"Writing AARs - How Much Detail is Needed?" Topic

Maybe the subject line should say "How Much Detail is Desired?"

I was reading an After Action Report for a modern skirmish game recently and it got me thinking about the level of detail. The particular AAR I was reading was from a new player learning the game as they went and so went into some additional level of detail you wouldn't normally see (table results and what they might/might not mean).

This got me thinking about how much detail people like to see in an AAR. I generally read AARs to help me understand a new game or an older game I haven't played before. So I like to know the die rolls and what they mean, with some narrative. Also, maps and pictures are nice, but not to the blow-by-blow level.

What do you like to see in an AAR? Die rolls or no? Narrative or just the facts? Thanks.

<edit>
In the interest of not spamming every "Battle Report" board I just selected the ones I play most frequently.

I'm not interested in die rolls unless it explains something significant; like a critical hit that causes a boiler explosion or something similiar.

Honestly? I think it depends on the game rules and the scenarion…for example, for Cold War Commander, I like to hear move of an "objective anaylsis" with some narration tossed into it. (ie: "The Soviet MRB Commander knew that he had to push hard across the river to secure his objective, and needed a high roll on the dice to call in his artillery fire on target". Instead he rolled low which cause the fire to shift and ended up obliterating 1 Co. 1st Bn of Her Majestys Royal Messkit Repair Battalion") vs more of a "flow" from games like AK47, and Pulp Games…

But it really all boils down to how well the person can write an AAR. A great AAR idea is trashed if the person cannot simply write it up to allow the reader to follow it…

Short answer: Whatever the author wants to share with us.

Longer answer: There are a lot of gaming experiences and all of them are fun. I love pretty pictures but I also enjoy hearing what it felt like to be there. If the author wants to dedicate lots of time on a battle report for us, then I want to read it.

How he formats that battle report is up to him.

If it was a session heavy on the roleplaying, and the author wants to try out his nascent fiction skills and narrate the battle as an actual combatant, then more power to him!

If it was a fun game -- emphasis on GAME -- and there were tense moments resolved by spectacular die rolls where every player experienced an epiphany of fun -- then explaining that in the writeup is perfectly appropriate.

If it was what I think of as a typical game, with a combination of dice rolling heartbreaks, griping about game mechanics producing unrealistic outcomes, players speaking for their models in funny voices, oohing and aahing over beautiful paint jobs, and high fives when a particularly great tactical move is pulled off … I don't mind hearing about all of it, all at once, exactly like it happened.

I, too, like to hear about game mechanics only when they illustrate something meaningful in the game. For example, in my Piquet games, we'd enjoy explaining a delay in movement or an inability to respond to something in time by noting that an officer check had failed, or a movement card had failed to turn up on time.

The last – absolutely LAST – thing I like is an AAR that reads like a cheap, dime store novel written by a fourth grader. Horrible dialogue, horrible writing, and they never seem to tell me anything about the nature of the rules used. Just skip over that, please.

I want the names of each fig in every battalion.

I don't want just

"we rolled a dice and 3 figs were removed"

I want

We rolled a dice and poor ensin Wilkesn, And privates Smith and Wallace got hit, Smith got a musket ball in the jaw and it just fell of, he is still alive but he only got a few minutes left. Wallace got gut shot and his crying for his mother.

I want this kind of detail on ALL dice rolles, even if the game got 10 000 figures.

Do we need a memorial thread for the guys in the Royal Messkit Repair Battalion?

I don't think there's ever been such an example of unsung heroisim!

I like to see a map or photo of the table to see what the battlefield looks like. Then I like to have an idea of opposing forces and their game objectives. Just a few sentences with this info as a pre-amble to "set the stage".
From there, give as many or few details as needed to tell the story. I love to play Monday Morning Quarterback and see if I would have done it differently. Or, I read a write up and think, wow, that was a good move. I would not have thought to do this or that. But for me, it is that first part about the terrain (photo, sketch or map), the opposing forces and what they are supposed to do (or try to do) that sets up the whole story. From there it is easier to follow what is going on in the report. …just my two cents.

In most cases I really enjoy a turn map, or at least an initial deployment map. If I can't follow the flow of the battle my mind wanders while reading.

For understanding the rules of a game, I'd only want representative coverage of the mechanics and at some pivotal point in the action to make it interesting to read.

A quick made up example- "Because the unit defending the bridge had not moved, it received a bonus of +1 to its lackluster defense roll of 3. The attacking grenadiers roll a die per element in good order and compare this against the defender's roll. The grenadiers roll an amazing 5 successes and sweep across the bridge carrying the day!!"

I think more detail on the mechanics of a rules system can be good especially if it is a new set or some set that is making a come back or not well known.

I tend to write like a journal, afterall I am playing the commander on the field. Plus the rules I use are supposed to recreate authentic outcomes so I tend to immerse myself in the role and report the results the same way.

But I also have toyed with the idea or putting sections in amongst the report in italics or a different colour to explain what happened using the rules for those interested in the ruleset. I have often been interested in exploring other rules only to find that AARs using them rarely enable the reader to get an idea of how well the rules work. I will make every effort to now add these sections into my AARs from now on.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com
6to20painting.blogspot.com

You know I never read them. First I am amazed at the recall a player can have for doing it. Even with notes and video I couldn't recall the game like that.

Was it fun, did everyone have a good time, did the play go smooth without a bunch of rule book shuffling. Other than that I'm bored.

Write the kind of AAR you like to read. Put your own personal style, along with your unique narrative "voice" into it. Accept constructive comments that will improve your future battle reports. Enjoy "reliving" the game and don't worry, as a writer once told her class--"your fans will find you."

Depends on what you want to communicate. If it's meant for novices, more emphasis on gaming mechanics needed. When writing for veterans, forget about rule mechanics, only write up the flow of the battle and the story. In the end it should read as if you read about the battle in a history book.

In 'Little Wars' HG wells descibed the Battle of Hook's Farm, first from the point of view of the Blue General, writing in character, then from an objective viewpoint, referring to the rules. He also provided a sketch map to show the arrangement of the battlefield and several photographs to illustrate significant momemts during the game.
All it lacked was a report in the character of the defeated general – but perhaps the latter had no wish to record his blunders on paper!
IMHO, a pretty good template for an AAR, written back in 1913!

Personally I can't stand AARs with details of dice-rolling. They always remind me of the Red Dwarf episode when Rimmer regaled his crewmates with details of his greatest victory playing Risk: "Then I invaded Kamchatka with twelve units to his six. He rolled a four and I rolled a five, then he rolled a six and I rolled a three and then you'll never guess… I rolled a six!"

In any case, I can't remember who rolled what once the smoke has lifted and in any case, if it's a large game I probably wasn't there to see what was rolled anyway. So I write about what the outcomes were – the overall story of the game.

If you want a chat about game mechanics, by all means let's have one – but I'll leave it out of my AARs, thanks.

if it's 5 pages of windy blather, it is generally skipped.
Most gamer's creative writing skills are pretty wince evoking. A brief synopsis with some mechanics related details are fine by me-just leave the evocative crap on the hard drive. Details on crappy dice throws are fine though, the 'everyman touch'.