You're just starting to notice how ambiguous labels are?

The entire point to an RPG is to enable you play a role.

Many game types are defined by their purpose, not by their so-called elements. A golf game's purpose is to let you to play golf. A racing game's purpose is to let you to race. A war game's purpose is to let you play war. A flight simulator's purpose is to let you pilot an aircraft. A role-playing game's purpose is to let you play a role. It's as simple as that.

There are a million ways a game can enable you to play a role and there are a million ways a game can provide feedback for your role.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpFQkcOzgTo

Role Playing Game

Its primary purpose is to set you into the role of a character. Secondary (but no less vital) function is to play a mechanical based game centred around the role playing. I think this is an RPG at its most broad definition, and some people on one side get mad at the people on the other and all the other shades in between.

Edit
Role Playing and Playing Game. Role Playing Game.

:meh:

Definition, schmefinition. A game can be called Strategy without the need to whittle it down to Turn-Based or Real-Time or Sim. It can also be called a Racing game without the need to differentiate Simulation from Arcade from Top-Down. Sure, those additional layers may benefit those who are quite particular in their tastes, but the broader definition is not ambiguous and can by default be satisfactorily applied to all games that its layers define. Just as apples and oranges are both fruits, so too are the various RPGs.

And a pre-emptive :toughninja: to whomever is first tempted to compare apples to cauliflower.

Instead of defining what is an RPG, why not defining what isn't an RPG?

Anyway, I don't see what all the fuss is about. If in the game you play a character whose stats you can (choose how to) develop, then it's an RPG.

TBGEM?