I don't like the "theme vs mechanics" framing because it suggests a conflict where one side should be the winner, and in some instances it might not be the best axis to think about an issue. I like to think about it from a usability perspective, more concretely in terms of affordances. What mechanics are suggested by this ui/theming/visual representation/narrative arcs/...? and similarly the other way around.
I feel if you examine any theming carefully enough, all games kind of fall apart. So you want enough parts to point a certain direction to avoid unnecessary examination. Your board game example is good to illustrate this, given that at an "ui" level the game suggest (perhaps via a personal tableau with card sized slots) a certain limit, you never have to make sense of it by other means, nor you get to question it at theming level, where it would certainly fall apart.
I don't like the "theme vs mechanics" framing because it suggests a conflict where one side should be the winner, and in some instances it might not be the best axis to think about an issue. I like to think about it from a usability perspective, more concretely in terms of affordances. What mechanics are suggested by this ui/theming/visual representation/narrative arcs/...? and similarly the other way around.
I feel if you examine any theming carefully enough, all games kind of fall apart. So you want enough parts to point a certain direction to avoid unnecessary examination. Your board game example is good to illustrate this, given that at an "ui" level the game suggest (perhaps via a personal tableau with card sized slots) a certain limit, you never have to make sense of it by other means, nor you get to question it at theming level, where it would certainly fall apart.
Thanks for the comment. I wouldn't say that theme "vs" mechanics - they aren't natural enemies but sometimes they don't align.