When to Start?

[Ashantai]

Reading through the AARs like I do so often I've noticed something of a trend. A lot of people...most people I think...post as they play. So they'll play ten years of EU3 or CK2 and then post up the results. The problem with this of course is that the AAR forums are littered with the husks of AARs dead before their time because of save game or PC errors.

And so I wondered, how common is it for someone to play the entire game out before writing their AAR. I did it with my last one since I needed details of the past to write about the 'present', but does anyone else do this? Should more people do it, or do you find that it robs you of the ability to remember the start of the game?

[loki100]

I sort of guess it depends on the type of AAR. I think to write a good history book you need to be well in advance (not necessarily at the end) as that allows better selection of the things to emphasise in earlier posts so it comes together in the end (on the logic that you, as the Historian, know what happened). For a narrative, guess it depends on how much you are following a long term plan and how much you are letting the narrative respond to the game. A common style of CK/EU AAR is to base a post (or a short sequence of posts) on the life of a ruler, so that tends to force you to some sort of advance play but not too much.

For gameplay, I've often used the logic of play a session/write it up but even then I often get ahead of myself if I have a good chance to play (or am in the mood to do so). An issue here is with MP, as the AAR can contain information your opponent could use. I think with the AGEOD games, given the extreme seasonality of some of their games, there is a sort of convention of play the first campaign season before starting the AAR (on the grounds that you may set something in train 4-5 turns before you want your opponent to be aware of what you are up to).

I tend to end my games before I end my AArs, but with a decent set of screenshots (some annotated if needs be), I can usually remember what I was up to - not always, I do sometimes look at a screenshot and struggle to remember just why it seemed useful to take at the time

[Wave]

I usually play and write one session at the time. Thus I can't cheat the readers and leave something important away because I don't know what will happen in the future. And it is not always a good thing because then everyone see how badly I screw up at times..

Anyway there is at least one AAR that I know that goes well into the "AARs and Fanfiction" category, the Regnum Iudaeorum by crusaderknight, which is a story about jewish tribes but is all a (30 chapter) prologue to the real game that he didn't ever even get to start...(?) So it is possible to do a good AAR without even playing anything, only thing is that a gameplay AAR might be a little troublesome..

[KaiserMuffin]

I sort of guess it depends on the type of AAR. I think to write a good history book you need to be well in advance (not necessarily at the end) as that allows better selection of the things to emphasise in earlier posts so it comes together in the end (on the logic that you, as the Historian, know what happened). For a narrative, guess it depends on how much you are following a long term plan and how much you are letting the narrative respond to the game. A common style of CK/EU AAR is to base a post (or a short sequence of posts) on the life of a ruler, so that tends to force you to some sort of advance play but not too much.

For gameplay, I've often used the logic of play a session/write it up but even then I often get ahead of myself if I have a good chance to play (or am in the mood to do so). An issue here is with MP, as the AAR can contain information your opponent could use. I think with the AGEOD games, given the extreme seasonality of some of their games, there is a sort of convention of play the first campaign season before starting the AAR (on the grounds that you may set something in train 4-5 turns before you want your opponent to be aware of what you are up to).

I tend to end my games before I end my AArs, but with a decent set of screenshots (some annotated if needs be), I can usually remember what I was up to - not always, I do sometimes look at a screenshot and struggle to remember just why it seemed useful to take at the time

I disagree actually - my historybook AARs were written on the fly generally - I do have the advantage of writing for Kaiserreich (usually) or some DH mod - where 20 days can be as interesting as 20 years is on EU III. The density of information allows the weaving of a full story without having to plan in advance beyond where you intend to go as it were.

[jwolf]

It can be done either way (that is, write as you play or finish the game and then write), depending on your goals in both the game and the story, as well as what type of story you are writing. What worked best for me in EU2 was to play about 1/4 of the game and then that was enough to give a good perspective to a historical treatment of that period. Then I would alternate writing and playing, keeping the game 100 or so years ahead of the AAR. Ultimately I think it's up to each author and what style works well for him.

[robw963]

I'm not sure what the correct approach should be...but I play ahead (in HOI anyway) a few months and then make a post. I can see how playing through an entire game and then posting would have its advantages especially if you're creating a narrative or storybook styled AAR. Since I prefer an image heavy approach, and i tend to screenshot the HELL out of everything, it would be a huge effort to wade through an entire game's worth of screenshots to pluck out what i need. But you're totally right...the danger here is that the game can go south on you and suddenly the AAR falls apart.

[KaiserMuffin]

I think the main issue is when this happens people don't go with the flow. I may catalogue my complete failure or my trials with something I know will be very hard for me, since Democracies Last Legs is one of the forums most popular AARs of recent vintage!

[Rensslaer]

I generally play through until I'm sure 1) it's an interesting game and worthy of writing about, and 2) I'm not going to embarrass myself by posting details.

And sometimes, still, I fail at #2 -- I had a commenter in one of my AARs recently ask if I was even TRYING to win, or just faking him out!

Rensslaer

[BigBadBob]

Ideally, I play anywhere from 10-50 years ahead when writing the history book AARs that I do. It allows me to know what to emphasize and what great historical trends I can talk about without realizing as I write the update that the thing emphasized proved completely inconsequential, and the great historical trend was a one-off. With the Presidents, I don't have that luxury, and it really shows in my not being able to talk about the next four or 10 years unless it's an area that is of no consequence to the US or a foregone conclusion.

[loki100]

I disagree actually - my historybook AARs were written on the fly generally - I do have the advantage of writing for Kaiserreich (usually) or some DH mod - where 20 days can be as interesting as 20 years is on EU III. The density of information allows the weaving of a full story without having to plan in advance beyond where you intend to go as it were.

Well most games have the density of information if that is your only concern. Check out Chilango2's superb V2 AAR for an eg of what you can do with a single pop-up. The idea of playing ahead isn't to ensure that you only report a perfect performance or outcome but that you have one of two things to hand. As a number of other posters have mentioned, it allows you to foreshadow (in effect to write like a history that has a clear narrative structure). A second is to check the game is actually going to be interesting enough to sustain an AAR. I've played a lot of Rome games that I've really enjoyed but in truth would not have made decent AARs for various reasons.

A third is to make sure it will serve your purposes. One AAR idea on my 'to-do' list is to use AGEOD's Rise of Prussia as the base for a biographic AAR, so the rest of the war is sketched in but the doings of our hero are covered as the focal point. Now I'd want to play that well ahead for a couple of reasons - to ensure that our hero doesn't get killed in a small skirmish in 1756 (don't care if he dies in a small skirmish in 1761 as I'll have the material I need & that would make a superb end if the war was still raging but no longer of any interest given the way that AAR is framed) or if by some fluke of the game ends up in charge of utterly unimportant sector for the entire war. In many ways if I lose the war that gives a nice addition to the overall AAR (& one advantage of the AGEOD AI is you can lose to it), so its not about controlling for the outcome, its about being able to use various narrative techniques and being sure that the particular game will fit the purpose of the AAR.

[Mr. Capiatlist]

I finish the game first, personally. The games that are slowly and steadily being turned into Baltikja have been cold for years now. Hell, I played the EU3 section using EU3:IN. Since there is a strong focus on how events shaped the modern world, I needed to know what happened before butting pen to paper (metaphorically). I can recall at least one failed AAR where I tried going a history book before I finished playing and one up dates talks about what great allies I was with Russia and it was a relationship that would last hundreds of years, two updates later (maybe a total of 30 years later) I had fought two wars with Russia and just completely disregarded that whole notion.

[PrawnStar]

Generally I have to psych myself up to writing an AAR - I need to know I can write 60+ chapters and feedback over several months before starting. I know that I'm going to AAR a game before I start it so I normally start posting after I've wrote the intro and a couple of chapters then I let the AAR and game sync. I get a lot of posts and views and there are very often good and interesting ideas put forward. I find it quite difficult to respond to how/why questions if I'm ahead of the AAR - both remembering the relevant detail and answering without foreshadowing.

My stuff is gameplay so writing with the benefit of knowing what happens in the next century isn't very important - indeed it might undermine any tension over can I achieve my goals. However I do play test games before AARing to make sure I have a decent grasp of what I'm tackling - test games that generally run 1399-1821.

[Fyregecko]

Recently I've been pretty much playing a session, then writing the posts that cover it, then going back to playing again. When I had cartoon elements, though, I was playing further in advance so that I could more easily create a coherent narrative for the characters - I'm hoping to go back to this style pretty soon.

[Tufto]

I tend to write fairly close to the save game date, but not exactly. It helps with narrative AARs, though it can cause problems. Near the beginning of my Georgian AAR, a character died whom I had planned a big storyline for, which resulted in a spectacular anticlimax.

I follow the game very loosely; I'll use the same characters in CK and follow all of the main events in any game, but creating my own plot arcs and shifting dates around and the like.