Re: Good AAR Techniques

On Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:21:50 -0500, "Bell, Brian K (Contractor)"
<Brian.Bell@dscc.dla.mil> wrote:

>What things do you record/not record?

You can record actual movement of each individual squad, but I find a
general
idea of where each squad went is sufficient. If you have maps of the
battlefield (and I try to make one up before a game), it's good to have
one
per expected turn. You can plot movement on it and have a good idea of
where
each squad moved. However, an easier method is just to write down a
commentary
for the turn.

If you have a digital camera, taking pictures each turn is good. I have
taken
pictures with my SLR during games. It works well, but tends to be more
expensive. Digital cameras are great for this sort of thing.

I try to get the players to tell me (if I'm referee) or write down (if
I'm
playing) what they intended to do. Having an idea of their strategy
helps
explain a lot. I jot down combat in broad terms, though I make note of
particularly good or bad rolls (usually in a narrative fashion, showing
amazingly accurate or amazingly inaccurate fire). 

>How much detail/abstraction?

It depends on the AAR. A paragraph per turn might be sufficient for most
cases, but if it's for a playtest then you should make note of dice
rolls.
This helps when analyzing the playtest. You can figure out if success
was due
to luck or not. 

It also depends if the AAR is for overall strategy purposes or "how do
you
play the game" purposes. If it's to play the game, you need more detail.
Things like, "The squad split its fire in order to increase the chance
of
suppression," as opposed to, "The squad's fire completely pinned the
target."

I try to pattern my AARs after those from the old General magazine. They
were
excellent. Usually the referee (or someone reading the AAR afterwards)
ran a
commentary on the strategies used. 

One thing I don't like in AARs is when the write up gets confusing. It's
hard
to write a battle commentary so that it makes a lot of sense, and some
people
are better at it than others. Numbering one side's squads and lettering
the
other helps. It may also be best NOT to explain things in chronological
order.
If a battle is in essentially two independent parts of the battlefield,
it may
be better to explain what happens in one section, then hop back in time
and
describe the other section. A good example of this is on my web site. I
describe the Battle of Fredericksburg in my battlefield picture section.
I
first describe the battle in the southern part of the battle, and then
describe the rest of the battle. It would be a jumble if I tried to
describe
the whole battle simultaneously.

Allan Goodall		       awg@sympatico.ca
Goodall's Grotto:  http://www.vex.net/~agoodall

"Now, see, if you combine different colours of light,
 you get white! Try that with Play-Doh and you get
 brown! How come?" - Alan Moore & Kevin Nolan,