I still think tabletop RPGs when I hear the term RPG. For the most part, computer RPGs are weak imitations of tRPGs - better in appearance, maybe, but certainly lacking the flexibility, capability and replay value of a tRPG. The $60 one spends for what's usually an beta-quality game, at best, could buy a book that will last for a lifetime, without the need for a Season Pass to get fixes and story updates.
While both products use the term RPG, one is a group ad libbed storytelling activity, while the other is a solo activity where you experience someone else's narrative.
To claim that one is superior to the other is to assume one is a substitute for the other, and that's simply wrong.
As someone who has spent hundreds of hours playing/replaying the elder scrolls and fallout games (among others) I have to respectfully disagree that replay value is an issue with RPG computer games. The modding community that exist around these type of games also add an immense amount of content and additional replay value. tRPGs are great and most definitely still have a place, particularly as a social role-playing experience.
I find the term "RPG" to be a much too ambiguous term.
My fiction is for most people (but not me), RPG = a character in a fantasy setting (were fantasy = swords, knights, wizards). The end. By this they categorize both every console Zelda game and every Final Fantasy game as "RPG". But the 2 series are not remotely similar to each other. The Zelda console series are skill based action games with puzzle solving. The Final Fantasy series is a menu based choice game with possibly some strategy in which choices you make and what upgrades you choose.
You could probably also argue that The Witcher does not fit in the same category as Wizardry or the original Bard's Tale for similar reasons.
And, almost like trying to define "sandwich", if you pick some criterion then you can find examples of games that fit that criterion that most people wouldn't consider an RPG. Consider if you claim "Zelda" is an RPG because you move a character around a large fantasy world and have inventory then by that definition "Ratchet and Clank" is an RPG.
Further, even the term "Role Playing Game", in a racing simulation I'm playing the role of a race car driver. So technically PRG fits. Same for a skiing game or skateboarding game or many other games were you "play a role".
I'd argue game genres should be defined by how they're played, not how they look. As such, Wizardry, Diablo, and The Witcher do not belong in the same genre.
I think "RPG" means "you control a character whose stats and/or gear you can (significantly) improve". That's what almost all of these games have in common. It's also what the term LitRPG is about in fiction - statboxes, xp, and levels.
Maybe the game also needs to have combat of some kind.
So I assume you don't consider, say, the original Legend of Zelda to be an RPG? Link has no stats beyond health you can improve nor much in the way of gear to enhance.
To be clear, I'm not arguing one way or the other. But I suspect it wouldn't be tough to find games considered RPGs that don't meet the definition you pose here.
For anyone interested in this topic there is an ongoing (I think) project that goes into much more details - https://crpgbook.wordpress.com/.
I play little computer games nowadays, and cRPGs even less. Nevertheless some of the titles that are traditionally put in this box (and I sorta agree with @asiachick - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27095639 - that games in this 'genre' may not have that much in common) are one of my favourite ones.
