My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games

[Ovinomancer]

The DM plays the game during combat, and when role-playing one or more established NPCs either in or out of combat, and when adjudicating things specified under the rules. Most of the rest of what a DM usually does comes under set-up.

What about games that don't feature combat, or who don't use traditional mechanics (like, say, Amber Diceless)? This definition of play is ridiculously narrow. I suppose it's consistent, in that you've defined everything as set-up except a narrow range of things, and done so only for RPGs, and therefore preserved your definition of RPGs as different from other games, but it's really just a load of special pleading, yeah?

For instance, under this metric, which part of playing Pictionary is playing? Drawing is setup for the guesses, so, no. Guessing only then? The only people playing Pictionary are the ones actively guessing and then only when they guess? What a strange set of definitions you have, and I cannot agree with them at all. Spiraling down increasingly silly distinctions to preserve your premises isn't exactly winning, you know.

So here the players are taking on some of the GM's set-up duties; and the GM is more of an adjudicator.

The same relative amount of set-up vs. play still occurs, only the people doing it and the times it is done are different than in a traditional game.

Two things:

1) there's no GM set-up duties to take on. This is implying that the GM has this duty and is giving it to the player, but I've scoured my Blades rulebook and there are no set-up duties mentioned anywhere. What you're doing it bringing in your assumptions and then assigning them to the games. In this case, you've assumed that the GM has set-up duties inherently, and so this rule of Blades is sharing those out. This isn't true at all. In Blades, these are the areas of responsibility and authority -- there's no sharing out because there's no point at which the GM has responsibility or authority over what's possible.

2) it's silly to claim that authority over what's possible is set-up duties at all. I declare "what's possible" in play by making an action declaration. This is then tested by the mechanics. A declaration could be 'I stab the guard with my sword before he raises the alarm' which, according to your above, counts as combat and therefore play. But, just as easily, I could say, "I pick the lock on the kitchen back door." Both are tested with exactly the same mechanics in Blades -- an action roll. They are presented and tested using the mechanics with the same set of guidelines for adjudication (ie, the DM sets position and effect, a 6 is a succes, 4-5 partial success with complication, and 1-3 failure). Done. There's no 'set-up' here because the mechanics require an action nomination, the action nomination is up to the player (what's possible is a player authority), and the test for success uses the mechanics. This is entirely play.

Anything to do with defining the setting is by definition set-up. Seems here that some high-level stuff is done by the GM ahead of time (choosing to use the default setting and all that follows from this choice) while the players - and maybe the GM to an extent - do the low-level set-up during play. Simple enough.

But, everything defines the setting. If I kill that orc in combat, that defines the setting (an orc was killed here). Your answers are circular. Set-up is defined as anything that defines the setting, and setting is anything that you set-up before, during, or after play (a nonsensenical answer to begin with, but that bridge was crossed long back). You're using the Humpty-Dumpty defense, here:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Cool. I've occasionally managed to do some heist/skullduggery stuff using 1e but yeah, the system does tend to fight back.

The question in reverse then becomes: is Blades flexible enough to decently run a Gygaxian dungeon crawl?

Lanefan

Goodness, why would you expect it to?