Thank of it this way, the caller and receiver exist in a phone call but the content that the caller puts into the call is the most important thing, regarding the actual phone call, and the phone and infrastructure are there to support delivery of that content, regardless of the caller or receiver.
I think system is much closer to the language the participants in the conversation use to convey thoughts and ideas clearly and precisely than it is similar to the medium over which the sound of their voices is transmitted, really. I think that analogy is illuminating as to why some systems are good at specific topics and modes of discussion, as well as throwing some light on why I strongly dislike systems where one participant is tasked with making up new words as it suits them...
Assuming a character in the setting is roleplaying, I think we agree.
Surely it would be the players, not the characters, who were roleplaying
My problem is accepting the term "roleplaying game" on the cover of a game that focuses primarily on combat, encourages players to focus on combat through the preponderance of rules geared toward combat, and gives little to no focus on the actual roleplaying, even in combat.
Again, what are you suggesting "roleplaying" should be? I would describe it as simply looking at a situation from the perspective of some entity (which might be singular or even plural, depending on the style and context of the situation being subject to the roleplay) and making decisions from the basis of that perspective.
I have roleplayed in many situations. There are real time computer strategy games that I think are ripe for roleplaying. Two major ones would be Hearts of Iron and (especially) Crusader Kings II. In CK you are effectively playing a king (or duke or count) in medieval Europe. Your game interface is not first person and the general emphasis is very much on ruling, statecraft, war and combat - but when you find out that your newest wife is plotting to kill your eldest son so that
her eldest son will ascend to
your throne - look me in the eye and tell me you don't "feel the roleplay vibe"!
The table where the miniatures, the characters if you will, was a Necromunda game where the players didn't have miniatures with the exact weapons they had chosen so they gave the individuals names that could be easily recognized by looking at the miniature: one had an eye-patch and was called by some pirate name, another was very muscular and was called Big Dan or some such, etc.
I have no idea what Necromunda is all about, sorry - is it some sort of skirmish game (from what you say here)?
The players on the other table hadn't even bothered naming the individuals and most referred to them in the Third Person, "The Dwarf does (this)" though one went so far as to say, "My fighter does (this)" or "My fighter charges toward the (that)," so at least there was a sense of ownership. When I asked one of the players later if they liked that type of game he said, "Yeah, I love roleplaying games." I didn't have the heart to tell him that what he was actually doing wasn't really playing a roleplaying game. It might say that on the rulebook but what was happening at the table wasn't a roleplaying game or at least was less so than the Necromunda game taking place at the next table where the players' combatants (PCs?) at least had names.
All that tells me is that they had low character investment (probably using pre-gens in a "living" game - there's irony! - if I'm guessing) and were using director stance. I strongly suspect that roleplaying was going on at both tables, in fact.
As to which I would class as a "roleplaying game" - I think that comes down to design aims. It's funny - back in the early days of D&D, roleplaying games were the "new fangled thing" abhorred by grognard tabletop wargamers a bit like 4e is the current bête noir of 3e afficionadoes, and a wargaming crew came up with a very neat little game called "En Garde". For a long time they swore blind that it absolutely wasn't a roleplaying game, nosiree. Of course, it was, as any sensible roleplayer could see...
So, yes, I do believe that there are some less roleplay-ey ways to approach a roleplaying game. I won't say superior, because I love games like I just described, I just don't call them roleplaying games and wouldn't likely use a roleplaying game ruleset to run such a game because I feel there are other rules that actually handle that type of game better. Nevertheless, a roleplaying game ruleset should probably encourage the roleplaying aspect all throughout the rules, from character creation through gameplay, whether its in combat or exploring or emulating other social interaction in less combative environments. Integrating all of the aspects of the game so that the focus is on character, not how what a character might do 'mechanically interfaces with the game space' would go a long wa toward helping such a ruleset earn the name roleplaying game on its cover.
What "roleplaying aspects" are you talking about, here? I mean there's the immersive stuff and the deep character exploration/authoring stuff, but frankly those are pretty niche fringes of roleplaying even as I cover it. They are fun and engaging, and all, but they are so tricky and demanding to get right that I can only really take them as an occasional indulgence. They are like truffles or foie gras - lovely, but you really wouldn't want too much of them. Sometimes I'll even take a light salad just for something different!
I'm not sure what everyone wants is roleplaying despite the terminology they use.
I think that depends on how narrowly you define your term "roleplaying". I see folks playing FPS computer games roelplaying. I see wargamers roleplaying. If they put themselves in the position of looking at the (imaginary) world from the perspective of the character or team that they are playing and make decisions based on that perspective, then as far as I'm concerned they are roleplaying.