I'd like to respond back, but I think you'd just repeat what you've said again.
At least I'm producing actual examples. You are stating nothing but sheer unadulterated meaningless nonsense.
Game boards (like all the pieces in the game) are function maps of the game's algorithm.
No they are not! There is no algorithmic way to produce a game board or the other pieces in the game. Monopolies game board wasn't produced by an algorithm, but a designer. Chesses game board wasn't produced by an algorithm, but a designer. In the same fashion, the 'game board' of an RPG is not normally produced by an algorithm, but a designer. Just as the pieces are. And in his role as DM, the DM has no limits on the pieces which he is able to create.
C1 is certainly convertible to the game engine as it stands.
What does that even mean? What game engine? Where is this game engine? Convertible in what fashion? It's a module? Are you saying it's not in the proper format to play D&D with until you do some sort of conversation?
If the players want it rather than something randomly generated, they can select it - once converted it's all the same.
What does it mean to 'convert' it?
Precisely because D&D is an infinite game, not an finite game. Per game theory terminology.
Stop using terms that it's clear you don't know what mean. Conway's Life is an infinite 'game', analyzable because it is based on a very small finite set of rules. D&D has an infinite number of rules, most of which by necessity are not in the game's text. D&D is therefore not analyzable in the same way that Conway's Life is. By restricting the number of pieces and moves to a very small set, that is by removing improvisation, you can transform D&D into something like Nethack, but it will be notably not like D&D precisely in that the players can't improvise (nor can the referee).
There is no such thing as freeform anything in games.
Good grief, have you never played Poker? Settlers of Cataan? Diplomacy? Even Monopoly? Tons of games have freeform elements. One way is to write something like, "Players may trade resources by any agreed upon method." That's freeform. Negotiation. But even where there is not negotiation, any skilled game player will tell you that the secret to many games is in how you manipulate and how you read the other players and influence their decision making. That's all freeform and its not amendable to mechanical analysis. Mechanical analysis can tell you the odds of winning. It can't tell you win and how to bluff, or how to identify find tells and tell them from false tells the player uses to cover and disguise his emotions.
But RPGs by having an infinite rules set takes this to a whole other level. It's a freeform world filled with freeform player actions free form DM resolutions and freeform conversations.
Gaming is the act of discovery, never invention.
If there is no invention, there is nothing to discover. Even in a case of Nethack, which is finite and mechanical, what is there to discover is what was invented by the designers. There is nothing there that wasn't put there by a process of invention. In the case of D&D, this process of invention is continually on going.
You must know you're rejecting obvious reality now. How can you not remember D&D before the 90s?
Dude, I remember gaming before the 80's. And you are just full of it. There are people here on these boards that remember Blackmoor and Greyhawk, and what you describe is just la-la-land. I don't know who you played D&D with, but this rote mechanical game you claim existed somewhere sure as heck wasn't what most people were playing, nor is it the game Gygax describes in the DMG, nor is the role you make of the DM the role Gygax gives to the DM. So somehow you are describing a pre 1979 game with a culture fundamentally different than the Blackmoor or Greyhawk tables and yet you think it is widespread?
FYI, D&D was actually a breakthrough because it uses extensionality to cover everything any player could ever, perhaps not imagine, but convey to a referee who converted that then into the game system so everything could be actually gamed.
Show me where this extensionality lies? On what page of the rules is this infinite extensibility to be found? How is it accomplished? And where are these 'conversion' rules you keep talking about? The OD&D especially and the AD&D rules as well are notably not comprehensive in the slightest. Where is this universal rules coverage that lets a referee mechanically turn input into output without bias or improvisation? The dang example of play in the 1e DMG contains multiple examples of the DM improvising on the spot, so how in the world are you claiming this extensibility exists without improvisation?
Generating them, as I said.
How was G1 'generated'? How was C1, S1, B2, S2, UK1, U1, I3, N1, L1, T1 and all the rest and all the fabled levels of Castle Greyhawk 'generated'? Where is this generator so that I can turn the handle and produce adventure modules that have the features of those adventures?
A referee in D&D (like in Mastermind) does not make choices after the game has begun.
That's blatantly at odds with the text of the example of play in the 1e DMG. It's not possible to play D&D without a DM that does not make choices, any more than it is at present possible to play D&D using a computer as a DM.
He designed massive amounts of rules to ensure D&D could be such a wonderful game and not fall into the non-game cesspit of improvisation. These rules may not have been all great, but their amount certifies his commitment to maintaining D&D's status as a game, for certain.
Do you think the rules set of D&D is ever complete? And which do you think came first, Gygax's on the spot ruling or the published rule? And is not also every DM a rules and content generating engine?