I'm trying to think of a kind of "E-harmony" for Players to find/create the character they will enjoy playing the best. It seems to me that so many new players don't know what their play style is much less what they will enjoy playing. Most start by trying to build uber characters that they can be completely safe with. The problem with completely safe is that it's not interesting, and as they mature in their characters they find that they like a different kind of character.

My first thought is to have a list of play styles something like the BIG LIST of RPG Plots http://www.io.com/~sjohn/plots.htm It's inclusive and as much as you try your idea would be somewhere in there. I've written down a few, but I have no Idea how many there would be.

Examples
Builder
Thoughtful, introspective Players who appreciate the cerebral aspects of the game; and chatty types, who like the social interaction of the game. A Player who enjoys being around lots of people and has a slight competitive edge will really enjoy this Play Type.

Not good for: Players who have a hard time focusing or are easily bored.

Team
Players that look for safety in numbers and try to build consensus among the team. Enjoys social interaction and dislikes each player going a different way.

Pirate
Player likes to dominate the opposition and is reluctant to take on anything that they cant attack safely. The player likes to hoards heavy equipment and builds up combat attributes to do this. Tends to try to be self sufficient.

Loner
The loner is attracted to the mystique of a character that is not part of the group and can stand on their own. The loner may "bail out" the group at times by suddenly showing up when their abilities are most needed.

Specialist
The specialist Player will accept weakness in most areas of the character as long as they have at least one strength they can contribute to the group. These work well with Team Players because they are ready to work in a group to compensate for any inabilities.

Leader
The Leader Player takes the front seat when deciding what the group will do. This Player has a natural charisma that other players look to and is ususally motivated by goals either given by the GM or their own. They usually are progressive in the game and push the story along. The leader uses the strengths of the other Players and their Characters.

But then I don't even know if those are good descriptions, or if that is the best way of handling this.

Any thoughts? Any player types that you play with that could be included? Even if it's completely different mechanic I don't care.

The second problem is how to match an inexperience player with the types. The worst but only obvious idea I have on that is to have them read the list and choose one. If there were a questionare that the player could fill out then they could be assigned a type (or types it's good to switch things up). So what questions would you ask for a type.

Interesting. I believe this will be a good tool if you relate it to people in a way that let them reckognise the types on a human level, and then relate it to the game, telling the players how to build a character to match their choice.

I've done some more thinking on the types. Still: I'm sure you can dig up some phsychology-types somewhere that may apply, and then focus your work on how to match the different types to specific player characters.

Constructor - a ressource-gatherer, technological and crafty
Negotiator - an alliance builder, opinionated and intelligent
Teamworker - the consesus builder, social and trustworthy

Pirate - the risktaker, adventurous and pragmatic
Soldier - the conflict veteran, sturdy and loyal
Commander - a dominating leader, strongwilled and though

Loner - an independent contractor, selfsufficient and reserved
Specialist - a carrier of expertise, focused and confident
Inventor - a creative genie, inventive and enthusiastic

Schemer - a player of intrigues, smart and charming
Climber - a hierarcical animal, cynical and patient
Inspirator - a riser of emotions, enthusiastic and targetminded

Hope that give some more stuff for thought.

Hi Emmet,

My game Nine has some similarities to what it sounds like you are doing, although I didn't really envision it as a way to match player to type, and that isn't my goal. I'm trying to make a game that has some inspiration from TV shows like Firefly where characters fit a specific role or niche in the story.

Enough whoring, let me get to what's relevant. I think one of the best ways you can pull Players by type to a certain character "class" is by being clear about the reward. For example in Nine, the Heart gains XP when other characters confide in the Heart, protect the Heart, or when the Heart helps and protects the weak. The Heart can give XP to other players when they confide in the Heart. To give contrast The Rebel class gains XP when they don't follow the leaders directions, when they challenge other characters and NPC's positions, and when they convince someone to change their actions from right to wrong, or from wrong to right. The Rebel can give XP when characters let the Rebel do things in the Rebels way. I expect those two classes to draw players who are looking for different things.

I believe that by setting the reward to the actions you want to reinforce and having that in the class will be the greatest "pull" you can get to have players correctly align themselves by type. They will be able to see what they are rewarded for doing, and go towards the thing that lets them go towards what they want to do.

Here's some stuff I'd like to suggest you should check out: The Game Design Seminar at Gen Con in California with John Wick, Jared Sorenson, and Luke Crane. It's at the Sons of Kyros Podcast. It's between Episode 8 and Episode9.  I wish I could be more specific, but somewhere in that talk I remember there was something useful that spurred some thoughts on what I'm trying to do and hopefully it would be helpful for you also. I've heard that Iron Kingdoms has some similar idea in that it has classes intended for player types.

I hope my whoring had purpose and you found something useful in my blathering.

I'm not sure if it applies, but in Crystalicum there is something called Narrative Role. It roughly corresponds to alignment or Nature in many systems, but it simply states what function does the character play in a series. In standard version of the game, it is used only in simplified method of character creation, where it acts as a template shaping about 1/3 of the character (another 1/3 is his professional template and the rest a number of freebie points that can be distributed by the player). It doesn't influence game after character generation. In Crystalicum d20 and Crystalicum Lite, though, I based mechanical rewards on putting yourself in situations that are key for your chosen role.

Now, the types you mention remind me of the Narrative Roles:

Daredevil, someone who is there in order to takes risks. Perfect for a player who wants a feeling of gamble and a surge of adrenalin from the game.

Romantic, who is there to act with passion and woo ladies or seduce. Perfect for a player who wants to involve himself in much interaction and acting, or find himself engaged in personal choices.

Muscle, who is there simply to use his might. Perfect for any player who strives for a direct physical conflict.

Brains, who is there simply to think. Perfect for any player who is interested with mental challenges.

Rogue, who is there to do wrong things in order to make things better. Perfect for a player, who wants to involve himself in making moral and ethical choices.

Leader, who is there to lead others. Perfect for any control freak.

Pushy, who is there to strive for domination. Perfect for a player who wants to involve himself in intra-party conflicts, intrigues and backstabbing, or simply likes things to go his way.

Loner, who is there to be mysterious and create questions. Perfect for a player who doesn't like to cooperate or likes to have his own little secrets.

Friend, who is there to be likeable. Perfect for a player who is there for mainly for social reasons, to interact for the sake of interaction, or to act as a mediator.

Jinx, who is there to complicate his own and others lives. Perfect for a player who likes to be involved in constant dramatic twists.

Thanks everybody! Your suggestions are really fleshing out and adding to the player descriptions. I think that the narrative crowd is a bit more used to thinking about this kind of question than I am (I'm mostly a gamist) so thanks for the expertise.

Clyde, I'll have to check out that podcast. The reward system would work good within a game, and anybody who wants to can try using this to generate a character in their games, but what I'm more or less trying to do here is step out of system (not all even have XP) and make something universal. Now it might be possible to suggest what types of behavior the player will feel gratified by, and I think that was the point of your post, so yeah, something like "Player likes material rewards" or "Player likes to advance their character" etc. would be extremely useful to making this a useful tool.

Keep em' coming!

If you want a LONG read by someone who's done quite a bit of thought on the matter (vis a vis MUDs):
Players Who Suit MUDs
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

That model lead to tests like these:
The Bartle Test (for Puzzle Pirates)
http://www.black-knight.org/pp/bartle/genq.cgi

So maybe it's already been done? And all new designers need to do is align their games' "roles" (classes, powers combinations, professions, etc) to those four styles of player?

HTH;
David

David, I'm just starting to read your first link and already this is hitting gold! Thanks, I'll see if I can summarize what I glean here.

This would be most interesting applied not to players but to characters.  That is, it seems to me that at one level the characters are themselves ingredients that combine in the "story".  While generally wary of classification systems I like Tomas list quite a bit, and I thought: han = pirate, luke = inspirator, leia = negotiator, obi wan = commander.

So can you then exploit a character type specification to implement player flags and to obtain some kind of agreement for the form play is going to take?  This is quite distinct from the construction or relationships based on funcitonal role (skillset) but rather from dramatic role.

Its also not an attempted analysis of player personality as per the the MUDS document, which I think is largely a red herring.  It is an interesting read, if only to see the different kinds of problems MUDS are having to solve (some of which IMO tabeltop has a head start on addressing).

contracycle wrote:
This would be most interesting applied not to players but to characters.

contracycle wrote:
So can you then exploit a character type specification to implement player flags and to obtain some kind of agreement for the form play is going to take?

contracycle wrote:
Its also not an attempted analysis of player personality as per the the MUDS document, which I think is largely a red herring.  It is an interesting read, if only to see the different kinds of problems MUDS are having to solve (some of which IMO tabletop has a head start on addressing).

contracycle wrote: This would be most interesting applied not to players but to characters.

cont wrote: That is, it seems to me that at one level the characters are themselves ingredients that combine in the "story".

cont wrote: So can you then exploit a character type specification to implement player flags and to obtain some kind of agreement for the form play is going to take?  This is quite distinct from the construction or relationships based on functional role (skillset) but rather from dramatic role.

cont wrote: Its also not an attempted analysis of player personality as per the the MUDs document, which I think is largely a red herring.

cont wrote: It is an interesting read, if only to see the different kinds of problems MUDs are having to solve (some of which IMO tabletop has a head start on addressing).

David wrote:
Well, in fact, this whole classification discussion is quite useless unless it is applied BOTH to players and to character archetypes. What use is it to discover that one is "SEAK" if one can not map each of the S, E, A, or K to the modes of play of particular character archetypes?

David wrote:
Emmett did not start out (as far as I can tell) looking to create character archetypes that "efficiently interface" or "serve discrete goals." He wanted a way "for Players to find/create the character they will enjoy playing the best." So the roles ARE relevant vis a vis the ways they will stimulate the player's goal/moods/interests. But NOT in the (merely mechanical?) way that they work together to provide efficacy: be it efficient application of ability, or be it service to some notion of the "components" of a "complete" cast for a story.

Ooops! That should be Myers Briggs Type Indicator

I'm thinking that the best way of going about this is to re-create what Ol' Richard did for MUDs he asked what players liked best about playing and then collected the responses. This would most likely be best done free form since we don't want to railroad the responses. I'm trying to figure out if that would be something to just continue here or if a different thread somewhere else would be required.

So here goes. . .

What Do You Like About Playing RPGs?

Post it here, there is no right or wrong answer. Please do not reply to the previous posts if they are stating why they like playing RPGs. Only if it is about how to go about collecting and correlating this information. If you can, please ask your players if you are a game creator and then post for them. This will only work if there are a significant number of responses. That's pretty much the only way to figure this out without just guessing.

Emmett wrote:
Maybe go back to the source of this? The Myers Briggs Type Indicator? While less relevant for gaming, It would help to relate to a novice gamer who doesn't normally think about if they would rather get points for killing a player or a mobile.

Emmett wrote:
Well yes, I agree but most games already have some kind of built in character classification system, while setting up a "universal" system for others to use might be handy, it does tend to be rather intuitive. The trust of the Idea here is to ask "Who are you?" and be able to take the answer and use it, one, to keep the player happy playing their character and as a bonus perhaps learn how to balance the game so that those players are most gratified.

talysman wrote:
There was a big 20'x20' Room discussion on Myers-Briggs and roleplaying, sparked by this discussion on Brand Robins's blog. They actually are discussing typing not only yourself, but the characters you play to determine the kind of play you are looking for. I'm a little skeptical of it all, myself; knowing I'm an INTP has helped me to understand my life better, but I'm not all gung-ho about typing everyone and everything.

David wrote:
I'd say that's more of a red herring for this thread than the Bartle Quotient. Emmett did not start out (as far as I can tell) looking to create character archetypes that "efficiently interface" or "serve discrete goals." He wanted a way "for Players to find/create the character they will enjoy playing the best." So the roles ARE relevant vis a vis the ways they will stimulate the player's goal/moods/interests. But NOT in the (merely mechanical?) way that they work together to provide efficacy: be it efficient application of ability, or be it service to some notion of the "components" of a "complete" cast for a story.

Not so distinct as all that. Your "agreement for the form [of] play" is really just Agenda... and thus, the intermeshing or categorization of these character roles is just elements in service to that Agenda.[/quotes]

Its not an agenda, not as I'm addressing it, more like a schtick or a mannerism.  Definitely a techni\que, not at the agenda level.

It might be the delineation of the "needed" roles, no matter what the need is: gamist efficacy, narrativist "dramatic role", or even simulationist tropes of the genre.

No, the narratavists probably would not need it all I would think.  Maybe.  Anyway certainly dramatic role has no relationship at all to narratavism, which is the actual address of premise, not obedience to dramatic conceit or convention.

So you think that, in some way, gamer-on-a-MUD is working with totally different RP goals, rules, issues, techniques, etc than a gamer-in-a-tabletop-RPG? (And why only tabletop? I don't think The Forge is so restricted, nor is GNS.)

I think they are different as chalk and cheese myself, but I'm not aware of any kind of forge position, except inasmuch as you have obviously not been prevented from writing about it by those who run it.  Nor do I mind at all, there was no need to assume or imply such criticism, myself I think its interesting to look at both.

At the risk of seeming a pedant, I have to comment that this "interesting read" has shaped the development of "grouping roles" in most MMORPGs, has fueled game designs at least as much (by weight of publication) as any theories on The Forge, and it is (furthermore) based on a slightly broader general personality profile test (Jung-Myers-Briggs) which has shaped team management practices in most major corporations (or did at one time).

The last is like saying that priests believe dogma, what else is new.  All this typology stuff reminds me more of astrology than anything else, I'm afraid.  Would these be corporations like Enron, run by thieves, or corporations like Halliburton, run by war profiteers?  Please excuse my unfashionable lack of awe for the captains of industry.

contracycle wrote:
I have difficulty seeing this as a good idea.  If we are trying to find What Players Want, then that is precisely the question answered by the GNS model.  If we are trying to find out What Players Are, in some broader sense, then I have difficulty seeing how it helps, because there is nothing we can do it about but give them what they want.  See question 1.

contracycle wrote:
So I'm dubious about the validity of a typing strategy as applied to the players at all.  But a number of the things you mentioned did strike a chord, in their descriptions of forms of play that players actually adopt.  But therein lies the rub; it is a form of play that is adopted, and may vary from case to case, which is why a single relationship between a person and a form may not be visible.

contracycle wrote:
Now as you say, games already have some sort of character classification system, but these are almost universally framed in terms of a classification within the game setting.  But, you started out looking at a document discussing plots, and what I am suggesting is that there is a functional role at another level, that of the dramatic function of the character vis a vis the other characters.  Thats what jumped out at me from your list, that there might be identifiable functional and non-functional relationships.  We say, characters should be designed on conjunction with other characters, with an eye to how they will be used in play, but we have very little language with which to have this discussion. 

contracycle wrote:
Sure, I said it was interesting, but the differences are really profound. . .Its not only that they are premised on a totally different social contract, but they are also operationally dissimilar at many levels.

Would these be corporations like Enron, run by thieves, or corporations like Halliburton, run by war profiteers?  Please excuse my unfashionable lack of awe for the captains of industry.

David wrote:
As for how many axes will serve, I would bet three. Not sure what they'd be--hopefully, your list of "why play" will bubble them out--but I am sure it's three.

Oh. By the way if anyone wants to PM or email me why they like to Role Play, please feel free.

Okay these are some of the distilled elements that I am getting. Some of them are the same as what you see in the MUDs article but some of them are decidedly different.

Exploration - of story and/or world.
Novelty - Doing what would be impossible in life.
Social Interaction - Role Play is inherently social.
Social Freedom - A release from the normal social constraints.
Intellectual - Mental activity.
Acquisition - Getting stuff.
Freedom from risk - Decisions do not usually affect player.
Ownership - Even though other people may play the same game, Players "own" their story.
Random Events - Unpredictability both due to other Players and game Mechanics.
Status - Either through game mechanics or Players ability.
Aggression - satisfying aggressive feelings.
Cost - An inexpensive way to have fun.

There may be a way to distill this into a more cogent list but to do so requires an understanding of the reasons themselves which is doable. Still I think that this list is what you would want to formulate a questionnaire off of. The axis, whatever they end up as would then have to be how the Player would end up satisfying those reasons.

You put much stress on exploration and social issues, but there is only one category for "mental activity". I think there is a number of possible motives here that don't always fit under the same umbrella, e.g.:

-creating/expanding the game (making up new rules, detailing new areas of the setting and stuff).
-playing with the system (e.g. powergaming, breaking the system, maybe also rules-lawyering).
-strategizing (achieving maximum efficiency in play, by using the rules well or simply by making optimal decisions).

And that's certainly not all.

Also, "Exploration" seems to general to me. Exploration of what exactly? In what way?

Anyway, the problem I see here is that broad grouping of players motivations actually doesn't tell anything about the specific player preferences, and enumerating every possible motivation is in turn impractical because of the sheer number of possibilities.

Filip wrote: You put much stress on exploration and social issues, but there is only one category for "mental activity".

I think there is a number of possible motives here that don't always fit under the same umbrella, e.g.:
-creating/expanding the game (making up new rules, detailing new areas of the setting and stuff).
-playing with the system (e.g. powergaming, breaking the system, maybe also rules-lawyering).
-strategizing (achieving maximum efficiency in play, by using the rules well or simply by making optimal decisions).
And that's certainly not all.

Also, "Exploration" seems to general to me. Exploration of what exactly? In what way?

Anyway, the problem I see here is that broad grouping of players motivations actually doesn't tell anything about the specific player preferences...

...and enumerating every possible motivation is in turn impractical because of the sheer number of possibilities.

First off I greatly apologize for not posting sooner, I've been working on this idea, a sourcebook and personal stuff so I've been really busy.

So I missed two very good comments on this and I'm sorry for that too.

The "elements" (its a horrible name I know i had a better one and forgot it) i posted earlier are vague and intentionally so. There's no way to take all the answers I got (I fished around outside The Forge also) and make them specific.In truth they're little more than labels that only begin to describe what they mean. I'm trying to think of a good way to fully describe these. I have changed them a little bit also. When working on a definition, I would find that it merged with another and became redundant so I would meld them. Again, I'm a bit pressed for time, but here's a real rough description of what I have.

[hr]

Your Intellectual score is your interest in logic and process. A role player with a high Intellectual score may enjoy working with the rules to better play the game.

Your Exploration score is your interest in new information. This is usually satisfied by new elements of the game that follow what could be expected in real life or what fits into the logic of the story. This is the Player's interest in the story itself and how it is unfolding according to a pattern. It is also an interest in finding new ways of applying any rules in the game.

Your Social Interaction score is your interest in other people and friendships. A strong social score is likely to indicate a Player will interact heavily with the other players.

Your Random Interaction score is your interest in the uncertainty of dealing with other people. You may find that the ideas and conversation that come out of a large group is satisfying while a low score would indicate that you desire more direction in a game or conversation.

Your Ownership score is your interest in having a stake or part in an experience that is unique to your social group. A high score would suggest a desire to have a shared experience that you can call your own.

Your Acquisition score is your interest in getting things. This gives you the ability to do things that others may not be able to. In game, it usually is a symbol of power.

Your Status score is your interest in having approval from others. This denotes an interest in a high social standing that gives you the ability to do what others cannot.

Your Novelty score is your interest in having unexpected things happen. More precisely an interest in events that do not fit into the normal logic of the world or story. This is part of the Abilities Group because it means that the player character will have opportunities that most people cannot.

Your Risk Freedom score is your interest in being released from the normal social constraints and not having decisions affect they player.

Your Aggression score is your interest in aggressive action. A high score suggests that you may enjoy conflict.

[hr]

There are three "groups" that I coalesced these into, Intellectual, Social, and Abilities. These are used to compare a players major interests and the overall tone of what they are interested in doing in a game.

Filip wrote:
-creating/expanding the game (making up new rules, detailing new areas of the setting and stuff).
-playing with the system (e.g. powergaming, breaking the system, maybe also rules-lawyering).
-strategizing (achieving maximum efficiency in play, by using the rules well or simply by making optimal decisions).

David wrote:
As for the state of the thread, I think I can start to see something of the axes we can use:

1) Internal v. External - The player is motivated by a desire to serve personal satisfaction v. the player is engaged in gaming to interface with other players.
2) Inclusion v. Dominance - The player is motivated by a need to be a part of some system (social, mechanical) v. the player seeks to control some system.
3) Challenge v. Credability - The player is in the game to be tested v. the player is in the game to be free of limitations.
4) Entertainment v. Obligation - The player is there to have fun v. the player is there to be needed (i.e. to enable fun, to be an authority on simulation accuracy, etc).

But maybe there are elements of those axes that overlap or can be further synthesized? The more axes, the more combinations of them are possible, which makes it all the harder to truly couple a player to a play style (i.e. a character or role). It is as if granularity of categorization works AGAINST the higher thread goal of quick qualification and association. Put another way, in that "axes space" of possible motives/styles (two sides of same coin), there is probably a smaller space of what is "really important." Thus, the other, nuanced spaces (perhaps) just define variations in techniques or ephemera, which should take a back seat to higher motives/styles that relate to Agenda and situation.

Hmmm... we have three Agendas... many games have something around nine archetypes/classes... three squared is nine. Maybe GNS is the hook onto which we can hang motive/style; sort of turn the Agendas on their ears and treat them as origin points of our axes? Then look at how system and situation/setting map into different agendas, to find the "weight" of the types. (?) If nothing else, GNS could go into the melting pot along with Jung, Briggs-Myers, Bartle, and my nascent categories above?

Emmett wrote: I agree with 80% of what you wrote, but I also ran into two things that made me abandon the idea of axis (sorry).

wrote: One the drives that people expressed to me were not mutually exclusive for the most part. Which leads me to two, many of the Elements I had a hard time actually keeping them separated from each other. This meant to me (going back to 1) that as a players interest in one goes up, it does not reduce the interest in another. One simply overcomes the other.

wrote: Soooo . . . are Internal and Dominance the same? Not exactly.

wrote: I came to describe what you term Dominance as an interest in greater Ability.

wrote: Is Obligation the desire to be needed? No one expressed the thought to me that way, but they did frequently mention the desire for teamwork which is close, but does that naturally oppose being entertained? Basically what I mean is if you're asking a Player if he wants to be entertained or obligated, he's almost always going to say entertained.

wrote: Challenge v. Credability is summarized in Risk Freedom in that players are naturally expecting challenging and difficult things to happen to them as a function of any game, but they don't want that to hurt them if they fail. That is a Player desire for ability that people don't normally have.

In Version 2 of your test, I am:
Intelect Group 33 percent
Social Group 40 percent
Abilities Group 33 percent

(BTW, you have a misspelling of Intellect.)

And I'd say that's spot-on (though it adds up to 106%. Is that OK?)

I did find some issues with questions, but that might be normal. For instance, I could not choose a "best" answer for some, for me. I had to go with "well, OK" answers. Also, I found some questions in which I could fairly equally choose more than one answer. In a few of such cases, I had the impression that the answers weren't even of the same scope; i.e. a few seemed to speak to one sort of reply and the others seemed to speak to another, equally valid type of reply.

So far, it looks good. Get her tuned up tightly (do you have connections with testing theory?) and then start going for game designer adoption. After all, the typing means nothing if associated games and roles are not also typed.

David

David,

Yeah I'm a lousy speller, I noticed that earlier and didn't fix it yet, but thanks for reminding me. Theres more than that misspelled.

The percentages round and I expected them to sometimes yield 101% or 99% but 106% is a bit out of whack. I'll have to look at that.

The answers are mechanical to the system and I also wound up having to make those kinds of choices (that was strange to me because I wrote the questions and ended up not knowing how "best" to answer them). I'm working on more questions and hopefully I can tune some of them better. I know in beta version 1 some of the people taking the test didn't understand what was being asked, what they thought they would do or what they would like to do. That is a big distinction that I've been trying to get right. I think the proper answer is what you would like to do.

Can you give me some examples of questions that you didn't like/understand/were confusing? I can try to tune them.

The Elements that overlapped the most were the ones that I put into groups but the only ones I thought might in some way contradict each other were Aggression and Social, but since aggression can often be turned toward NPCs then they don't have to contradict each other. Now on the other hand, It could be possible that there is a counterpoint to these Elements and that counterpoint may indicate if a person has desires that would make them suited for playing RPGs or maybe it would be a way for RPGs to reach out to people that don't like intellectual challenge, or talking to people. That's a weird thought but somebody might have use for it.

So that brings up the question, should this also be a RPG fitness test? By allowing the person taking the test to say "No I don't like the things that most RPG players like". That idea is a bit irksome to me, but I could see it's functional value. It would also be an effective litmus test to see if the test is doing it's job. If that person that in effect had a negative score (bad way of saying it) still liked playing RPGs, that would tell you that the test is missing something. I'm still not so hot on it though.

David wrote:
Also, I found some questions in which I could fairly equally choose more than one answer.

Emmett wrote: Can you give me some examples of questions that you didn't like/understand/were confusing?

Thanks for the input David, I'll work on that ASAP!