The real issue here is that there are contextual definitions of terms that can be inclusive or exclusive.
In terms of deciding what should be allowed to make threads about on /vrpg/, a broad, more inclusive definition makes sense. Exclude games like Smash, Civilization, and Mario Odyssey but allow Dark Souls, Diablo, and so on.
Meanwhile if someone makes a thread asking why JRPGs all seem to use a similar anime style and gives examples of games that all have standard JRPG gameplay, using Dark Souls as a counter-example is something only a retard would do.>>1396673
Incorrect. You're using a different meaning of the term 'skill' as the anon you replied to. He's clearly using the term "skill" to mean good or well-practiced timing, reflexes, muscle memory, and hand-eye coordination; not good decision making. Back in the day we called this twitch skill. If a game emphasizes on "character skill," that implies the player makes tactical decisions using those skilled characters. This is and ALWAYS has been a core component of traditional RPG combat. Even in 1-Dimensional "niggas in a row" style JRPG combat you make tactical(b) decisions.
And of course we can drill down further and find there are two relevant definitions of "tactics." Tactics(a) emphasizing unit movement on a battlefield (disqualifying niggas-in-a-row combat) or tactics(b) art of using available means to accomplish an end. Games typically referred to as TRPGs (or mistakenly as SRPGs), tend to use the (a) version of the term.
A great example to look at is World of Warcraft (classic, anyway, I have not played it recently) and similar hotbar/cooldown ARPG games. It is a real-time game, there's time pressure and some demands on twitch skill. But overall, the game is more about decision-making and good use of a character's skills and resources than it is about a player's finger speed.
With Dark Souls this is reversed. There's a tactical element but the action skill is dominant.