Manbearcat
Legend
Okay, I definitely do not mean to embrace any great flattening. However, I also want to look closely at the details. Would you agree that there is a necessary matching to be done? Someone has to say that this description matches to this rule. SFAIK that's not possible to automate in TTRPG except in artificially narrow cases (e.g. the only permitted descriptions are those exactly matching a rule), but as I called attention to it can itself can be governed by rules (and thence the great unflattening!)
I feel like your concerns are really as to the latter, not the former, right? I ought to acknowledge the unflattening done by those rules that govern the matching of description to rule; and I do! That's distinct from giving up the by my lights proper observation that the description must be matched to a rule (and that ultimately someone decides that.)
“The description.” Of what? Its not clear to me.
And I’m assuming “the description” isn’t idiosyncratic to a particular game, here? You’re applying “the description” (whatever that might be…I’m assuming this a stable phenomenon you’re envisioning…some routine thing that occurs in all games?) across all games I hope?
Well, that seems to restate my concern, because I'm aiming to look at what rules do, not what procedures do. A procedure or play loop will typically involve multiple rules, right? It could be that it's wrong to try to look at what individual rules do, but that would be quite a different criticism. It would be to say that we should only look at procedures, rather than that rules are procedures.
Maybe I am influenced by software terms. When I say procedural, I don't mean a single rule: I mean a series of rules. Perhaps in a different domain the meaning of procedure really is the same as rule.
To be clear, I’m not restating your concern (which isn’t clear to me what this concern is…is it the “matching a description to a rule” idea above?). I’m (a) differentiating procedures and rules (procedures are a particular subset of rules), (b) confirming pemerton’s historical usage of procedures vs rules, (c) and agreeing with that usage.
From wider reading of game studies I would say that mechanics are usually taken to be actions players can take to change the game state. That's similar to your definition, but not identical. As an example, Miguel Sicart defines game mechanics as "methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world." In esports commentary, if a player has "good mechanics", it means they grasp exactly how those methods work and are adept at employing them. The first line of your definition in isolation is close to how I am thinking of rules.
All of the above that you’ve expressed looks to me to be mapping computer game design philosophy onto TTRPGs. I don’t think a wider reading of game mechanics (whether it be in physical sport, computer games broadly, or esports specifically) is helpful to TTRPG discussion or design.
Take your “mechanics are actions players can take to change the gamestate above.” Ok, that omits Wandering Monster rolls, Camp/Town Event rolls, Monster Reaction rolls, Blades in the Dark Fortune rolls, NPC/Threat/Obstacle rolls during Contests or Conflicts, etc. That is a glaring omission of content generating dice rolls, which players don’t roll, that significantly change the gamestate. Binning them outside of “mechanics” seems like something computer game derived philosophy would do because these things are automated or fixed in that medium; therefore not a part of the user’s experience and not a fundamental, dynamism-infusing part of play as they are in TTRPGs.
So, in the same way that I wouldn’t map a conversation about a pitcher’s delivery mechanics, or a BJJ player’s arm drag and top game mechanics, or a basketball player’s shooting mechanics, I don’t think its correct or helpful to use computer game design philosophy of esports jargon to attempt to capture either the fullness or novelty of TTRPG mechanics.