Similarities
There are several obvious similarities between Arkham and LotR. Both are cooperative card games for 1-4 players that play out in established IPs, Lovecraft and Tolkien’s worlds, respectively. Both are scenario driven games which ask players to build decks of cards they think will allow their characters the greatest chance of success at resolving the objectives of the given scenarios. And lastly, both games feature a similar flow; the characters are given a chance to acquire/spend resources to deploy their tools and allies in an attempt to defeat monsters and accomplish objectives, and after, the scenario fights back through threats and monsters in an attempt to defeat the heroes. There are several other minor similarities (business model, no two scenarios alike, etc.), but as a whole, each game sits within such parameters. It's the details which separate the games in which most interest can be found.
Contrasts
Above it's specifically written “both are scenario driven games”, not that “both are narrative driven games”. The reason for this is, LotR is a more abstract, semi-narrative experience, while Arkham is the more visceral, ingrained story experience. This narrative difference is the point at which the two games diverge the greatest, feeding the points which follow.
The prefix ‘semi’ important, LotR offers the player bits of narrative within scenarios, and to a small degree between them. The saga expansions which follow Tolkien’s most famous novel are linked more tightly, but the most common form of story in LotR is found within individual scenarios, not between. LotR's scenarios act as insular clusters mixing characters, settings, monsters, and events from a sub-section of Tolkienian lore. Players will occasionally find cards that carry over into the other scenarios, but the primary game experience is within the given scenario, its outcome having minimal impact on any other scenarios.
Story flows more deeply in the veins of Arkham. The game's act and agenda decks act as channels, guiding gameplay along specific story beats within an overarching narrative. While scenarios can be played stand-alone, the the game is designed in campaign mode—chains of scenarios, rather than individual scenarios. Branching storylines and player choice impact outcomes and scenario resolutions. Choose to cheat in the casino and you may, or may not, get a nasty surprise in a future Fail here but succeed there, and your ending will be different than other combinations. Rather than decisions which affect only the current moment in gameplay, players understand their choices may have longer term consequences.
Thus while gameplay and deckbuilding occupy strong roles in both games, I would argue narrative is the main engine for Arkham. From campaign to story chains, the scenarios link in some form. For LotR, it's possible to argue solving the unique puzzle of an individual scenario is the game's primary driver. This includes deckbuilding, Tolkienian flavor, and card play, but at the end of the scenario little can be carried over anywhere in the milieu of content released to date.
Deckbuilding
Accordingly, deck building in each game is different. In LotR, players construct a deck specifically to defeat a scenario, designing it to combat the challenges the scenario throws their way—a square peg for the square hole. New scenario equals a new deck: finding a circular peg for a circular hole. In Arkham, players construct one deck for multiple scenarios, evolving and upgrading it as the campaign progresses—like yellow, brown, black belts, etc. in karate. Does this mean LotR players do not tweak or change their decks? Of course not. Every time a scenario defeats players, they look to add/edit/delete in an attempt to find the right combination—the right sized square peg for the square hole they are facing. In Arkham, players face the more general prospect of needing to build and evolve one deck in preparation for a variety of scenarios. LotR is thus specific and iterative at the individual scenario level, whereas deckbuilding in Arkham is more evolutionary and iterative across multiple scenarios.
Due to narrative, the sense of immersion in both games is also quite different. LotR more abstract and Arkham more visceral, indeed Arkham is the easier game to visualize sitting at the table—to feel you are in the thick of things. Players pick up and move their characters through unique, tangible locations. Depending on location, they engage with and evade enemies and NPCs. And these aspects are all wrapped up and threaded through with story. It’s the aspects of clues and investigating which remain abstract. In LotR, however, the elements people are familiar with from the books and films are more representational than functional. Looking at the lore, for example, Tolkien's stories move between the close and personal (the heroes) to the epic and grand (setting and war) then back again. The game, however, does these both at once. It gives players a personal view to their heroes (with weapons, armor, etc.) but keeping the setting and evil at an epic distance. Journeying, for example, is not from location to location, rather a points system. Bridging the gap between these two sides thus requires more imagination.
Degree of Cooperation
I have read opinions that LotR is more cooperative than Arkham. The prime argument is that on any given turn, the players collectively face challenges as one front, whereas in Arkham it’s individual. Given that each player typically controls three heroes in LotR (rather than the one investigator each player controls in Arkham), this is a fair statement. Two players controlling six heroes to combat one central evil naturally leads to a more “cooperative” feeling than two players controlling individual investigators at differing locations in Arkham, all of whom are dealing with whatever the encounter deck throws at them personally. I would only say that Arkham remains definitively cooperative; if players do not agree on tactics to accomplish the scenario’s objectives, and help each other with their situations, they have no hope of winning. More individual, yes, but still cooperative. Thus with LotR, indeed, there is the stronger possibility for feeling a greater sense of team and togetherness.
Characters
This is a good moment to go into characters. As stated, in LotR players control multiple heroes—typically three but sometimes more, as well as the allies drawn from players’ deck in the course of the game. Playing the role of leader/manager, players choose how to deploy their heroes to the most synergistic effect. Like generals knowing what is best for the whole army, coordinating effort between the heroes becomes easier. And sometimes that means sacrifice. In Arkham, players control only one investigator each. Sacrificing an investigator means game over for that player—not a popular choice. But the single investigator allows for deeper investment, especially when considering each investogator is upgraded multiple times throughout a campaign. Adding further depth, Arkham characters are decidedly gray; each performs heroic acts but has very human weaknesses that reveal themselves in the course of gameplay. LotR features only virtuous heroes. That being said, for players intimately familiar with Tolkien’s lore, sending their favorite heroes, halos glowing, into battle to fight Sauron’s minions can be a type of satisfaction that perhaps Arkham cannot offer.
Determinism
LotR and Arkham are both non-deterministic; they are designed such that randomness and luck play a role in players’ fortunes and fate. But these are captured in different mechanisms. Aptly named, Arkham’s chaos bag presents the player a random outcome, similar to a modified d20, every time they need to do a skill test or fight/evade a monster. The shuffling of decks (the players’ and the encounter decks) also injects an element of randomness that players must deal with. Luck/randomness is also often inherent to Arkham in scenario setup. Different versions of locations removed from the game in place of others, it’s possible, for example, more clues or less clues become available, which in turn affects players’ future decisions. There is no chaos bag in LotR; its randomness is driven by card shuffle, Shadow effects, and occasionally hero setup.
To better illustrate luck/randomness in the two games, almost every round in Arkham will see players going to the chaos bag to help determine success/failure, either at skill tests or interaction with monsters. In LotR, such interaction is not dependent on a random factor (save for those damn Shadow effects!). There are cards face up on the table, and players have cards in their hands. This is known information. Players need to decide how to play within the confines of what is known, balanced with what they know will come in the future, or possible to come in deck draws. Love or hate the chaos bag, it is the most distinguishing factor between the two games in terms of determinism, Arkham more dynamic in this area, LotR more deterministic, which aligns nicely with its focus on tight deckbuilding. Which leads to...
Strategy vs. Tactics
The final difference discussed here: strategy and tactics. The needles of LotR and Arkham float closer to the center than to either extreme of this spectrum. Deckbuilding is the primary strategic element of each game, but from there things change a little. Given that LotR’s main engine is solving the puzzle of the scenario, deckbuilding naturally plays a stronger role. Deck quality decides certain things before the game even begins, meaning it is naturally more strategic. While this is generally also true for Arkham, there is more room for error, bad luck, and adaptation to the scenario’s beats, even with a poorer quality deck given how much influence the chaos bag has. Secondly, play in LotR is resolved over the course of seven phases, an aspect which requires more planning. Where to dedicate heroes: questing, defending, or fighting? In Arkham, play is resolved over four phases. Things happen faster and quicker, meaning reaction (tactics) is of more importance than longer term planning, not to mention the investigators do not exhaust; they are available for every phase. In Arkham, players can fly by the seat of their pants, whereas in LotR things need to be well thought out to have success. Thus, while there are absolutely tactical elements to LotR and strategic elements to Arkham, LotR pushes the needle a little further onto the strategy side, and Arkham the tactics side.
Summary for Potential Players
Taking all of the above into account, there are clear differences between LotR and Arkham which can help potential players decide which game might be best for them to try. (Or perhaps simply both?) The obvious recommendation is that if you love Tolkien or Lovecraft, try the one which fits those interests. If lore is not the driver, then I would look to narrative as the primary distinguisher. Arkham heavily based in story, it immerses players more deeply in the situations and events, as well as guides them through an overarching story whose multiple potential outcomes are dependent on player choice. LotR is more disconnected from its source material. Players wanting to experience battles with Black Riders or Sauron need to expect abstract, isolated experiences that are more dependent on the player’s imagination for immersion.
If strategy and planning are more to your liking, then the satisfaction of seeing a hard earned, deck building effort finally come to fruition in LotR may be for you. Tweaking your deck to the point of success through difficult scenarios feels good. Arkham is more turn-based, meaning it better suits players with a preference for reactionary, tactical gameplay in the moment, and in this regard could be considered the “easier” of the two games.
Regarding game play: LotR is the more static, consistent game, e.g. the biggest chunk of luck/randomness is inherent to card shuffling/draw. Arkham the more dynamic game, luck is inherent in more aspects, including the aptly named chaos bag. Want a steadier, more calculating experience? Try LotR. Want higher highs of success and lower lows of failure, try Arkham.
And lastly, if players enjoy a more command and control type of game style, LotR is likely for them. Along with the aforementioned limited type of determinism, players are required to coordinate multiple characters and allies, deciding who gets what upgrades, who fights when, who defends, etc. Players get to be Middle Earth generals. They control their squad, and the variety of options inherent to multiple heroes. In Arkham, players are invested in a single character and their personal story confronting the Mythos. This brings with it the ability to upgrade said character and evolve with them through the story, thus the possibility of a more personal connection to the character/game.
I assume there are other ways to slice and dice the two games. But I feel those above are the major ways. It bears repeating, each of the two games is equally and incredibly clever at adapting and creating mechanisms that mimic the circumstances and scenarios they are trying to represent. Each game offers balanced levels of tactics and strategy that gets players’ brains’ RAM spinning—less about the rules and more about in-game decisions. And each game balances itself well to player count. You can play by yourself, with a spouse or friend, or a small group—and have different varieties of fun. I guess this is my long-winded way of saying, each are great ways of playing board/card games, one not inherently better than the other. It’s all about preference.
And my preference is…
Personal Preference
My personal preference is a little surprising. I have read Lord of the Rings five times in my life—one of the books I have re-read the most. The story, the imagination, the style—all engage me, child to adult. Lovecraft I have major issues with. His style of writing overblown and purple, it’s a struggle to finish even a short story. Nevertheless, I gravitate toward Arkham Horror: The Card Game. I have spent many hours in LotR and invested hundreds of dollars, but if you put a gun to my head, it’s Arkham. And it’s for the primary reason outlined above: that narrative is the main engine. I want to play a campaign to be on a journey, then replay to see the other branches of story. You develop a relationship and grow with your investigator through rpg-like experience, and that the investigator is imperfect—an atypical hero. Choices today affect scenarios in the future. The chaos bag, well, the chaos bag simply is…
No comments:
Post a Comment