dtgreene: Here is a thing. An RPG has to be an RPG; if it turns into an action game, it no longer is the sort of game someone looking for an RPG is looking for. This can especially be a problem for disabled gamers; a disabled gamer with poor reflexes can play RPGs because they don't require quick reflexes; once you add in the need for quick reflexes, the game becomes inacessible to the player. (A disabled gamer posted a complaint about Albion not that long ago.)
Another question: How would you feel about a game that requires what would reasonably be considered an exploit in order to proceed? (The game I've been playing lately, Wizardry Gaiden 3, has required that on 2 separate occasions.)
Edit: I should note that I can sometimes enjoy RPGs that are completely different from others, as long as they're still RPGs and not action games that pretend to be RPGs. (An example of such a game I enjoy is Wizardry 4.) I also sometimes enjoy action games, sometimes with RPG elements, but I never count such games as RPGs. (Of note, I strongly prefer 2D action games to 3D ones.)
I'm not going to derail this thread with a long, drawn-out back-and-forth with you (so I'll just do one long, drawn-out reply :P ); suffice it to say that not all (or even most) games are going to be accessible to all people. A game's accessibility is a choice that has to be weighed by every developer, but most have an idea of the audience(s) they want to cater to. There is nothing inherently wrong with making a game that caters to a particular audience, at the expense of appeal to other subsets of people (including those with physical disabilities); nor, of course, is there anything wrong with catering specifically to those subsets, or with trying to cover the broadest spectrum possible (though, obviously, this approach is rather difficult to do successfully). NO game can be both accessible and interesting to everyone -- not even within a particular sub-sub-subgenre.
Also, this...
An RPG has to be an RPG; if it turns into an action game, it no longer is the sort of game someone looking for an RPG is looking for.
...is kind of what I meant by you speaking in absolutes, and assuming everyone else wants what you want from a given kind of game. For one thing, you are no more an authority than anyone else on what RPG "should" mean. Moreover, there is plenty of room for many variations and subtypes within any given genre, and if no one ever innovated or combined different genres, no new genres or subgenres would ever be created (let alone games which defy genre classification entirely). It doesn't matter if a game's labeled 'RPG' or not (genre labels are so often inaccurate or inadequate as to render them fairly useless); simply look for games that contain the
features that you want them to, and be happy for other people that they get games with features that
they want, even if you can't stand those features, and can't understand why they're lumped into the same genre with games that only have a general setting-type (e.g., "medieval fantasy") and a couple underlying mechanics in common with them.
Regarding your "exploits-required" game: a game that was
designed to require the discovery and use of weird exploits or degenerate strategies (although, if an exploit vector was put into a game
on purpose, then, by definition, it wouldn't really BE an exploit) would be fine, could even be even interesting...but the market for people who'd be really into that concept would probably be somewhat limited (though who knows...). Of course, if the game WASN'T designed this way on purpose, but still absolutely
required the use of exploits, I'd say that was just a very poorly-designed game. That doesn't mean it's a BAD game,
per se, nor does it mean it can't still be fun, of course (at least for some), but it's definitely shoddy game design.