

After playing the board game Arcs recently, I realized that no matter how well a game’s theme is developed, that theme can be weakened if the action selection mechanism feels unthematic.
In board games, “action selection” refers to the process of choosing what to do on a turn. The issue isn’t the act of selecting itself but rather the mechanics that restrict what actions can be taken. Some games incorporate action limitations that make sense within the game’s world, while others impose arbitrary rules with no thematic explanation for why those limitations exist.

For example, in Terraforming Mars—a fan-favorite that has consistently ranked high on Board Game Geek—players can typically take any action they can afford. When there are restrictions, they’re rooted in the game’s theme rather than arbitrary rules. You can’t, for instance, place a city tile next to another city tile, which is more of a spatial constraint than an action limitation. This rule only limits actions in rare cases, such as when the board fills up.

In Ark Nova, players can select one of five available actions, but the strength of each action depends on where its card is positioned on the player board. For instance, you might be able to play two animals on one turn but not use that same card on the next turn. This reflects a mechanically driven limitation rather than a thematic one: the cards’ power level resets after each use, with no clear explanation for why actions lose potency over time. Players might rationalize this as zoo employees getting tired, yet money—often a limiting factor in games—doesn’t influence card power here.

Arcs is another game that struggles with unthematic action selection. While I enjoyed its space exploration and battle theme, the trick-taking card mechanism felt jarring. Here, the first card played in a round establishes a suit and a value, with each subsequent card needing to match suit and exceed value to maximize its effect. Alternatively, players can play cards of different suits at reduced power. Unlike Ark Nova, where the limitations can at least be rationalized, Arcs offers no such narrative reason behind its card mechanics, which feels out of sync with the theme.
A particular frustration I had with Arcs was drawing hands with only two types of suits, limiting my ability to perform desired actions like “influence.” Since I held the initiative, I had to lead with high-numbered cards, forcing me to continue as first player and leaving me stuck with actions that didn’t align with my goals. I later realized I could have passed the initiative, allowing my opponent to set a suit that I could copy for some small benefit.
Ultimately, while Arcs was enjoyable, the action selection mechanics made it feel like my actions were dictated by something external to the game’s theme. Each time I wanted to act, I had to shift from the immersive space theme back to a card game at the table. Moving forward, I’ve realized that the more a game’s action selection aligns with its theme, the more engaging and cohesive the experience feels.