Thank you for a good and insightful reply.
Since you require character development in addition to choices and consequences in a computer game for it to be considered an RPG you will have to leave out a lot of games commonly considered CRPGs from your definition. My CRPG knowledge is not that vast but if I should guess I think that only something between 5 - 30 % of games commonly regarded as CRPGs would fit your definition.
At first thought such a definition would not be of much use, rather there to confuse but after reading the end of your post I can understand your way of thinking.
Navagon: So, personally, I'd rather see roleplaying and strategy used as things to aim for rather than genres to pigeon hole games into. The problem with the latter is that we just wind up with a lot of games that do the same damn thing and contain the same failings. That way we might see more games that break the mould.
It is an interesting idea, to abandon the common genres and instead identify the game with the most important broader element of the game or a vision of what the game should be about. There would be more Tactics games than Strategy games but maybe some of the strategy games would be more strategic. We would need to use a larger vocabulary to pigeon hole games with like "Stat-based Dungeon Crawler" and "Story-based, point and click, puzzle solver"
More ambitious games could use names like "Space Exploration", "Time traveling burglary", "Gnostic Role-Playing in Ancient Rome", "Found a religion and make it prosper" or "Survive a thermonuclear war".
If we all could agree to ditch the old genres and use more descriptive names I'm all for it. It is a good cause. I would think that there would be a lot of confusion and quarreling before we got there though. With a genre name like FPS, at least we have taken a few steps in that direction. It is a much better description than Doom clone or Action Game.
Some nitpicking by me about the way you describe stats and dice:
Navagon: Stats and dice rolls are merely due to the limitations of the pen and paper game. There was no other way of making the game work without making it too unfair and unbalanced. Leaving the decision to a die roll was better than leaving it up to a possibly biased DM.
While you are right that CRPGs based upon stats and random chance have their influences in what you call "limitations" in the original pen and paper games I think it is a little rough to call it limitations. If I recall correctly, the PnP RPGs was based upon the some strategy board games that used similar elements.While you could say that stats and dice were limitations compared to say having a small army of pre-programmed robots representing squads moving around on a board it was still a very good concept.
Maybe you could create a war-game with small robots on a board today but there is not much point since you can recreate war much better on a computer screen.
When many things are abstracted you use your imagination to fill in the blanks, and that is a good thing. PnP RPGs have been very popular throughout the years and their on screen descendants even more so. I think that this is more because of their "limitations" than in spite of them.
Also, many of us still do think that the direct descendant of stats and dice, turn-based combat with stats and an element of randomness offer many things that real-time combat can not.
For me turn-based combat in games like the Civilization and Age of Wonders series is several magnitudes more immersive and involving than combat in typical RTS games like Starcraft and Age of Empires. (typical) RTS games have a lot going for them too but turn-based combat is far from outdated. Maybe I'm rambling on a bit here since you were just talking about RPGs.
Navagon: You've got to look past these limitations. RPGs shouldn't be defined by these limitations but rather by what they are trying to do. The ad-libbed stories they're trying to tell. The characters that change, adapt and grow, or fall by the wayside during this story. The impact they have on the world as it changes, both as a result of their actions and the actions of others around them.
While I largely agree with you and I think that some really fantastic games in the spirit of (but free from most of the trappings of) RPGs will be made in the future, I think that there are many things that are really good about the old type of CRPGs too. When the graphics are limited, so that it is very clear that you are only seeing an abstracted version of what happens you use your imagination instead. Textual descriptions and statistics helps with that too. In many newer games where what you see is much more believable I think that people do use their imagination less.