This thread is great.
It's made me rage and laugh at the same time and that has to count for something. I tend to like most games that go under the banner RPG because I'm a sucker for storylines and flamboyant characters. Of course, I'm one of those types who can't get enough of the old hits(Chrono trigger, Lufia: Rise of the Sinistrals, Breath Of Fire) but I'll continue to purchase, play and enjoy the new ones.
One thing is bothering me, though. Some people on here seem to be placing the secondary personality preference aspect of Roleplaying above the primary ROLE PLAYING aspect. If we go anywhere for a definition of something, we should first examine the past. I bring you, of course, back to the ancient version of Dungeons & Dragons, which birthed the idea of roleplaying.
If my memory serves me, there were only three classes to play, originally and were often considered as the roles for the party. The Support(Rogues), Tactical(Wizard) and Combat(Fighter). Of course, to add flavour to the traditional roles, one was allowed to guide their character through the lens of their own morality in order to keep the DM on his/her feet and the game interesting.
However, a Wizard and a Fighter may have the exact same personality but they play differing roles in the party and progress differently in the way of skills and feats, forming a unique play style for the gamer.
Also, the random generation chart isn't harmful for a game. In fact, it's a boon for the DM who wants to focus on plot more than loot or building names. Random die charts are common throughout D&D manuals for everything from character names and attributes to names of weaponry and the random NPC.
Keep in mind, we need to keeo the flow going somehow, and Diablo's system is a great way to keep things new and exciting if only through artificial means.
So, as I would view it, statistical progression is the way one should define roles. How the character functions is important to a game(Main reason I disdain FF7).