You are both quite wrong. Twesterms original statement that an RPG is not a Role Playing Game is much more accurate. While the name is the same, what constitutes an RPG in gaming is some sort of leveling system, some sort of stat distribution/ability customization, and some degree of exploration (although LOL @ FFXIII trying to lose that), and twesterm is wrong because Mass Effect has all of these. "Gear" is not a requirement of an RPG in gaming.
As for your friends giving the standard toolish argument "Rawr JRPGs aren't like pen and paper and thus suck ass," this is a rather ridiculous argument for multiple reasons. First, not all JRPGs are inherintly linear. Dragon Quest for example, built its entire franchise name on having a massive overworld and tons of freedom in character progression, and very few games give you as much control over the "role" of your character and his life as Persona 3/4. Similarly, WRPGs in no way match the pen & paper conventions either. What GM makes an RPG with no plot at all (Oblivion) and super-powered rats (Oblivion) and lets you spend all your time in houses stealing worthless silverware (Oblivion) and never bothered to take the time to actually add some fuckign content into the massive open world (Oblivion)?
Neither JRPGs or WRPGs are role playing games. That doesn't mean they haven't established their place in gaming as a genre. If you want to argue that Mass Effect 2 is more of a role playing experience than the others, that's fine. I'm with you there. If you want to use it as a chance to call all other gaming RPGs crappy, you've lost me.
