Thing is, the gameplay features I am mentioning, that of stat and dice based resolution, are just as important to RPGs as collision based resolution and real time gameplay is to the action genre.

(Worth noting that my definitions don't put RTS into the action category because actions aren't generally resolved via collisions the way they are in action games.)

There's also the fact that it's quite easy to get a customizable camera wrong. (See, for example, Super Mario 64.)

Edit: Also, having the camera be player controllable means there's one more thing for the player to worry about, and some players might not want the extra cognitive load (or, in an action or other real-time game, not want to have to juggle the camera with everything else going on).

One other notion I have:
* Watch a clip of a game that shows some reasonably typical gameplay (not a minigame, for example). You should be able to tell the game's genre from that clip.
* Let's apply this test to a Ys game. We take a reasonable clip, say of a boss fight from Ys Origin (or pretty much any other Ys game). Just from this clip, the game is clearly an action game. The way that the boss fight plays out, and the sort of things the player needs to do to defeat the boss, are clearly representative of an action game. (In an RPG, there's often use of healing at the right time, as well as suitable use of temporary stat modifiers and status effects (when they work); none of this is found in Ys.) Yet, this is a series that people often apply the "RPG" label to, and it's clearly inappropriate here.

Also, of the games that I remember generally being called RPGs back in the day, the vast majority would count under my definition. (I don't remember the "RPG" label being used for games like Zelda 1 and Secret of Mana back when they were first released.)

It was definitely used for Eye of the Beholder though, which is an action game by your definition.

It seems to me as if you don't acknowledge subgenres, and if that's the case, of course every genre definition will be either too broad or too strict, with all the variety we have in videogames. There are lots of very different games that are often associated with the term RPG, but that's not because people can't see the differences but because they still see a common denominator or similarity. One solution for that, which you seem to deny, is using terms like "ARPG", "turn-based RPG" etc., instead of making real-time action or turn-based tactics a defining criterium.

But anyway, the real problem here is that definitions are only useful as long as they are established, accepted and understood by a majority. When you say "... isn't an RPG" (actually meaning "... isn't an RPG by my definition"), while the people you talk to say "... is an RPG" because they have their very own definitions as well, and there is no definition that everyone can agree on - what good are those subjective definitions to anyone then, in terms of communication? All genre definitions are flawed in one way or another, it's less about how "right" they are and more about how useful they are to make yourself understood when talking with others.

Actually, if you look at my definition, games that use character stats and dice rolls to determine the success of actions can count as RPGs, and I'm pretty sure Eye of the Beholder does that.

(I haven't actually played EotB, but I *have* played both Dungeon Master and Dungeon Hack, which are definitely the same type of game (albeit with DH being more of a roguelite variation on the theme).)

Don't you have anything to say about Leroux's last paragraph?

Does Skyrim not have stats? Why are dice rolls so important?

It's been so long since I've played Skyrim so I can't really comment on that, I only play the total conversion Enderal for Skyrim at the moment, which works a bit more like Gothic, but success in that definitely has to do with your stats, not your skills.

Because there is nothing better than the thrill of the ultimate area effect spell in the game doing D100 damage.

A mage can can either destroy an entire army in one turn, or cause 50 monsters to suffer a pinprick.

Will it be armageddon? Will it be a fizzer? Who knows but the dice gods.

Suffice to say I'm not a fan of the way Might and Magic 1 handled dice rolls.

Dice rolls (or at least *not* having player skill determine the success of actions) are important because it's what distinguishes RPGs from action games.

The idea is that the player's role in an RPG is to direct the characters to perform actions, and perhaps to train them to perform the actions well, not to actually perform the actions themself.

Quite often, the strategy in an RPG is about mitigating the risk and consequence of getting bad rolls.

For example:
* Status ailments can be useful. See an enemy that can cast a nasty spell? Try disabling its magic, or putting it to sleep.
* Sometimes, it's worth spending a resource to avoid disaster. Enemy about to blow up, possibly wiping out your entire party (or even just the only party member with revive magic)? Just use that ultimate spell you've been saving for just this sort of emergency.
* Healing can be an interesting tactical decision with some factors. Do you heal the character who's about to die if not healed, or do you instead heal the mid-health character whose survival is more important? Also, in games where you select your commands at the start of the round, it can be useful to build the healer to reliably act either before the enemies (which can be quite an investment of speed boosts) or after the enemies (handy for characters with party-wide healing abilities); this way the boss doesn't get a chance to act twice in-between your heals, an event that often leads to disaster.

I fail to see the difference between EOB and Enderal/Skyrim in that regard. If I just stand around, doing nothing, when a monster comes around the corner, I will eventually die in EOB the same as I will die in Enderal/Skyrim. That's just the real-time/action part. And you can use that to your advantage in both games, by sidestepping in EOB, hit and retreat tactics or opening up pits below the monsters, or by dodge rolling, jumping, climbing etc. in Enderal/Skyrim. But ultimately what effect your attacks have is due to stats in both games, not player skills, and I believe there's also an element of chance in both of them. AFAIK, you don't do the same damage with every attack in Skyrim either. And actually in EOB I think you have a lot less influence on stats and character building than you have in Enderal or Skyrim.

I don't think it makes much sense trying to make a very restricted definition of what an RPG is these days.
With all the sub- and hybrid-genres and different concepts among those (randomized or not and if yes to which extend for example) one game can belong to as many genres as you ask people (i'm overexaggerating a bit of course).

Of course i also have my own definition, but it's only to decide if i call it an RPG.
I'd simply say if there are stats outside of the gear which progress depend on the player instead of the story/mission/"or other kinds of campaign-progression" (doesn't matter if they're directly customizable, on attributes or skills and so on) AND have a clearely noticable impact on gameplay. I see it as -at least partially- an RPG in the video-game sense.

Precisely why I dread RNG and want effects to be as predictable as possible...

Didn't play either of those, if it's like that though yes i wouldn't call them RPGs.
That said if you call them RPGs I don't mind it's just the criteria how i decide what to call the cases which float somewhere between genres, there is no perfect answere.

I just wanted answere the question of how i decide it ahead of time because somebody would've asked anyway.
Sorry if it came across as trying to give a better definition, wasn't my intention.