I always struggle with this one too Iain. My thoughts are you should try and portray what happened at the game table as best as possible, without getting bogged down in detail. Give the impression of what happened and make it of interest to anyone interested in the game, so that they can envision what the game might look like in play.

Talk about what happened in the fiction alongside what happened with the mechanics, but never resort to turning the fiction into a story or relating the results of every dice roll.

You might want to give a general gist about what happened, and then zoom in to focus on some of the finer points - pick out a few bits of cool narrative that happened, find a point when the mechanics really zinged!

And also provide a counter view - when did you get bogged down in the mechanics, where did the game struggle?

...I struggle with this too and have been trying to work on it.

Reading other AP and seeing what I liked and what worked in terms of getting analysis and feedback.

Per and Matt piped up on that other thread and I want to hear their words of wisdom on this.

I'm all ears!

It's an acquired skill, and some people have it more than others, I'm certainly not the best at it (as the lack of AP for my recent games may attest to). I think it was Judd's various reports on his Conspiracy of Shadows pirates game were what convinced me of AP as AP, rather than as story recollection.

What I like to read is something that really shows the benefit of that game over something else. "Story time" doesn't show this. There's no way of matching the game with the fiction, and so I have no way of knowing what helped or hindered play, or even if events actually transpired or if the author is ret-conning to make interesting fiction (very common in the WOD circles I used to frequent) or if it was all some happy accident.

I think it helps to give a broad overview, then zoom in on something really neat. I guess, read lots of AP and decide what works for you is the best advice.

I think also that note-taking for AP is more tricky that just recording the fiction, as it's about interactions and reactions being recorded as much as the fictional events. It's almost like usability testing in this regard, which may be why audio recordings work well...

-Matt

Realms Publishing

Writing APs is a fine art. So bloody difficult. I have no idea how to do it right, but each time I read one of Ron's afterplays I always find something in there I can use myself. So he must be doing something right.
[Contenders] The folks next door

I did try and write up a list of things to remember when writing APs, it's somewhere on a Danish website, I'll dig it up.

The important things for me are the real people involved in the game, the participants, their interactions (and relations, quarrels etc), their interactions with the game (mechanics, text etc), ie. not only what was going on in the game's shared fiction (which, funnily enough perhaps, often is the least interesting for 'outsiders' to read, but far the easiest to tell about). Each time you look back on a game played, you should get a little wiser perhaps. That's what APs are good for.

The AP forum on the Forge is a great representative for this more comprehensive kind of AP reports.

PLUS: Forge theory is mainly putting words on what is happening during a game session, and this 'happening' is conveyed via APs. Full circle.

I didn't answer any of Iain's quesions directly, but was merely trying to state my overall view of APs. Hope that's kosher.

Per
http://darkplaces.squarespace.com

No thanks that is some sutff to get me thinking. I am going to be recording playtest sessions and the like a lot more just to get some practice. I think the best way, as you have suggested, is to read up some and practice till i get it right.

Cheers

Iain

Mob Justice now available!

'The Giant Brain':Small games, big ideas.

Hi Iain,

Actual Play writing is a new thing for all of us. It's a combination of three things:

1. Reflective autobiography - what did we do, and what do I think of that? This is really the hardest part, I think. It requires honesty.

2. Social and creative process description - how does this game work? Not "how well," necessary, just "how."

3. Fiction presentation - what did we create? Not "tell the story," so much as "what was the story."

I think any of the three can be the primary framework or topic for a good actual play account. The other two can be brought in as supportive or explanatory parts of the main one.

So I guess my best advice is to write based on one of them, whichever one you are most comfortable with or fits best with the experience, and then make sure that the others are accounted for along the way.

I never compose actual play accounts straight onto the "post" window at a forum. I always compose them over time in a word-processing program.

Best, Ron

That's so good, concise advice there, Ron. I find that my AP tends towards (as I feel many do) the 3rd option, with lesser elements of the other two. Per gives solid advice there as well, all worth listening to.

Having too much story, without context, without reference to the players, the game, what is going on, is (to me) a major failing of so many APs. Without all of these other elements, it's simply a retelling of dialogue or somones recording of the story alone. For AP, context is everything (IMO).

I must admit to being somewhat lax of late when it comes to writing up AP. I have Shock:, Cold City (x2), Dust Devils and Contenders games to write up. A daunting task to say the least! Expect to see more AP from me in the near future (my evenings in Osaka look to be less busy than the last couple of weeks, so I'm planning on getting some substantial writing done).

Cheers
Malcolm

Contested Ground Studios