Not much common between games considered RPGs, I'd be inclined to say off the top of my head. Is there really much more than character development (usually in terms of character attributes and/or equipment) where the player has to focus on a relatively small number of characters at any given time (including just one character). I guess you could also make a case for a game without any real development if it contained a sufficient amount of choices and consequences, as long as it wouldn't fall into the adventure game genre, but you'd still have to have a similar cast of characters. That would probably require a sufficient amount of action as well, and with choices and consequences, it's really easy to have it accompanied by character development as well.

I'm tempted to say an RPG is a game where you focus a relatively small number of characters at any given time, and additionally there's character developent (as described above) and/or choices and consequences. But this makes a ton of games RPGs, so you probably have to disqualify games that fall more heavily into other genres instead, but realistically, I don't see why a game couldn't belong to multiple genres.

I honestly didnt know how "bare bones" OD&D was. They've added quite a lot to it since. That's rather cool to hear about the morphing RPG's did to become what RPG's and VG RPG's are now.

So do you think RPG's nowadays are missing that horror factor that OD&D had?

You can get close to open ended in a VG RPG by making 100's of outcomes, scenarios, NPC encounters, loot, character development, and things that can attack. But of course those would be closed routes, but may seem open ended to the normal player. If there were 100's of options for the VG RPG could that be more closely categorized as a true RPG?

Customisation hits the nail right on the head. 

Thats in every sense of the word too, even stuff like Haveing various items, and stats, that allow for differnt approaches to combat/problem solving.... is what makes it a role-playing game.

I view something like Fallout 1 & 2, as great exsamples of a RPG in this manner.
Theres plenty of differnt ways to skin a cat, in that game. 
Sure theres "in general its best to start with this perk, stats about so and so"... but you can basically get through the game, however you want.
You can make a melee character with bonus movement action points (for movement) that runs down things, and punches them to death.
You can make a 1 handed gun user, that that aims at body parts. A 2handed quick draw type, that just mows things down with big machine guns/rocket launchers ect.  You can be a smooth talker, sneaky character, that basically gets through the entire game, without much of any combat. Some charismatic person, that has a big following, that fights for him.

However there are RPGs where theres limited customisation.
You are this person, and this person can only do x,y,z..... and honestly thats fine too.
Like mentioned before, jrpgs typically dont allow nearly as much customisation as the wRPGs do.
Here the player, is the role they are playing, and they have to conform to certain limitations that fit the story/world/character you picked/have to play.


Freedom and choice, are also like key tennents of a rpg imo.
If your choices have little to no impact, and you have limited freedom to do things differntly than others that play said game.....
its not a very good rpg :P

(this is also why a game like Baldur's Gate 3 is so amasing)

RPG:
Roleplay -> decision-making (choice/freedom) -> character development (and advancement).
Character(s) undertake quests/plot, grow from their experiance, and advance their character(s), towards a endgoal usually following a story.

"And how has the original RPG evolved into nowadays RPG?"
I think the earliest video game rpgs.... when I think of them, are like the early final fantasy games, or dragon quest ones.
How are those differnt from modern RPGs? well for one, most of those where turn-based, with today a majority being action based.
The complexity and freedoms in newer games are much greater, than in older rpgs (as they should be).


"What can be done to elevate the RPG (or JRPG) experience?"

In my opion that happends organically.... by itself, no need to force things.
Differnt developers will attempt to try differnt things, to set their game apart.... and whats popular and works well, gets copied, andvances the genre.
I think when you set off to make a RPG, you just need to make sure the fundamentals are down, and the story,characters,world is great.


"What has been done to make the RPG (or JRPG) experience worse?"

I'm not always a fan of action rpgs.... sometimes rpg feels like its just a "tag" that gets put into anything and everything.
Where your left with a sense of.... is this even a rpg anymore? basically games that stray to far from the fundamentals, and even if they have a few rpg mechanics, honestly dont feel like it when you play them.


"What games have made RPGs (or JRPGs) better? or worse?"
The standouts... the ones that show, this is good, people like this. The ones that then inspire others, to make ones like it (ei. its popular, and gets copied).
However, I think theres also just ones that grow the space (if its done well).  
RPG is so broad a term, and theres alot of good games out there, with rpg mechanics.

End of the day, all that matters is if you enjoy it.
A good game is a good game :)

That's exactly what the early RPGs were like (nowadays we call them dungeon crawlers) until games like Ultima 4 and Dragon Quest came around.

Lord British and Sir-Tech (Ultima and Wizardly, respectively) both confirmed their games were heavily D&D-based.

To clarify my earlier point - I meant D&D from 1977, not the three-page pamphlet with the same name that existed since 1974.

Pretty simple, rocket propelled grenade

"What is it that makes a RPG and RPG, that is what I want to understand better. "

Among all gaming genres that are incredibly muddled, RPG is probably the most confusing. That is because it is one of the oldest yet consistently popular gaming genres and therefore it has been reinterpreted a lot.

"What are the basic foundations that determine what is a RPG?"

Well, going after the term directly it is a roleplaying game. But that is not very helpful, as this would make every game you assume the role of one character (role) to be a role playing game. So let's go historically. Video game RPGs derive from Pen&Paper RPGs, namely Dungeons&Dragons. Dungeons&Dragon brought some completely new ideas to board gaming and therefore got it's popularity.

Basically in Pen&Paper people sit around a table, everyone assuming the role of one character/role, some defining attributes are written down on a character sheet (with pen&paper) and then they embark on an adventure as a group (remember, multiple people sit around the table). This group is usually called adventuring party. One of the people assumes the role of gamemaster or dungeonmaster, his role is to tell the adventure and take on the role of all characters the party meets in the world and obstacles they meet in the world.

Dungeons&Dragons (henceforth D&D) is a fantasy RPG, it has a fantasy setting, so typical roles here are warrior, mage healer/cleric/priest, rogue/thief. You may notice this pattern from other fantasy media like movies and anime. D&D was very influential, especially in Japan (we come back to that for JRPG). If you watch Anime like Frieren, Delicious in Dungeon, Records of Lodoss War, Visions of Escaflowne and so on, they assume these patterns and show their influence by D&D. But Pen&Paper RPG is not limited to D&D and fantasy, you have supernatural, horror or science fiction Pen&Paper RPGs. If you watched or read The Expanse: this is based on a science fiction roleplaying adventure the authors apparently had, which is why you have a party of main characters (the crew of the Rocinante).

So the main characteristics of Pen&Paper RPGs are a party of characters, defining attributes of these characters (derived from D&D these attribtes are most often in numbers, but some Pen&Paper RPGs use also narrative definitions), character development over the course of multiple game sessions (aka, the character learns new skills and tricks, generally gets better at things or acquires new equipment, although some horror RPGs have character development towards insanity). If the characters face challenges, the outcome of these challenges is defined by the skill of the character as noted down on the character sheet, not the skill of the player. The player though makes strategical decisions about how to apply these skills in a given situation. But the result of these encounters may be different based on decision you made for the character in character creation/development long before the player knew about the encounter. The player also fully controls the creation of the character they play and how they change over time (character development). The narrative is guided by the game master, but the players with their decisions influence the direction of the narrative. The party usually consist of quite different characters with different skills that have to be used as a team to overcome challenges.

D&D as the first Pen&Paper RPG was released 1974. It caught on and pretty fast the first adaptions for computer, hence the first computer RPGs arrived: dnd (1974), pedit (1975), Dungeon (1975/76), Rogue (1980 - yes, this is the game the roguelike genre is based off).

For the computer adaptations the creators decided to let the computer take the role of the game master. As even with online capabilities available, the concrete solution for having multiple people play this together proved difficult, the early games were single player and later multiplayer RPGs differ in the way it works from Pen&Paper around a table. To adapt a RPG into singleplayer, the party structure had to be adapted. There were three ways: ditch the party completely and have a solitary main character, let the player only control the main character and have the party computer/AI controlled, let the player assume full control over the complete party.

So, I come up with this list of properties that a computer RPG derived from Pen&Paper can have (though not all RPGs have all these properties):

• party of characters
• full player control of all party characters
• character properties/attributes
• player control over character creation
• also for other party members than the main
• character development
• player control over the direction of character development
• also for other party member than the main
• player controlled equipment choices that influences the character abilities
• player decisions influence the narrative
• character skill over player skill
• strategic choices of usage of skills

This is my own list, in no way something definitive. And even games everyone considers an RPG may not check all of these boxes. So instead taking this list as a rigid definition, I use it as a scale to define RPG-ness of a game. A few examples:

• Baldur's Gate (main series) 11/12: party, full control of party characters, character properties, player controlled character creation (only main character), player controlled character development (full party), player controlled equipment choices, player decisions influence narrative, character skill, strategic choices
• Xenoblade Chronicles 6.5/12: party, only main controlled, character properties, no player control in creation, some limited player control in development (including party members), limited equipment choices (characters have defined equipment classes that limits their choices), no influence on narrative, character skill, strategic choices
• Elden Ring 7.5/12: no party, player controlled character creation/development, equipment choices, influence on narrative, character skill and player skill are equal (you can level up and change abilities and that influences a fight, but you still need some skill as a player), strategic choices
• Assassin's Creed 4.5/12: no party, no control on character creation, limited control over character development, equipment choices, no narrative influence, character and player skill are equally important, limited strategic choices (mostly weapon based)

I think you get an idea. Keep in mind, this is my personal way to define RPG-ness of a game, yours may differ and you can focus on different points in the list of properties of an RPG, add or remove some.

"And how has the original RPG evolved into nowadays RPG?"

Yeah, well, this is a complicated story and not at all one direction. There is no straight line from early direct D&D computer adaptations to modern RPGs. Thing is, developers focused on different attributes of what makes an RPG to them to develop further. Including game devs who never played or knew Pen&Paper RPGs. This moved games considered RPGs in very different directions. For instance some devs focused on narrative elements, other on stats and numbers and character development. Also it is a very deliberate choice how much the skill of the player influences the outcome and how much character creation/development choices (character skill) influences it and can strongly change how a game feels. So these days you have lots of games considered RPGs or having RPG elements, that look decidedly very different from each other.

"How does a RPG differ from a JRPG?"

Not at all. JRPGs are RPGs, but from Japan. Japanese devs were influenced by D&D but also by early western computer RPGs, especially Wizardry and Ultima. What many people call JRPGs is basically a mix of these two games. There is one component: Japan had a strong gaming scene with visual novels and they mixed that into their RPGs. So there was a time when japanese RPGs mostly focused on narrative development and kept mechanical stuff with classic turn-based games, while western RPGs abandoned turn-based mechanics for flashier action based combat and a focus on combat. This also moved western RPGs of that time towards single character games instead of parties. But all that is "mostly". From Software as a japanese dev had a very different direction than what people would consider "JRPGs" with their King's Field series and later Souls-games. And some western developers stayed with partys based, turn-based strong narrative games like early Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Wasteland and so on. These days the different branches have mixed and western games are influenced by japanese and vice versa. I think the distinction of JRPGs was weak then and is completely pointless today.

"What can be done to elevate the RPG (or JRPG) experience?"

Do you mean as a dev or player? As a player sometimes it is better to just roll with the punches and let even bad outcomes stay, if the game allows. And look what to make with a bad situation. As a game dev I would say give the player more agency. I know that if devs want to have a tight control over the narrative, player agency might be detrimental, as they can completely derail the story. But two things: first, why choose a RPG as genre if you want a tightly controlled narrative. And secondly: maybe these player created moments can be hilarious, fun and very memorable.

"What has been done to make the RPG (or JRPG) experience worse?"

Well, the worst thing is using some RPG mechanics of "numbers go up" for binding players into games that have become unfun for a long time already, but bind them in a grind to the next weapon level, better equipment. This is the scourge of the GaaS games and the worst thing ever.

It goes hand in hand with level adjusted enemies. The numbers of your character and your equipment goes up, but so does the enemies, so it is completely pointless, it cancels each other out. This is most notable in online RPGs: if a level one player and a level 50 player attack the same enemy, the level 50 player may see a higher damage number, but thehealth bar goes down the same percentage - even if the absolute numbers seem different. This is completely pointless. If you are a dev and considering level scaling, then ask yourself: wouldn't I achieve the same better, if I remove levels completely? Level scaling is the negation of RPG mechanics.

"What games have made RPGs (or JRPGs) better? or worse?"

Well classic games like Ultima and Wizardry were highly influental and have defined the genre. Other massively influental games were Dragon Quest, Diablo, World of Warcraft, Souls games. If you consider this influence good or bad is up to you. :)

I personally like the ideas of games like Baldur's Gate, Wasteland/Fallout (the isometric ones), Fire Emblem.

Yeah, OD&D was very focused game of going on adventure to get a loot - what happens during that adventure is anybodies guess, but eventually you want that loot. And there are craploads of things that are standing in the way, and if you're not clever, you'll end up dead fairly soon. So players didn't feel too attached to their characters, cause they were dying fairly easily, but luckily character creation was really quick (as opposed to modern D&D). AD&D 2e, which is most successful edition before 5e, started adding "non-weapon proficiencies", in response to popularity of skill-based systems, which culminated in WotC's "reimaging" of D&D (once they bought it from TSR) and 3e being full of skills (although still not being actual unified skill based system).

TTRPGs evolved quite a bit from early days of dungeon crawling and there are all sorts of genres these days - some mechanically still focus on "simulation" part, some modern are more "narrative" (so much that they are more a collaborative storytelling than an actual game). I don't think D&D necessarily has to be about survival horror, but modern D&D lacks focus in its desire to be game for everyone, and thus it's not that good of a game for anyone. Jack of all trades, master of none, so to speak, while not being universal system (like GURPS, or BRP) that actually can support that in some capacity. Don't get me wrong, you can still get quite a millage out of it, it's just that whatever type of TTRPG you want to play there are much better offerings out there.

Technically, yes, you can get close to open ended design, if you figure out the way to account for everything players can come up with and incorporate it in the game. Practically, still no - there are way too much things you would need to account for, and if you're aiming at high production values, you'll end up with a game that costs insane amounts of money, while still not being able to reproduce TTRPG experience. BG3 is good example of VG RPG that tries that, and ultimately fails, given its very funnel based structure.

For fully open ended VG RPG you would probably need physics based world based on systems, instead of fixed mechanics and (simplified) simulation of that world to be happening behind the curtains at all times. There is some development in that direction (The Wayward Realms, being made by folks who created TES: Arena and TES: Daggerfall could be that one), but I don't think we'll actually see VG RPG that has TTRPG freedoms, while retaining player engagement, until we have fully interactable physics based game worlds and AI capable of being GM, thus being able to improvise on the spot (which what RL GMs do). I don't expect this to happen very soon, but not too far in the future either.

Don't get me wrong, I've been playing VG RPGs for 4 decades now, and enjoyed a lot of them, even with all the limitations they inherently have. And I'll keep playing them, although, to be honest, there are fewer and fewer games that even pretend trying to be open ended in design, so, as always, I keep looking at the B-Tier horizon where some ambitous devs are trying to cobble up something that will, hopefully, stand out.

This actually sound a lot like Darkest Dungeon. I haven't thought about it before, but that game actually could come close to the megadungeon of original D&D - parties sent into the unknown to hopefully come back with some loot and more experience but also more scars. The difference is that Darkest Dungeon uses a more supernatural/Lovecraftion horror setting than classic fantasy.

That playstyle is very much still alive, especially in OSR circles. It is one I grew up with (I started in 80s with AD&D, and my DM had very Arneson/Gygax type of mindset, dungeons, hexcrawling and all) and I still implement a lot of those ideas in my games.