I'm not disputing the original classification which most people base their opinions off of. I'm saying the original classification was wrong and that is where all the confusion arises from. The original D & D and other early WRPGS should not have been considered RPG's. Due to people's relation to these games that are more about controlling the role rather than playing it, they have formed this perception that JRPG's which are drastically different from this mold should not be classified as RPG's. This has also led to other features that are not necessary to be associated with RPG's such as stats, leveling, and luck.

I think people should keep their description witin reasonable bounds, as long as the emphasis of a game is on playing the role of the lead character, whether one has control over their direction or not, this should be classified as an RPG.

That's pretty broad. By that definition, Halo would count as an RPG as you're playing the role of Master Chief.

@Jumpin: I like the emphasis on Gameplay in your definition. With a pen&paper RPG you also don't need to show skill as a player, you only state what the character does and success is decided based on what you have written at the character sheet and dices.

@Scoobes: I fully agree on the storyline and AI-aspect you wrote. Also that the freedom of nonlinear games give you at least some illusion, that you control the story.

@neerdowell: This acting out a scripted story with the main character you play is classical called an adventure. In Monkey Island you play Guybrush Threepwood, the story is fixed, you lead the character through this story, so act out the character based on the script of the game. And I agree, that Role Creating Game would be a very fitting name for classic RPGs.

Huh, what? Pen&Paper RPG are where RPG computer/video games come from, and you very much ROLE PLAY in them - if you ever played D&D you'd know that good playing involves being in your character and behaving like you're expected to behave in accordance to your character's story and alligment. That doesn't mean you're destined to one path like in most JRPGs, it just means you will be limited to a degree in your choices.

I'm not particularly fond of that characterization myself as well, but since the genre is very hard to define, they have room to manouver when it comes to including those games. 

That's why I said that the sub-genre characterization is probably the most correct one, because the sub-genres have more defined patterns which are easier to recognize and separate. 

Except with Halo the emphasis is only on one portion of Master Chief's life (mainly the battles). In typical RPG's you may find yourself doing multiple tasks associated with some aspect of the character's role (roaming towns, training). In Halo, I would say that Master Chief and the story is secondary to the shooter / multiplayer aspects.

Even so, I admit, it is a crappy definition and that is why there is a great deal of confusion. The genre is too broad because the idea of playing a role is too vague. There are too many different ways and degrees to play a role.

Honestly, I would still consider any form of control that influences the story or personality of the character to be more improvising / creating than playing a role. What I am saying is that the original RPG's should have never been called as such because it has led to a great deal of confusion where it is assumed that you must maintain some level of control in the role. You could by all means still consider this playing a role; however, it does not mean that a lack of improvisation / creation is any less of playing a role.

If one watches a movie, with no control over the finished product, nobody disputes that an actor plays a role. With RPG's however, people dispute what it means to play a role.

Perhaps I might have been more accurate in stating that certain features of the early games have been mistakenly attributed to the genre instead of being attributed solely to the games. Just because being able to assume some level of control in your characters was present in early RPG's doesn't mean it is a required feature.

Sadly, I feel this perception has limited the genre a great deal. The more control you allow the player to assume, the less you allow developers to assume. This isn many ways creates a very loose feeling. That is fine for some games; however, this notion has largely monopolized WRPG's and as such developers have saw little reason to craft an intricate story for fear that they will take too much control out of the player's hands.

This seems relevant to the discussions here:

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/09/21/what-makes-a-classic-rpg-everything/

Quite an interesting analysis on classic RPGs.

I get what you mean, though "looseness" of story is not that much present in WRPGs as people usually think - Bethesda games do have it (and people seem to measure all WRPGs lately against them), but if you want to expirience what I consider pinnacle of WRPGs try Planescape: Torment, and you'll see that story is very, very important part of your character, without taking away freedom of choice you have as a player to develop him further to your own liking.

Everywhere else? A game where players take on an active persona in a fictional world, shaping the narrative of a story from that perspective. Without the players, it's called storytelling, without the fictional world, it's called madness, and without a role in shaping the story, it's called acting.

In video games? Apparently, if it has a levelling system, it's an RPG.