RPG's started without computers as Pen&Paper-RPG's. Some guys sitting around a desk (often eating pizza), and everyone has a paper with some numbers on it. One guy (the gamemaster) tells a story and everyone says, what his character is doing in the situation. Sometimes there will be rolled a dice and if the character or the monster dies depends on the number of the dice and the numbers on the paper. The name means, that everyone in this round plays actually a role. So it was called RPG. Early computer-rpg's (rogue and nethack) take mostly the number-part. So on computer RPG is mostly associated with levelling, attributes and skills.

I consider it a game where you REALLY develop your character through your actions. But with that definition, almost only the Bioware rpgs are real rpgs :)

The definition of the genre is more like an adventure game, with leveling, and emphasis on story.

I'm quite thrilled that as time moves on in the game world the lines have blurred with rpgs. RPG elements are in my opinion a way to make any game better. I love what Bioware has done with Jade Empire allowing you to level up and use points to power up different fighting styles. I also like what was done in Godfather were you earn skill point and can attribute them to different skills. I even like in Hulk 2 you earned smash points that allowed you to buy new moves. I guess they are now calling it rpg-light. Not to get off subject but I also notce many gaming genres are blurring, adventure elements are showing up more and more in other games. Same thing with strategy and such, I think it's great.

 Now now, there's alot more than that. Oblivion blows the doors off anything I've seen from Bioware.

I have made my thoughts about this question too, and I think there are three points which make a rpg a rpg.

first, it is the battle system. This is more complex than in adventures. In adventures, you have to find the weak point of your opponent and then hit him between 3 and 9 times. In a rpg, the opponent has a number of live points which have to be taken away from him. This is done with a lot of different attacks, and depending on the opponent some are stronger and some are weaker.

second, you can level your character, and he has livepoints and not hearts or honeycombs or something like that.

third, and in my eyes most important for the gameplay of an rpg, there is the story. but the difference does not lie in the overall story, because a lot of rpg's don't have more interesting stories than zelda or metroid or even mario. the difference is how the story develops. in zelda, somebody tells you that you have to get three (or five, or seven) items, and then you go to dungeons to get them. in rpgs, you follow a goal, but on your way you will visit many cities where the people have problems and you have to help them. this will not only help those people but also you.

 Y'know I liked Kotor and I liked fable... My main gripe was with the generics of the stories. Like at the end of fable you ..... let me not spoil it for some here but lets just say some of these games make it seem like your choices are affecting the story but when you get to the end of the game they give themselves a way out.

To me, RPG is about choices.

Choosing who you are, what you're becoming, how you deal with various situations, how you impact the global events.

The more choices, the more I can "play" a character, instead of being forced to be the passive "spectator" of a character's defined actions.