Meta-enjoyment (or Deep Thoughts)
Hopefully briefer than the previous, and more directly influenced by the inevitable reaction to Grey Ranks winning the Indie RPG Awards.

So I will take part in that inevitable reaction, by asking: between the "high mindedness" of the game's theme, and the intricate interlocking rules structures, is this really a game that is played to be played, or a game that's played by jaded designers and critics because they're curious about said mechanics and/or how one might attempt to address a subject like this in game form? What's the difference?

I've never seen the game; I don't know the answer. A friend who participated in playtesting (and will remain anonymous) told me that the game wasn't really fully-baked rules-wise and the designer didn't seem receptive to problem reports--but that was quite a while ago, and whatever problems there were could well have been ironed out before release. I do have a general experience with the supposed clarity of Forge-y games, which forms part of my bias.

Anyway, I feel this must be a subject that's been dealt with in art criticism, but I wouldn't even know where to start. For me, it boils down to this: is there a point, particularly as a creator or critic, that you start to get equal or more enjoyment by analyzing "how" something works, compared to enjoying it for itself?

I have several caveats for those (including myself) who wish to pursue this line of thought:

• Enjoying exploring "how" something works almost requires that it works to begin with--to an extent. E.g., we get more enjoyment tracing the artifice and references in Shakespeare, notwithstanding anecdotes about deconstructing the backs of cereal boxes. On the other hand, this applies only "to an extent" with RPGs because "how" an RPG works always involves the participants; this turns the question from "how it works" (appreciation) to a "how can we make it work?" (interpretive praxis). If you enjoy figuring out how to make a game work, does that take you yet a further step away from enjoying the game itself?

• And even so, if "how can we make it work?" is the level of enjoyment you get, is that any less of a valid criterion for enjoying a game? I.e., isn't being thought-provoking a value in itself? Where does it stand in the hierarchy of enjoyment?

• Finally, how great of a distinction is there, really, between enjoying the thing in itself, and enjoying the process of its creation and interpretation?

I don't think I will be finding conclusive answers to these questions any time soon.

Besides, maybe Grey Ranks is just plain fun and ought to be on the shelf of Toys 'R Us next to Risk and Battleship.