What Makes A Good AAR?

[Pip Smith]

What do you guys reckon makes a good AAR?
Long, short, detailed, technical, narrative?
And why do you read or watch them?

Curious because I have never been big on looking at them and considering if to write or record one.

 

[Sparafucil3]

IMO, the best AAR's tell you what the player understood about the VC, take apart his opponents setup, highlights the plan, comments on his progress towards the plan, highlights decision points where deviating from the plan might be an option, conveys the reasons for making or not making that decision. I can look at a card. I can watch a players log file. None of those will tell me what the player was thinking and how that thinking might help to shape my learning. This link is long and more of a series replay, but it may help you get the gist of what I am saying. -- jim

 

[gorkowskij]

Good After-Action Reports (AAR) offer useful game-related information in a “digestible” format for those who will play the subject scenario. AARs should note significant details and pivotal factors to forewarn would-be players of pitfalls and opportunities, but need not recount every zig and zag; in fact, too much detail is a drag. They can leverage humor, metaphor, pictures, etc., to express their points as suits the author; but nothing more than plain text is required. The bottom line is to offer useful information in an accessible format about how to play that scenario which will result in better play across many scenarios.

This is one of my favorite topics since reading about the reflections and experience of others is a great way to learn. We do this in every field of human endeavor, just under different titles: hot wash, lessons learned, touch base, whatever. We should do more of it in ASL. We already have too many scenarios to actually play. So rather than focus so heavily on making more, we might as well divert some effort into reflecting on the body of work that already exists, with pictures if you like.

My one request (pet peeve) is that we please try to avoid useless AARs, those that provide no useful information, but rather just share some very general memories. The surest sign of a useless AAR is very brief text that could apply to any scenario. For example, the classic dud AAR goes something like this: “My dice failed early on. Couldn’t make a morale check. Threw in the towel after turn X.” Which scenario was that? What did I learn from those reflections? Another “dud” hallmark is way too much preamble about how long it’s been since you and Buddy sat down to play; a sentence or two is fine, but not half a page. Think about your audience. Consider what useful information you are conveying.

 

[lightspeed]

I'm with Jim...too much detail is really unnecessary. The general plan and how it went (with a few key highlights) is sufficient for me.

Also, please hit return a few times. When I see an AAR that is a massive block of text, I don't bother trying to read it.

Good luck!

indy

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Pictures.

It may seem to go without saying, but there are many text-only AARs out there which are not just dull, but useless to anyone who can't immediately picture the board configuration.

Lots of military history books out there without maps, which to me is a cardinal sin of military writing. At the very least, have an image of the map to refer to, preferably marked with VC locations, set up areas etc., and even better have images showing all the major turning points of the game being discussed.

 

[The Purist]

A good AAR can capture the attention of other players and increase interest in a playing the scenario. In the past few months SP 204 (Yankee Pride), BoF 16 (Saluting a General) and FT271 (The Lock of Colmar) have all made it on to my playlist because of the 'advertising' in an AAR. As noted above, I like to see what the player(s) were thinking and how they modified their plan as the scenario progressed. The AAR can also be good advertising for the designer peaking interest in further offering by the producer and spreading the word.

 

[Tuomo]

If you've never been big on looking at them, why do you want to write one?

Different people like different kinds of AARs. Some appreciate lots of detail in the setup and pregame analysis, because that'll help them when THEY play the scenario. Some like to see that level of detail in the turn-by-turn account. Some want to read about Things I Learned While Playing, that one wouldn't normally anticipate from just looking at the scenario card. Some like the general walkthrough of how the game progressed. Some like the humor and pathos involved with all the stories, little and big, that came out during play.

But if you don't like any of those, it seems hard to see how you're gonna write any of them well. Or enjoy the process?

 

[boylermaker]

The best AAR is one that exists. Write the one that you are most likely to write. If others don't want to read it, they can skip it or skim it with nothing lost. But some people will want to read it, and if you just write what you want to write, it's the most likely to be there for them. If you say, "oh, I gotta do XYZ in this AAR", and then you never get around to doing Y so you don't every submit it, that does nobody any good.

 

[Mister T]

What do you guys reckon makes a good AAR?
Long, short, detailed, technical, narrative?

I like them concise and insightful.

 

[Actionjick]

IMO, the best AAR's tell you what the player understood about the VC, take apart his opponents setup, highlights the plan, comments on his progress towards the plan, highlights decision points where deviating from the plan might be an option, conveys the reasons for making or not making that decision. I can look at a card. I can watch a players log file. None of those will tell me what the player was thinking and how that thinking might help to shape my learning. This link is long and more of a series replay, but it may help you get the gist of what I am saying. -- jim

What do you feel are the differences between an AAR and a series replay? I never really considered that they were not the same thing, in a general way, until you mentioned it.

 

[bendizoid]

It’s a nice way to practice ones writting skills. Sometimes AAR humor can be quite good, I thank you all for every chuckle.

 

[Tuomo]

AARs are not just to entertain the audience, but to provide cathartic release for the author. "See this terrible thing that happened to me? See what great plans I had that were unfairly ruined by the Dice Gods? See how lucky my opponent was? I don't suck, right? RIGHT????"

 

[Michael Dorosh]

AARs are not just to entertain the audience, but to provide cathartic release for the author. "See this terrible thing that happened to me? See what great plans I had that were unfairly ruined by the Dice Gods? See how lucky my opponent was? I don't suck, right? RIGHT????"

The better AARs are written by good players, not the bad, whiny ones.

 

[sdennis]

So I guess by how most responses have gone here, the Dennis' "AAR"s are not really AARs... which matters little to me I find what I write about ours more of describing what you might see if you walked by our table at a tournament. It's intended to show highlights, progress, and perhaps give someone a flavor of a CG they haven't played or to compare to their playings.

To each his own.

 

[Sparafucil3]

What do you feel are the differences between an AAR and a series replay? I never really considered that they were not the same thing, in a general way, until you mentioned it.

I think AAR's should be a little more pithy. I think they are going to be slightly more general by design. I think AAR's are more turn-by-turn where as a replay is more move-by-move. I think a replay will be more in the weeks, providing a macro and a micro over view. I think an AAR will tend more towards the macro and gloss over most of the micro. That's my opinion though.

I wish replays had more traction. I would love to do more of them but they are labor intensive and writing them for the 3 people who are going to read them is hardly worth it. I think there needs to be a "grognard's" voice out there someplace. There are a few beginner and intermediate voices already in the space so there is remaining--but diminishing--room for a couple of more voices. -- jim

 

[Neal]

Written words are fine, but I'm a visual person when it comes to AARs. If it doesn't have good pictures/visuals (or any at all) I won't bother with it.

Set the historical narrative. Where/when does it take place? Show me an annotated map, plan, setup. Show me how you reacted or adjusted your plan. Etc. I don't really need 3000 words, or every move to be detailed. Show me the broad, important tactical strokes. Tell me what you learned. Tell me what you would have done different. These are the reasons I take a peak at AARs...mostly for research.

My pet peeve with most written AARs? Too many words and/or poor visuals. Bad pictures, blurry pictures, pictures of weirdly angled/upside-down boards/counters, pictures seemingly taken on flip phones, bad lighting, and lastly...blurry photographs of monitors showing a VASL setup (when you can just export a crisp screenshot). Why? Anyway, AARs should be fast, tasty snacks.

Lastly, do it because you enjoy it. It's the only reason we do our video AARs, because we find enjoyment in it and it's sort of a historical record of our hobby for us. If other people find use in them, great. If not, we still get our enjoyment.

 

[Actionjick]

I think AAR's should be a little more pithy. I think they are going to be slightly more general by design. I think AAR's are more turn-by-turn where as a replay is more move-by-move. I think a replay will be more in the weeks, providing a macro and a micro over view. I think an AAR will tend more towards the macro and gloss over most of the micro. That's my opinion though.

I wish replays had more traction. I would love to do more of them but they are labor intensive and writing them for the 3 people who are going to read them is hardly worth it. I think there needs to be a "grognard's" voice out there someplace. There are a few beginner and intermediate voices already in the space so there is remaining--but diminishing--room for a couple of more voices. -- jim

Thanks for the clarification Jim. Just giving it some quick thought I can see what you mean.

Oddly enough I was thinking recently about the Guryev's Headquarters replay. I was wondering if we should have done more to accentuate the differences between DASL and regular ASL. As it is I feel we just played a scenario with little regard to trying to teach people about DASL. Then again I'm not sure if that's the primary purpose of a replay.

Have think this over some.

 

[Gordon]

AARs are not just to entertain the audience, but to provide cathartic release for the author. "See this terrible thing that happened to me? See what great plans I had that were unfairly ruined by the Dice Gods? See how lucky my opponent was? I don't suck, right? RIGHT????"

You're a wonderful person, and a great ASL player, and we love you JUST as you are, Tom.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Thanks for the clarification Jim. Just giving it some quick thought I can see what you mean.

Oddly enough I was thinking recently about the Guryev's Headquarters replay. I was wondering if we should have done more to accentuate the differences between DASL and regular ASL. As it is I feel we just played a scenario with little regard to trying to teach people about DASL. Then again I'm not sure if that's the primary purpose of a replay.

Have think this over some.

Possibly, but the appeal of it was in the writing, through which the fun of the game shone through. Inspired me to play through it myself with an opponent just a few years ago. My commentary on the Scenario Archive might interest you:

 

[Actionjick]

The better AARs are written by good players, not the bad, whiny ones.

True but which ones are more instructional? Entertaining? Well written?

A great player might write an AAR for a brilliantly played scenario but the writing is so poor it loses all it's worth. Conversely an average player writing about an average game may be the literary reincarnation of Shakespeare but the AAR has little of value as far as ASL is concerned.

Either way they and others should keep writing AARs for their own benefit if nothing else.

I've found most of the AARs I've read on the forum to be well done. Some have really interested me to the point of looking at the scenario in depth.

I would like to see the scenario card as part of the AAR, just a personal preference.