’s tons and tons and tons of needs for cards. You’re never going to go, “Ooh, we just have too many good cards and  nowhere to put them.” You’ll get there.

The key is that we need each Magic set to be its own thing. That if every Magic set was just, “Here’s some goodies,” they start to lose identity. Magic did this for a little while, which is, “Hey, here’s more good stuff.” But the problem, without a focus, without—A., your limited environment would not be much fun. And B., it’s like… you just… “It’s another set with stuff in it.”

That one of the things that really helps define our sets is like, “Okay, Theros is Greek mythology world. We’re doing Greek mythology stuff.” That’s a very—and people can get excited because that’s what we’re doing.

And that allows us to make cards that we wouldn’t make anywhere else. I mean like Rescue from the Underworld is my favorite card in Theros block. I don’t know if we’d make that card anywhere else! It makes sense in Theros block. I don't know if it makes sense anywhere else.

And that’s an awesome card. And the way you get awesome cards is by focusing and doing things. And so you do not want to cram your set full of just the best things you can come up with, because cohesively as a whole, you don’t make the best set you can make.

And a lot of refinement is learning, “What do I need? Okay, what do I want to accomplish getting that done?” And, in general, why is less good?

Okay, number one. Design is a resource. I talk about this plenty. That I and my team have to come up with new Magic designs. That is not a bottomless well. There’s a lot of designs, I’m not saying we’re out of stuff in the near future, but eventually we’ll run out of stuff if we’re not careful of what we do. That’s why we reuse mechanics, that’s why I really want to mine things that when I’m doing Greek mythology—I want to find stuff that nobody can do but Greek mythology world.

For example, whenever I’m designing a set, any time that I can find a card that fits in that set that would not fit in any other set, well I’m excited to do that card in that set. Because I’ve just added one card to Magic’s design portfolio. That if I pass, I wouldn’t have.

Another reason you want to do less is that if you want someone to notice something—like in screenwriting, ding ding ding! Metaphor number six. Or seven. I’ve used this metaphor before. When you are writing a script, you want people to focus on the things you want to focus on.

And so what they say is, like for example when you’re writing a book, this is a good example. Every time I spend a page talking about something that’s less important, I am putting it on equal footing with other things. I’m saying, like, “This flower, I’m going to spend a page talking about this flower.” Well, is that flower important? I mean, if it is, if it’s the rose in Beauty and the Beast, okay, that’s important. It’s part of the story.

But if it’s just a random rose, well wouldn’t you rather spend that page talking about something that will mean something in the book? That will matter? That your audience taking the time to read it will further what the book is trying to do?

Now maybe, maybe that flower is key. Maybe that flower thematically is important. I’m not saying you can’t write about the flower. But you shouldn’t write about the flower unless it’s worthy of writing about. Even if you could come up with wonderful things to say about a flower, if it’s not advancing the story, you are diluting what you are doing.

And that’s another important way to think about the idea of refinement is, don’t dilute your own work. That if I—for example, let’s say I make chocolate chip cookies. I could start throwing other things into the chocolate chip cookies. I could throw various nuts and… but the point is, I want people to appreciate my chocolate chip cookie. The more things I throw in there, the less it’s about the chocolate chips and the more it’s about other things.

And at some point, it kind of—you just dilute what you’re doing. Let’s say you have the most awesome chocolate chip cookies in the world because you have the best chocolate chips. Well the more other things you put in there, the less it’s about the chocolate chips. So when you’re doing your design, know what your chocolate chips are, and stop putting too many nuts in! (???) (laughs) “MaRo says, ‘less nuts in your design!”

Anyway, so the essence of today is, we need to save space. We want to not dilute our message. And the last really important thing is that you only have—when you are building something, you only have so many tools to build it. That if you overuse your tools, you start forcing the set. And that you want your set to have what’s called “room to breathe.”

And what that means is, is that the idea that—so an example, I’ll use my movie metaphor. Ding ding ding! I could—let’s say I want to make a movie with action. I could make the movie just from the beginning to the movie to the end of the movie just… it’s a chase. The whole movie long. Just one long chase. But probably—and I could like—they are running the whole time. They’re not—all they’re doing is running.

But the problem is at some point you wear out your audience. Because there’s just only so long their adrenaline can get pumped. That you need to have moments where there’s downtime. You need to have moments where—let’s say they’re running, but okay, you get them on a train or something, and then okay, the train’s moving, but now they get to talk. And they’re physically not moving. They’re just sitting there. And you get a moment to catch your breath. That it’s an important part of anything you do to make sure the audience has decompression time, that you’re not just “bum bum bum bum bum…”

One of the things about Magic is, if every card you drew was… take the complex end of Magic. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have complex cards, I think complex cards have their place and are important. But imagine if every card you drew was on the complex side of Magic. And we’ve had environments like that. I talk a lot about Lorwyn and Morningtide. Where the board was just crazy. And every time you draw a card it’s like, “Okay, what does this mean?”

And that one of the things we noticed is, in fact I don't know if I’ve ever told this story. I’m playing somebody—I went to the employee prerelease. In Lorwyn/Morningtide. And this is the employee prerelease where we talked about watching the more average—not the R&D people, but the average people at Wizards that played Magic but weren’t top tier, just average players. That they would play a round or two and then they would stop playing. And we’re like, “Oh, they’re not… why are they dropping out? Do they have to go home? Is that it? Why are they dropping out?”

And so I’m playing somebody, and it’s clear, I mean he enjoys Magic, but he is someone who plays casually, and he’s carefully reading every card. And I remember at one point he drew a card, and he let out like a sigh. A sigh, a deep breath. And I was like, “Oh,” so I kind of kept my eye on that card, just like, what is that card? I literally, there was like a moment of relief, like I just could see like this weight on his shoulders being lifted. Like, what was that card?

And he finally played it, and it was a vanilla creature. That he had just drawn a card that, “Oh, I don’t have to think about this card. I don’t have to think about it, I know what it is.” And that’s when I realized the importance of the vanillas and the French vanillas, and that you want to have a lot of moments where people get to think.

And somehow people think like I don’t want people thinking in Magic. I do. Magic is a complicated game. The idea that I want people not to have moments of thought and great—that’s going to happen. But I don’t want every moment, I don’t want every moment to be the car chase where you’re just constantly running.

I want moments where like you draw a card… in fact, lands are really nice because they do this too, but I want you to spend some time drawing and go, “Okay. I know what this is, I don’t have to wrap my head around what it means.”

And that one of the things about rarity and about New World Order in general is, we want moments where you’re like, “Okay, what…” you know, where “I have to really think about this!” We want those moments. We don’t want that moment every single time.

And that’s why a lot of New World Order is to get those cards you’re like, “What? What? Let me read this again. What’s going on? How do I use it?” Those aren’t common cards. And that a lot of restraint is boiling it down so that people get to really enjoy and focus on the things that are the best part of what you’re doing. And that your design can shine through. And that we save some goodies for a future day.

So that, my friends, I’m almost at work, I’m wrapping this up, that is my podcast on restraint. I was very tempted, by the way, to talk a little bit and like halfway through go, “Yeah, that’s all I’ve got to say on restraint.” And then just end the podcast.

But it breaks my own rules, yeah, I know, I’m a rule-breaker, but somehow I like setting parameters and following my own parameters. So my Drive to Work is in fact my drive to work. And now I’m turning into Wizards.

So I hope today was useful in—one of the things I’m trying to do from time to time is just talk about different design elements, and that each design element I talk about is important, and I’m just trying to bring up different ones to show how there’s a lot of things to think about.

But anyway, this is an important one, especially for beginning designers. So if you were listening to this and you’re a beginning designer, my homework to you is, take whatever you’re working on and say, “You know what? I’m going to chop out…” and if you’re a beginner, “25 percent. Maybe 50 percent.” Pick some amount and say, “I’m just going to chop some stuff out.” And see what happens. Just say, “Okay, the current design—what if I chopped 25 percent out? What would happen?”

Now, I’m not saying that in the end you might not put some stuff back.  But you might find if you chop 25 percent out, you might just go, “Ooh, this is just better. This is just better.” Or at least if you have to pull something out, you might then learn it’s a bearing wall and go, “Oh, that should stay in.” But either way, show some restraint, my friends. Show some restraint. It will make you a better designer.

Anyway, I’ve just parked my car, so it’s time for me to be making Magic. I’ll talk to you guys next time.