But, your play isn't meant to be defined in any way by playing a "good guy" or "bad guy" driver in Mario Kart. You don't play Mario driving any differently than Wario. And the game certainly doesn't expect you to.
Fair, but in the story background it matters.
Pro-Wresting is all about role play. I mean, seriously? I would very much consider Pro-Wresting to be a role playing game. And, any table top version thereof should be buried deep in mechanical promotion of whatever role you are playing.
It's storytelling. It's as much roleplaying as stage acting is. Surely we aren't equating these two?
JRRT is a novel and not a game. It has morality, obviously, but, I wouldn't call it an alignment system. You're right that morality certainly isn't limited to RPG's. But, mechanics that push players towards acting (or not acting as the case may be) in particular ways, not because of what the player might think is the right action, but, because of the character being conceived as having a particular mindset outside and separated from the player is at the heart of role play and is something that rarely appears in other kinds of games outside of Role Playing Games.
Sorry, but alignment isn't about category morality? This doesn't hold much water, and the point that it's a novel is intentional -- it's not an RPG.
Then again, I'm pretty comfortable with a definition of role playing game that includes Pro-Wresting but doesn't include Mario Kart.
Then, interestingly, it seems it's more about achieving a story told than the play that creates it? Because, and let's be honest about it, the amount of choice a pro-wrestler actually has is extremely limited. They engage in a sport that if you aren't working with the other guy, someone gets very, very hurt very, very easily. Not to mention that at the pro level, it's the leagues that make all the calls because it's a business. So, if we're saying pro-wrestling is an RPG but Mario Kart is not, we're adding as many problems to the definition as we might be relieving with the exclusion of Mario and gang.
Additionally, while Inspiration is very bare bones (I'll agree there), there's also the whole Backgrounds, Traits, Ideals, Bonds and Flaws section which isn't an optional rule in 5e. It is certainly nudging the players in the direction of creating a character that is distinct from the player and a lens through which to view the game world. Like I said earlier though, D&D is hardly an exemplar of things here. But, there is a change from AD&D through to 5e in that this notion of directly promoting role play through the game is becoming more and more pronounced.
It's optional in that only the mechanical aspects of Backgrounds are remotely required. Absent the GM's choice to use specific options of Inspiration, all the BIFTs do is occupy space on the character sheet -- there are zero engagements with these outside of Inspiration. So the requirement for zero impact is kinda like saying you have to write down an alignment -- it doesn't do anything, so why bother?
Of course, if you choose to engage them, great, more power to you! But, then, you probably don't need them much to engage in roleplaying.
And yes, there's more engagement of the issue in 5e, but then there was quite a lot in 4e, and then in 3e, and also in 2e. It was different, and scattered in odd places, but even 5e caveats a lot of it away when the get to the brass tacks. It's there, and that's not nothing, but it also very much adheres to a D&D specific approach to roleplay -- high characterization, low impact. Its firmly on the entertainment side of things rather than actually impacts gameplay. For instance, even if your alignment is Lawful Good, and even if your BIFTs are about honor, mercy, and pacifism, if you murder an orphan for their 1 cp, at the end of it you have 1 more cp. Anything else is up to the GM. So, flagrantly violating everything you've presented as reinforcing roleplaying doesn't mechanically matter at all, and only matters if the GM cares to engage it. Meaning roleplay is more up to the GM (and the table) preference than the game system -- as it has always been.
I know I'm getting criticised for making broad brush statements here, but, come on, I can make a 1e character with zero background. Heck, Secondary Skills is an optional rule buried in the DMG. As a player, I don't even have access to that unless the DM allows it. Can someone show me how 1e or Basic D&D actually promotes playing a role? It's easy enough to just brush off what I'm saying as "one true wayism" or whatever, but, the point is, no one has actually managed to bring up counter facts. That you played this way, or, heck, I played that way doesn't really matter. I mean, we didn't play pawn stance either back then. Like
@Oofta said, we largely ignored the DMG.
Are you playing yourself, or did you pick a role in the fictional world? Bob the Blue Wizard has none of that, but he's the Blue Wizard. That's exactly one adjective more than just Wizard, but I hope you indulge me here. Wizard is the important part.
But, I'm not talking about my game, or your game. I'm talking about the game as it was presented.
I disagree that you are. There's room in all the editions for basic, pick your class and don't pretend anything else play (including in 5e) without violating the game, and there's room for full immersion RP, where you dress up at the table and always speak in character (never did dress up but have played at "hot" tables). There's still a range, even if the D&D zeitgeist has moved to the modern understanding of D&D roleplaying (again, high characterization, low impact).
But, as I said, you only have to look at the Inspiration mechanics to see how it is actually promoting role play in its own way. You gain inspiration by playing a role, by presenting your character in such a way that it impresses the group or the DM. IOW, role playing.
