in computer role playing games that is exactly what the term "role playing" means, and crpgs were and still are a very different experience from tabletop rpgs, which was my point. computers, especially those around at the genesis of crpg development, can't replicate the spontaneity and emergent gameplay allowed by a human gm nor enable player's imaginations in the same way. but they can enforce the underlying rule sets, roll the dice and crunch the numbers a hell of a lot faster. the common thread between all older rpgs is separation of player and character skill, not blurring the line between them (fallout and planescape are not really older rpgs but they agree with this anyway).
in diablo and diablo 2, the character systems are the roleplaying; just as in the gold box D&D games or wizardry or dragon quest. fallout and DX's multiple pathing and choice and consequence were governed and enabled largely by their character systems. bethesda games certainly qualify as well although as i noted the rpg systems have been getting weaker as design focus has shifted elsewhere; i haven't played skyrim but could present oblivion, which has a character system so pants-on-head retarded it's actually better in a metagaming sense not to engage with it.
on the other hand, half-life truly immerses me in my "role" as gordon freeman through it's presentation and storytelling technique, visual novels allow me agency and the ability to alter the course of the story, far cry 2 allows me freedom of approach and the chance to meaningfully affect the flow of gameplay based on my choices. noone would consider these games to be RPGs even though i can arguably roleplay in all of them. which is exactly the trouble with the intuitive definition of an RPG based on the term "roleplaying"; it's extremely subjective, excludes a majority of the genre (most stuff before fallout and literally almost everything before U7) while including, as geo said, almost everything else.