How does the encounter deck dictate pacing?
A very enjoyable element of Arkham LCG is its dynamic pacing. The feeling of playing through a scenario can be very different from one playthrough to another. This is partially achieved through explicit scenario randomization elements (randomized locations, for example), but the principal contributor is actually the encounter deck. Let’s explore why.
The core of a scenario : the workload
An Arkham scenario can be described as a set of tasks that the player have to perform in the time given by the agenda deck. These tasks are the ones necessary to get to a good resolution through the act deck, with some bonus tasks that can grant extra XPs (clearing VP locations). These tasks (excluding VP enemies shuffled in the encounter deck) are part of the scenario design and, randomization aside, often the same over replays.
The amount of resources players have to spend to clear these tasks will be designated as workload. Players are trying to put in enough work so that they clear the workload before dooming out.
I don’t want to give exact numbers as I don’t know them, but this workload probably account for less than 50% of what players spend in player resources. The rest is allocated to react to the encounter deck.
Imagine (actually trying this as an experiment could be fun) that the encounter deck did not exist. The pace of the game would be very different. Players would likely put down a couple assets to help them with the scenario tasks, then clear the workload at a fairly linear pace.
The perturbator : the encounter deck
A scenario playthrough in reality is quite variable, with a lot of tension coming from the succession of relatively quiet rounds, with rounds of high stress, under the growing pressure of the advancing doom clock. This pacing is strongly dependent on encounter deck draws, and since the deck is randomized, the ways a specific scenario plays out it randomized as well.
Encounter cards falls in four main categories :
- Delays: these cards adds to the existing workload, or take some of the progress achieved by the player away from them. They have little effect on immediate pressure, but add to the difficulty of clearing the workload before dooming out. Cards that makes the investigator drop a clue, or prevent investigations are a good example.
- Constraints: these cards do not force you to do additional tasks, but remove some options available to the players, that can cause them to be less efficient (for example Dissonant Voices).
- Attacks: one time effects that target player resources. Encounter cards that causes damage/horror, makes the player discard, looses the player actions or resources all fall in this categories, as long as they are discarded after their effect.
- Threats: some encounter cards may not have an immediate effect, but will create a future pressure that can slowly or very quickly cause the investigators to loose. Threats are mainly enemies, because they cause attacks of opportunity if not dealt with, and sticking treacheries like Frozen in Fear.
Among these categories, the later dictates how the game is paced. While all encounter cards make clearing the workload more difficult, big threats almost forces an immediate reaction of the players until the threat is cleared. Because these threats are only a fraction of the encounter deck, the timing at which they are drawn can vary a lot and create very different experiences.
Player response
Now let’s look at pacing from a player perspective. Delays just require players to be efficient enough at working so that a little extra doesn’t hurt to much. Constraints can be annoying, but ultimately only require to organize around it. Attacks require some choice from the players (Should I commit a card to the Rotting Remains I just draw?) but have no further impact on your turn. Threats, on the other hand, have to be dealt with or ignored.
During their turn, player can seek to perform three things:
- Deal with existing threats: fighting/evading enemies, clearing lasting treacheries, removing doom from the board.
- Gearing up: play assets, draw cards, get resources, heal.
- Work: get clues, put in play locations, move into new locations, perform scenario actions to advance the act.
Of these three, only the later one really progresses the game. Dealing with threats only prevents losses, and gearing-up is only worth it if the resources and time invested are paid back by being more efficient on achieving work later.
On the first turn of a scenario, there is no threat and players have a whole scenario ahead to benefits from played asset, so gearing-up usually takes priority.
For most of the scenario, threats are usually treated first. The fighter of a group will often play first and attempt to clear the threats and allows cluevers to do some work. Once threats are clear, player have to chose between working and gearing-up.
On the lasts turns of a scenario, the menace of threats fades, and ignoring enemies can sometimes even be the right choice to wrap up a game.
Pacing and investigator count
To relate to a previous post, the fact that pacing is dictated by threats of the encounter decks creates a pacing difference in the game at different investigator counts.
With four investigators, while sometimes investigators might enjoy an off turn or a swarm of enemies, the most frequent situation will be to have one or two threats to address each turn. It means that one or two investigators can address the threat while others works and advance the game.
In True Solo, their is no averaging effect. You either have a threat to deal with that will consume some if not all of your turn, or you just drew an attack such as Rotting Remains and are free to work for the whole turn. Pacing variations are more intense in True Solo.
Pacing and player experience
Wrapping up this post, we saw that pacing is mainly dictated by the threats dealt by the encounter deck. The variance in when these threats are dealt are one of the core source of scenario enjoyment and replayability.
Rounds where threats suddenly bunch up can create a memorable moment at any point during a scenario. Just as in real life, contrasts makes emotions stronger. During these moments, the feeling of putting your hand in the chaos bag, drawing for your next card, or the next encounter card becomes more intense.