I’ve been thinking, one of the problems with the concept of game mechanics is it is not always clear who the mechanics work for, and at what level. Mechanics can refer to and include:

1. The designer’s intentions.
2. The actual consequences and results of the system-based code in the wild.
3. The understanding and intentions of the player.
4. The staging and real-world unfolding of events due to code, circumstance, and player’s decisions.

Tabletops (physical boardgames) remove the abstraction of code and system-based rules.

1. The designer’s intentions.
2. The staging and real-world unfolding of events due to code, circumstance, and player’s decisions.
3. The understanding and intentions of the player.

I want to move from simple prototypes to playable boardgames to digital implementations of serious games. Creating reactive rather than reflective players, for this purpose, extrinsic learning, would not be ideal.

And adding the missing layer of code to the playability and immediateness of physical games/boardgames/physical prototypes should not get in the way of engagement and understanding. But it often does. SO: understanding how to add rather than destabilize with that fourth step, CODE, would be of use to me.