Good AAR Techniques

What are some good techniques for note taking for AARs?

What things do you record/not record?

How much detail/abstraction?

Are there some good tricks to recording pertinent info?

***
What are some good techniques for note taking for AARs?

What things do you record/not record?

How much detail/abstraction?

Are there some good tricks to recording pertinent info?
***

While I'm aware this is probably intended for the gropos, vacheads can rejoice
in a certain advantage the plot sheet gives us.

If you take the standard spreadsheet layout, and add a small comment area,
simple notes can be added by the players themselves. I never got far with this
in my campaign; though I handed out sheets and asked players to return them,
this was one of the details in the printed instructions they sort of missed.

My suggestion would be for a short hand version. The attackers could write
something like 'S1/5-CH2,Stopped/2xCH2, 2xCE2, hits S1CH2(5,2)' to gives
the targeting and rolls of a SM salvo, though an FSE big boy would fill have a
sheet at this rate. The defender could record who caused threshold checks, and
any fails.

For both AAR's and the point system I'd worked out for my Four Corners
campaign, would have been very useful.

Points: a) all the ships have to be properly marked, b) everyone playing has
to remember record keeping in the heat of battle. Don't just put this in your
instructions; make certain your players understand and agree. For
some players, this may be just too much like work. ;->=

> What are some good techniques for note taking for AARs?

I find that extensive notes are not really necessary. Just jot down general
trends and things that really stick out to you. (i.e. Turn 2 both forces
continued to close and Player A rolled six 6's in a row) This gives the reader
a general sense of what's happening and things that might have skewed the
results. The key however, is to write the review soon after playing, so all
the little things that you didn't
think would be important - and thus didn't write down - are fresh in
your mind.

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.