Wait, what?
The definition of an RPG as Game Design Engine can be stated:
This is irrelevant - the statement I have objected to is not about what is or is not a game engine, it's "D&D is not a game". What is relevant are the definitions of "game" and "D&D". We need to know the exact definition of both that are being used, and also why we should accept your idiosyncratic definition over the dictionary and/or common usage.
If I take a definition of 'game' and determine that almost nothing that is called 'games' qualify as a game, I'm not going to accept that definition because the definition is clearly absurd, and is not useful for communicating with other humans.
So, I'm frankly rather baffled why you think there's ambiguity here. Games don't qualify as RPG's for the simple fact that games ALWAYS stipulate the initial set up and moves.
This gets closer to giving a definition of a 'game', but runs into the problem that almost none of the things commonly considered games qualify as games under the definition.
Lots of games don't stipulate initial setup - Chess is played with a variety of different starting positions, so doesn't specify an initial setup. Chess also includes different methods for determining which player plays which color. Axis and Allies 1942 specifies one setup in the core rules, but tournaments and online ranked version use a different setup.
Not all games have 'moves' - Poker, Bridge, and Go Fish, ad traditional card games in general don't have movement as a mechanic so don't specify any moves. Some like Poker doesn't set initial conditions or victory within the core game rules - Hoyle's doesn't tell you how much money or how many chips you have at the table, or how to 'win' or 'lose' at poker as a whole rather than individual hands.
RPG's don't qualify as games because RPG's outright reject that setup. Now, the GAME comes in once you have created your campaign.
The rules for creating a campaign are part of the rules of the game, even if we limit "D&D" to the three core books of the current edition. So for this to be true, you'd need to define "D&D" in such a way that the part of the books about creating scenarios doesn't count. But you'll have to work pretty hard to justify it - I don't even accept your contention
Further, some versions of D&D include a scenario in the core package or core books, like the Starter Set and 1e rulebooks. So there is an actual scenario
I’ve been quite clear about the definition of game that I’m operating under, and it’s consistent with most definitions used in discussing game design and theory. Games are voluntary activities involving clear goals, restrictions surrounding the pursuit of those goals that create uncertainty in the outcome, and measurable feedback regarding progress towards those goals (which often includes a state of failure).
You haven't been clear, and aren't even within this post. You still haven't specified what exactly your definition of "D&D" is, and why other people should accept it. And when we apply your rules to determine "what is D&D" to games like Chess, Poker, Go-fish, tag, Skyrim, or The Sims, do we get consistent and sensible results, or do we break down into things like "we can't refer to Chess, we have to name every variant rule and every tournament and ranking format as one game and accept that Chess is not a game" and "we can't refer to Skyrim as a game, we have to name every single edition and every patch level and every mod combination as a different game".
What?? Where on earth did you get that idea? No, D&D isn’t a game because it does not inherently have goals or victory/loss conditions. Those must be set by the individual game (i.e. the adventure or the campaign) that the engine is being used to run.
What are the goals and win/loss conditions of Poker? What are the goals and win/loss conditions of Chess? Bear in mind that for consistency the goals and win/loss conditions need to apply universally, they can't be set by the individual game (including the table, tournament, or other grouping of people), as otherwise just like D&D they're not inherent to the game.
All of those games have goals and victory/loss conditions. That you can agree as players to change those parameters doesn’t mean the parameters didn’t initially exist as part of the game. And one could argue that changing those parameters results in a different game.
This directly contradicts your earlier claim that you're being quite clear about what qualifies as a game or not - 'one could argue' is the opposite of 'quite clear'. Are any of Chess, Poker, Go-fish, Axis and Allies, Skyrim, Tag, SimCity and other things like that 'games' or not under your allegedly clear definition? If they're not, your definition of 'game' is at odds with common usage, the dictionary, and simple utility for communication. If they are, then you've contradicted the part of your clear definition that says a game must have win/loss conditions, as they don't have a single set of win/loss conditions or goals.
That the parameters can be edited doesn’t change the fact that the initial parameters existed as an inherent part of the game. By changing them, you’re basically creating a new, similar but slightly different, game. You cannot play D&D without setting those parameters, because they aren’t an inherent part of the system, therefore I do not think the system can be considered a game.
FYI, I generally play D&D without a win/loss parameter specified beyond 'have fun playing', I go in to enjoy playing the game but don't have a win/loss at the end of a session. A campaign might end upon reaching a specific goal, but also we might just keep playing until people's schedules don't match up. So another problem with your definition is that you're telling people it's impossible for them to do something they commonly do.
