Diablo-like often take place on the surface. You can call them aRPGs (many people do), or hack-and-slash. RPG typology is no serious business, what matters -as is the case with language in general- is that people understand the intended meaning (which is often a mere matter of context). In my experience, people understand diablo-like and hack'n'slash when they hear aRPGs. That is, slaughterfests with stats, levelling, loots, and map clearing, etc. Like RPGs, but reduced to the clicky slashy combat part. They actually use "aRPG" to make the distinction with slower-paced, plot-and-character driven, morally branching, "cerebral" RPGs.

But given that it's a matter of degrees, the terms are vague. And it's not a problem.

No, that's not how it works. The "A" in the term "ARPG" stands for "action", and it has no bearing on whether the game is focused on loots, quests, plot, or some other aspect here. Whether a game is action or turn based has *nothing* to do with whether the game is focused on dungeon crawling or plot.

So, yes, I see it as a misuse of terminology here.

(Also, the definition is "relative"; the Etrian Odyssey games could be considered dungeon crawlers, but most of the time, the dungeon is some variation of a forest; there's even a day-night cycle! Elminage 3, I believe, also has a day-night cycle in its dungeons.)

(Another thing: Not all RPGs have clicky combat. Some don't use a mouse for control, and even in those that do, some have you select your commands with the mouse and then wait to see them carried out.)

Have the game be an actual world where things happen. As the OP said, he's not interested in those sort of games, so the whole point is somewhat irrelevant, but for example, in something like Morrowind, the city of Balmora:

There's a Thieves' Guild (outsiders) Inn, and there's a local crime syndicate inn. They have different prices for you, usually, different gossip, and have missions where you have to fight the other.
There's a cheapo general store/alchemy store, and there's an expensive one. The expensive one has a snooty owner who I revel in stealing from, and has cooler equipment too, and is even involved in a lot of story points to rob her store, get stuff from her, etc.

It doesn't matter. What does is the usage of a term, not its etymology or what you consider mathematically logical enough in its construction. If there is a strong enough consensus for "arpg" to evoke "diablo-likes" in everyday communications between players, then it's what the term conveys de facto (and using it differently, disregarding its "shared understanding", excludes you from the communication). It's a matter of linguistics, not philosophy of action, or programming.

I've been using that term and only recently found out I'm not supposed to call them ARPGs, so now I make sure to call them ARPGs :p

I call them aRPGs for nitpicking purposes. Being wrong is fun.

But realistically, if multiple people in a fantasy world wanted something done, and were willing to pay for it, they probably would organize something like a job board at an inn or gathering place where likely adventurers and mercenaries would see it, rather than hiding themselves off in their house or wherever and only reveal the quest then spoken to.

Yeah but what about random cases like someone was kiddnaped or somebody needs our help as he was attacked by bandits just a moment before or something illegal was needed to do.

Granted, if the whole city wants something to be done - the local inn, or the message board on town square are the easiest way to publish that want.

As I said - some quests should be on the board.

But not all quests are of the kind where you would want the whole city to know about.
Think of all the "steal this for me" or "I need someone to solve that problem with my neighbor" quests, etc.

The thing is, those terms already have an established meaning; the meaning you are trying to assign for it is at odds with the established meaning of the terms. In other words, the "shared understanding" of the term does not match what you are trying to use the term for.

In particular, I take issue with it because it implies that all "action RPGs" are dungeon crawlers and vice versa, which I find offensive mainly because I happen to love turn-based dungeon crawling RPGs.

I partly agree about shops, there should be at least a few large general stores where you can get most of what you need. I disagree about quests - exploration is a very important part of crpgs for me, if all quests were that easily available it would kill a lot of the fun for me.

I disagree about quests being necessary for exploration.

They're not necessary, but a large part of the motivation...what else is there apart from item-hunting?

Yes, it is annoying. In fact, there are a lot of things about RPGs that are annoying. People like the grandness of the story and vision and world-building and all that. But, the truth is you spend a lot of time doing stupid mundane running back and forth.

Tabletop gaming when it was great involved a great GM who used his command of the stats and numbers and rulesets to effectively hide almost all of that from his players and get closer to creating a purely narrative experience where players would say, "My thief decides to climb to the second story window and break in to that dark room up there." and The GM either rolls dice behind a screen or just makes a judgement call based on his knowledge of the numbers and says, "The thief begins his ascent but halfway up the masonry begins to crumble. He makes a reflexive leap and grabs onto a nearby ledge. You are now dangling 2 stories above the stone paved ground; you can no longer reach the window you were aiming for, but you may be able to swing over to that balcony. Alternately, you could try to drop down without injuring yourself. What would you like to do?"

I understand that there were always players who didn't aim for that. Who instead all brought dice and graph paper and miniatures and 10 sharpened pencils and who spent an entire 3 hours playing out one battle turn-by-turn, roll-by-roll, detail-by-detail.

I would argue that the first generations of crpgs were created by and played by and loved by mostly people in the second camp. As gaming has become more popular, the RPG field has become dominated by people from the first camp.

Narrative, action, imagination and fast-paced fun has come to be highly valued by players of big old RPGs. But, remnants of the dice and pencil grinders live on: shops with limited inventory, encumbrance rules, fast-travel limitations, etc. I am of the camp that think streamlining all these inconvenient timesinks is just wonderful!

I regularly install mods that create a storage system where evey item I store is available in any chest I own. Mods that make every merchant carry every kind of ware. Mods that make travel and rest more convenient.

Some people say that my way is not immersive. But I say it's just a question of what do you want ot be immersed in? I want to be immersed in running, fighting, making tough decisions, dragons, cliffs, tavern brawls, shooting fireballs. That's the stuff I always liked, even way back in high school around the kitchen table at 2 AM. Other people want to be immersed in everyday stuff: bathing, walking, going to the market, eating, keeping a house, growing things. That's all fine, but not for me.

But there are always purists who seem to complain whenever mechanics are stripped from an RPG. These are mostly people it seems to me who like spending time making their own maps, keeping extensive notes of their own about quests and people's names and such. That's fine. But they are a very small minority.

I like a good streamlined experience.

For instance, I prefer Skyrim over Morrowind.
I prefer Grim Dawn over Diablo II.
I prefer Fallout 2 over Baldur's Gate.

Amen.

I am not "trying to assign" any sense to anything. I don't care, I have no stake in it. I for one don't "take issue" with anything there, nor do I find anything "offensive". It's indeed not about personal opinions. For instance, you see a descriptive issue with the "action" word in "a.r.p.g.". For me, the technically misleading part would be rpg : I tend to not consider diablo-likes as roleplaying games. But it doesn't prevent me from calling them arpg (and considering that an arpg is not an rpg, the same way I consider that hotdogs are not made of dog, but don't feel the need to correct people about it). I don't mind, I just take and use the words as they come.

So I simply report the usage that I have been witnessing on these boards and the internet at large. Whenever a game is described as an "aRPG", my first reflex is to picture some diablo-like gameplay and interface. And usually it's correct (the likes of "van hesling", "grim dawn", "dungeon siege", etc, being labelled as "arpg" succesfully helped me anticipate what they would be). Linguistically, "diablo" functions as an archetype (like, say, "hammer" for tools, or "sparrow" and "eagle" for birds, depending on the areas where you'd ask). I haven't found myself in miscommunication difficulties when discussing on this basis.

So, I don't know in which circles the "shared understanding" of that term is different. But I haven't experienced any hiccup with that around here.

(In short, what I'm saying is : relax about all these vague game designations. People understand each others.)