AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I don't think either one of you can 'win' that argument. Let me explain:Speaking only for myself, my pushback is because I get the impression that your definition also has some requirements for how defined that character must be for it to count as "real" roleplaying.
I agree that playing Mario in a video game isn't roleplaying. But, for me, even my poorly defined, personality-less first AD&D character was still roleplaying. No, I didn't write a backstory or put any thought into his personality quirks or motivations or anything else. We barely talked to NPCs, let alone explored personae. We just killed monsters and took their stuff. But when I was playing Eärramë I was an improbably strong (18/33) elven fighter-magic user with a bitchin' bow. (I know, I know.).
It wasn't remotely like controlling Mario in a video game. It wasn't remotely like moving my little die-cast metal shoe around a Monopoly board. It was roleplaying. And while over the years I've become more interested in creating and exploring characters who aren't me, to me the only thing that has changed is the degree, not the substance. I'm not playing a totally different game today; I'm playing a slightly different game, especially when contrasted to non-RPGs.
So maybe my conclusion is that I disagree with your definition: roleplaying isn't when you filter your decisions through what you think your imaginary character would do. Roleplaying is when you feel like you are that character. Even if that character is just Blue Fighter.
I had 2 main PCs that I played a lot in 1e/2e in the mid 80's and 90's. One was a Magic User "Questioner of all Things", who was simply me playing my character for absolute utter maximum effectiveness without any holds barred whatsoever. I mean, the character is Neutral Good, and in character I didn't do stuff that was depraved or whatever. So, I guess that counts as some 'personality'. OTOH did Questioner ever exhibit some sort of emotional response or attachment to anything, beyond a hard calculated determination? Well, he had a theoretical 'goal', to learn all the secrets of the Universe, which was basically lampshaded as an explanation for 'why is this guy here?' but I would say this was a thoroughly gamist character. Any decision I made playing this PC was based on gaining something or learning something.
The other character I had, Cargorn the Ranger, was by contrast completely obsessed and pretty much functionally insane. He was going to get back at those evil nature-destroying scum Demogorgon worshippers, come hell or high water. Nothing else mattered to him. No consideration of what was practical, feasible, beneficial, or anything else mattered. Playing the character in some strategic or sensible fashion? Bah. His personal agenda and personality were all-encompassing and every party that ever let him join it was well-aware of what they were getting. Eventually he degenerated into a sort of 'anti-ranger', but he did eventually go on an expedition that slew Demogorgon! lol. I'm not real convinced we got the true big bad 100% dead to rights, but I don't even recall playing that character afterwards.
So, is one of these RP and one is not? I don't think anyone can tell me that, though the first one surely would get played in a gamist sort of way, and the second one was all about the character, damn the game part.