AARland bAAR Talk - Episode One

[stnylan]

I suppose that leads onto how large an aar should be and why massive ones tend to be so successful? Scope in these things can be truly breathtaking, with hundreds of pages on a single year of history, or the same amount on an entire alternative world and universe (like what if Spain didn't conquer the world and the like).

Massive ones are not always so successful. I have followed some very long and prolific AARs where I have been the only regular reader, or one of only two or three readers. AARs which I often think are as good as more popular AARs, if not more so.

Also you are making, I think, a false assumption. As in, comments may encourage a writAAR to keep going, and therefore long AARs tend to be the more successful ones. But it is the success that makes the AAR long, not that the length of the AAR is a reason for its success.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Also you are making, I think, a false assumption. As in, comments may encourage a writAAR to keep going, and therefore long AARs tend to be the more successful ones. But it is the success that makes the AAR long, not that the length of the AAR is a reason for its success.

This is true. Pages and pages of comments do inflate a thread size.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

The only person who can decide if an AAR has been "successful" or not is the writer.

 

[Captured Joe]

I reckon if an AAR is properly (by the writer's standards) finished, it's safe to call it "succesful".

Comments help a lot to keep an AAR going, but I think a passion for the subject (the country's history, the characters, or even the "story" of the game) is at least as important; if one wants to tell and write about that subject, one is much less likely to lose interest in continuing the AAR!

 

[El Pip]

I reckon if an AAR is properly (by the writer's standards) finished, it's safe to call it "succesful".

Up to a point. If the writer's aim is, say, a history book style work on "Resurrection of the Byzantine Empire" in Vicki II and they bash it out in three updates and a couple of thousand words then they may have finished it and been 'successful', but to be brutal I have my doubts it would be a satisfying read. The short length just could not deliver on the promised content.

Don't get me wrong, the shear number of abandoned and unfinished AARs around here are testament to the fact that actually finishing a work is a relatively rare feat. And as discussed the author does get to define what success means to them, my point would be that "successful" does not automatically mean "worth reading".

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Up to a point. If the writer's aim is, say, a history book style work on "Resurrection of the Byzantine Empire" in Vicki II and they bash it out in three updates and a couple of thousand words then they may have finished it and been 'successful', but to be brutal I have my doubts it would be a satisfying read. The short length just could not deliver on the promised content.

Don't get me wrong, the shear number of abandoned and unfinished AARs around here are testament to the fact that actually finishing a work is a relatively rare feat. And as discussed the author does get to define what success means to them, my point would be that "successful" does not automatically mean "worth reading".

I think we're getting to what i was originally trying to ask (ineptly) which is: how much is too much? When does detail go too far, when does summary become skipping, where and when do you draw that line? This is different for different aar types but worth asking for all of them i think. I suppose pacing comes into this argument as well, but it's more a seperatw question.

 

[coz1]

To change the topic of conversation completely, or rather, as an extension of the earlier topic on historical fiction and where we go from what the game gives us: did AARland or someone else on the Fun Forums bit ever try making a short story thread of some kind? Even though AARs of the narrative nature can basically almost completely remove the game entirely, the opportunity to just write some short historical fiction or something of that nature has surely come up in the past, no? I have seen something along those lines in the 'Guess-the-Author' thread which I really enjoyed and tried to get into a few times, but is there anything else?

A long time ago, there were attempts at such a thing but GtA is the closest we come to that now. OT may have some other examples but here we tend to keep to our AARs.

As someone that has written some longish works that used very little AAR time as far as gameplay, I say that the forum is your oyster. My first CK AAR was based on only 2 months of the game. My western in the original Vickie was based on just the four years or so of the civil war and then everything else built around it. As I recall, @stnylan's In Memory of France (which he is working with now in Stellaris) was nothing but a bit of gameplay that led to a GtA entry that then led into an AAR (a very good one) and now is rewarded by that long time pursuit. The game is merely guide...a skeleton. It's in the building of muscles and blood and all else that gives a work life.

Massive ones are not always so successful. I have followed some very long and prolific AARs where I have been the only regular reader, or one of only two or three readers. AARs which I often think are as good as more popular AARs, if not more so.

Also you are making, I think, a false assumption. As in, comments may encourage a writAAR to keep going, and therefore long AARs tend to be the more successful ones. But it is the success that makes the AAR long, not that the length of the AAR is a reason for its success.

I have to agree with this. As one that has written rather long works, I cannot say that they are particularly popular. The longer it goes, the harder some readers find in keeping up. Especially if one (read:myself) is updating on a consistent basis. A good hook always helps, but length does not equal success. To my mind, it only suggests the writAARs commitment.

The only person who can decide if an AAR has been "successful" or not is the writer.

Totally agree! If you are having fun writing and creating, that in itself is success!

I reckon if an AAR is properly (by the writer's standards) finished, it's safe to call it "succesful".

Comments help a lot to keep an AAR going, but I think a passion for the subject (the country's history, the characters, or even the "story" of the game) is at least as important; if one wants to tell and write about that subject, one is much less likely to lose interest in continuing the AAR!

To finish an AAR is absolutely successful, no matter how many views or comments. If one is excited and wants to write...then write. To see it to the end? That is most certainly success!

I think we're getting to what i was originally trying to ask (ineptly) which is: how much is too much? When does detail go too far, when does summary become skipping, where and when do you draw that line? This is different for different aar types but worth asking for all of them i think. I suppose pacing comes into this argument as well, but it's more a seperatw question.

To me, it is all about the story. Regardless of the type of work, what is it that you want to tell? The details of a five year long war may need drops from month to month. A 400 year history may need some culling as to what is truly important. What serves the story? Just like events, use what works and discard the rest. Change it if need be. Just make it work. I think we all like some detail in writing (and as readers) but what are the details that are important? I tend to think those that serve the plot and/or theme of the work. A day to day diary of 400 years would take forever. Even an HoI work would find that a long time in telling. Hit the high points and what serves the story. It's not skipping or summary...just making certain that you feature what is truly important.

 

[El Pip]

Regardless of the type of work, what is it that you want to tell? The details of a five year long war may need drops from month to month. A 400 year history may need some culling as to what is truly important. What serves the story? Just like events, use what works and discard the rest. Change it if need be. Just make it work. I think we all like some detail in writing (and as readers) but what are the details that are important? I tend to think those that serve the plot and/or theme of the work. A day to day diary of 400 years would take forever. Even an HoI work would find that a long time in telling. Hit the high points and what serves the story. It's not skipping or summary...just making certain that you feature what is truly important.

Pretty much all of my writing here has been a complete denial of that principal. I would much rather go off into unusual and interesting diversions, even if they are mostly or entirely irrelevant to the main story/plot of the work, than slavishly stick to trying to hit an 'important' beat in every post.

Now given it has been many years since those who hand out AARland awards have had cause to check on my details, I concede that at present I am probably in a minority about this. But I like to imagine there is a cycle in this, as there is in all things, and at some point the fetishization of plot and progress will fade and the idea of allowing a story to breathe and taking the road less travelled will return.

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Pretty much all of my writing here has been a complete denial of that principal. I would much rather go off into unusual and interesting diversions, even if they are mostly or entirely irrelevant to the main story/plot of the work, than slavishly stick to trying to hit an 'important' beat in every post.

Now given it has been many years since those who hand out AARland awards have had cause to check on my details, I concede that at present I am probably in a minority about this. But I like to imagine there is a cycle in this, as there is in all things, and at some point the fetishization of plot and progress will fade and the idea of allowing a story to breathe and taking the road less travelled will return.

I woild certainly say that the legendary mega threads of HOI past would indicate you are right, at least about that game series. Since the game goes over the same war with the same setup, over and over again, people love the 'what are we going to try this time?'approach and all the detail in the world.

This isn't something most want in ckii, where all big wars are (usually) pretty new and original affairs and the fact the war is happening at all is the interest, not the detail.

 

[coz1]

Pretty much all of my writing here has been a complete denial of that principal. I would much rather go off into unusual and interesting diversions, even if they are mostly or entirely irrelevant to the main story/plot of the work, than slavishly stick to trying to hit an 'important' beat in every post.

Now given it has been many years since those who hand out AARland awards have had cause to check on my details, I concede that at present I am probably in a minority about this. But I like to imagine there is a cycle in this, as there is in all things, and at some point the fetishization of plot and progress will fade and the idea of allowing a story to breathe and taking the road less travelled will return.

Pretty sure that's what I just said, but fair enough. There are no people that hand out awards since 2002, so it's just taste week to week. One can discuss the right or reason for it, but that is what is enjoyed now. I totally agree that changing up what the game gives is far more interesting than a simple recitative of game action but it is two-fold, I think. One, what can you do with it to make it interesting and two, how can you change it to make it work? What matters for the story? History, narrative or gameplay (and certainly comedy) need not "slavishly stick" to the "important" beat. The important beat is what one wishes to tell.

 

[El Pip]

Pretty sure that's what I just said, but fair enough.

what are the details that are important? I tend to think those that serve the plot and/or theme of the work.

I found some of the details I enjoy writing about most are the ones that don't serve the plot or the theme, so I think there is a difference. Do you look at, say, a game event with the view "How does this serve the story I want to tell?" and then decide to use it, change it or discard it. Or do you ask yourself "Is it interesting in and of itself" and if it is then write about it, even if there is minimal connection to the story you are notionally supposed to be telling.

You probably get a better 'flow' with the first approach, because there is that vision of the story and readers are only shown things that matter to the narrative. With the second approach you explore more interesting cul-de-sacs, but they are ultimately dead ends and so you don't have that overall story/theme running through everything.

There are no people that hand out awards since 2002, so it's just taste week to week. One can discuss the right or reason for it, but that is what is enjoyed now.

I think our hard working award organisers would disagree. I know they don't pick the winners, but they do get to make the post that announces them, which is what I was trying (and clearly failing ) to riff on. Maybe if I could express these things better I'd win more awards!

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

Maybe if I could express these things better I'd win more awards!

I give you fan of the week sometimes. Maybe it's more you don't comment on ckii aars that often. Everyone knows where the kids are at these days.

 

[vyshan]

I found some of the details I enjoy writing about most are the ones that don't serve the plot or the theme, so I think there is a difference. Do you look at, say, a game event with the view "How does this serve the story I want to tell?" and then decide to use it, change it or discard it. Or do you ask yourself "Is it interesting in and of itself" and if it is then write about it, even if there is minimal connection to the story you are notionally supposed to be telling.

A mix of both tends to be my preference. While I lean towards the first, sometimes an event pop ups that while having little connection is just too interesting not to ignore.

 

[coz1]

I found some of the details I enjoy writing about most are the ones that don't serve the plot or the theme, so I think there is a difference. Do you look at, say, a game event with the view "How does this serve the story I want to tell?" and then decide to use it, change it or discard it. Or do you ask yourself "Is it interesting in and of itself" and if it is then write about it, even if there is minimal connection to the story you are notionally supposed to be telling.

You probably get a better 'flow' with the first approach, because there is that vision of the story and readers are only shown things that matter to the narrative. With the second approach you explore more interesting cul-de-sacs, but they are ultimately dead ends and so you don't have that overall story/theme running through everything.

On this, there is agreement. When I speak of "your story" I mean what YOU want to tell. The game is not always helpful in that regard. Indeed, let go of unhelpful events and dive into those bits that are more interesting. Especially for you as writer and hopefully for the reader. While we do write what is called "after action reports", that does not mean that we cannot have creative license. I hold two favorite scenes over these many years and both prove each side of the story. One is in @Director's History Park: Who Wants To Be Napoleon! and the scene is this: the story of the cannon. It really doesn't have much to do with the overall work, but it is a lovely diversion and done so very well. The other is in @MrT's l'eminence grise and this masterful scene: Louis finds out he is King. That one has everything to do with plot and game. Both EU2 and a long time ago, but suggests that the important thing is the writer's intent. It is said "write what you know" but the better suggestion is "write what you find interesting." If you know it, and you do it well, then it will come across. Game action or no.

I think our hard working award organisers would disagree. I know they don't pick the winners, but they do get to make the post that announces them, which is what I was trying (and clearly failing ) to riff on. Maybe if I could express these things better I'd win more awards!

As one of those that organizes these sorts of things, I would happily give you one if I could @El Pip - you are more than deserving. Yet we both fall prey to modern interest and I have to say thank you for still chugging along with your "slower that real time" work and still being here with us. Not everybody holds court for as long. I am thankful that you still do.

 

[Wraith11B]

I woild certainly say that the legendary mega threads of HOI past would indicate you are right, at least about that game series. Since the game goes over the same war with the same setup, over and over again, people love the 'what are we going to try this time?'approach and all the detail in the world.

That said, of the top five HoI3 offerings (of which mine just missed out on ): four have over forty pages worth of posts. Two of those have over a hundred! These aren't legendary megathreads? Of the top five HoI2 offerings, the lowest page count there is 23, and one of the threads has over 300 pages of posts. For these, I'd imagine that the commentators are just really into the Second World War time period.

 

[Mr. Capiatlist]

On this, there is agreement. When I speak of "your story" I mean what YOU want to tell.

Perhaps a good topic for the next session will be "The Language of Critique".

 

[TheButterflyComposer]

That said, of the top five HoI3 offerings (of which mine just missed out on ): four have over forty pages worth of posts. Two of those have over a hundred! These aren't legendary megathreads? Of the top five HoI2 offerings, the lowest page count there is 23, and one of the threads has over 300 pages of posts. For these, I'd imagine that the commentators are just really into the Second World War time period.

Hyperbole is always useful for beginning a conversation. So long as you come down from it afterwards. I poke the bear sometimes to get the debate going again.

Clearly this podcast is scratching a itch about writing debates that we all needed though. This is good.

Eh...I think to be honest quantity isn't everything, I was rather just remarking on how long some of the AARs I've read are. They go on for years and years of detailed worldbuilding and backstory, and most have been in HOI. But I will say there are others in other forums, and I think all of them are when an Author decided to be ambitious and create an entire universe, including modern day portions looking back at the period of interest in that universe. I find many of these very compelling, but it is also incredibly difficult to get into many of them as you can imagine. Some are just really really interesting though, like Pip's work which for the most part is actually long essays on a very specific part of early 20th century something, whether that be tractor design or argentine beef imports. I think that's quite easy to opt in and out of, whilst long running narratives are occasionally hard to keep up with (especially if you are Coz1 and a machine at writing constant updates on what the House of Wessex is doing every day).

EDIT: I would say that's a good idea Mr C.

 

[coz1]

Eh...I think to be honest quantity isn't everything, I was rather just remarking on how long some of the AARs I've read are. They go on for years and years of detailed worldbuilding and backstory, and most have been in HOI. But I will say there are others in other forums, and I think all of them are when an Author decided to be ambitious and create an entire universe, including modern day portions looking back at the period of interest in that universe. I find many of these very compelling, but it is also incredibly difficult to get into many of them as you can imagine. Some are just really really interesting though, like Pip's work which for the most part is actually long essays on a very specific part of early 20th century something, whether that be tractor design or argentine beef imports. I think that's quite easy to opt in and out of, whilst long running narratives are occasionally hard to keep up with (especially if you are Coz1 and a machine at writing constant updates on what the House of Wessex is doing every day).

Umm...there are months between updates. At least in the lives of my characters.

That said, I would have to agree. One of the reasons I split up the Wessex tale as I did was to isolate the specific stories rather than have one, long continuous work go on and on (which it has, more or less anyway) for nearly three years. It is easier to do in a 400 year history than for 80 or 5/6 years, but the games provide for a deep and compelling universe built different than our own. I think the point of length and/or success is how one approaches it. I can think of @jwolf's son's Holstein game or any story by the great @Storey and see a specific thing trying to be told. The adventures of @Farquarsen or @nalivayko ...never ones to hold on too long and simply moved towards their goals. The great @Peter Ebbesen - when he was done telling the story, he was done.

Contrast that with what has become somewhat of the norm over the last fifteen years. When AAR writing began on this forum, they were logs of the game. Literally screenshots of the game log. They have obviously advanced from that time. Characters were introduced and story lines that weren't really part of the game but made the stories more interesting. Some writAARs (not me) knew how to isolate what was truly important. Others (like me) just jumped in feet first and wrote and wrote and wrote. @Lord Durham's Portugal or Bust is a great example of a clear idea and writing to that notion. As good as it is (and many parts of it are quite good), @canonized's Timelines: What if Spain Failed to Control the World? was, to me, an example of writing for writing's sake. One is massively long at over 300 hundred forum pages. The other barely hits 30. True, the timing of them matters, but in reality both of them were wildly successful (and let us not kid ourselves, the members writing were well known names on the forum.)

I can't say what makes success, but it is not length. The first AAR I completed was done in two months and is not long. The one after that? Took me two plus years and likely still doesn't push the limit. Somewhere along the way it became accepted practice to just keep writing and writing and writing...true daily dairies and showing every single event. I don't think anything is wrong with that. In fact, I think of @ Draco Rexus's For King and Country as an example. Every tedious bit was recounted and by the thread's count, was enjoyed. Yet it was around that time that AARs became never ending.

These days, there are generally two types of works. One is the age old "I want to write an AAR" and either fizzles out within the first few pages or goes on without regard to an end, if it ever gets there. The other is a tightly woven story (or mostly) and has a definite idea of where it is going and what it is to accomplish. The former usually fails before the latter, even if length shows a visible difference.

This is not quite part of the conversation, but I have said for some time - outlines! Know where you want to end. It makes it all the easier to get there.

Perhaps a good topic for the next session will be "The Language of Critique".

An excellent idea! I have some few ideas already.

 

[Eurasia]

When it the next Episode?

 

[El Pip]

These days, there are generally two types of works. One is the age old "I want to write an AAR" and either fizzles out within the first few pages or goes on without regard to an end, if it ever gets there. The other is a tightly woven story (or mostly) and has a definite idea of where it is going and what it is to accomplish. The former usually fails before the latter, even if length shows a visible difference.

This is not quite part of the conversation, but I have said for some time - outlines! Know where you want to end. It makes it all the easier to get there.

I wonder if you are perhaps confusing (failed) ambition for lack of direction - it is possible to be long and expansive and know where you are going and what you are trying to accomplish. Just because the end is a long way off doesn't mean the author doesn't know where it is, even if the readers don't. Especially if the story has deviated from the standard and keeping the readers guessing is part of what the writer is trying to accomplish.

Certainly being more ambitious on scope makes things harder; the more you cover, the more you have to write (and think about, and re-write ) so you will see more failures. That explains the higher rate of fizzles you point out. But if the author can keep going it is certainly worth it.

So I certainly agree with your points about outlines and knowing where the end is. Just not this tightly woven and focused heresy.