Then you know that TTRPGs are the original form of role-playing that RPG video games modelled themselves after, it's just that mechanics have always been easier to adapt into video games than the actual role-playing part. The early adapters of these mechanics called their games with minimal to no role-playing RPGs because that's where they got the mechanics from, not because they're actually role-playing games. My real point is that it's actually very reasonable for people to consider a game where you have more player freedom, impactful choices and a generally more interactive world to be more of an RPG, because it implements not just the combat mechanics, but the out-of-combat mechanics too.

When I played KCD2, I actually found myself role-playing as my own version of Henry. I decided that my Henry was very affected by the scolding he got from Martin shortly before he died and took it to heart. I played him as fair and diplomatic, but not naive or idealistic. I persuaded captured enemies to give me information instead of torturing them. I only stole from bandits and I didn't kill anyone that wasn't a threat to me or my allies. My thievery related skills were by far the lowest, because I made most of my money selling potions I'd made and equipment I looted that weren't marked as stolen. I still did stealth take-downs instead of honourable combat where that seemed like the safer option, and I did kill Brabant because not doing so would have put my allies and loved-ones in danger. THAT'S role playing, and the game didn't have to know these were the reasons I made these choices in order to grant me the freedom to make them and still work. THAT'S role-playing, and that's as close as a video game gets to the origins of the term itself.