"playing a role for fun"

[Jack Spencer Jr]

Why is this important to RPG Theory?

I've noticed a lot of cannibalistic design in games that are mareketed as RPGs.  I'm sure most of you have too or there wouldn't be an embracing of "indie games", games that are supposed to not be cannibalistic of other RPGs.  Sadly, I think we're starting to see a new generation of cannibalistic design.  For example, how many indie games cannibalize Sorcerer?  

So I think that by expanding what you think a "roleplaying game" is, you can shake off the limits of the label and become truly "indie" (independent).  Do not just "develop a slipstream game with more elements of the traditional role playing game"!  Design a truly independent roleplaying game that does not require being immersed in the "traditional roleplaying culture".  (In order for it to be traditional, there must be a culture to develop that tradition.)

Well, cannibalistic design is just the nature of the beast. I mean Lord of the Rings draws on ancient myth and the myths even feed off of each other. Round and round it goes.

The problem with defining  what, exactly, is an RPG is that such a definition would be used more to exclude games (as in "this game isn't an RPG") than to be used as an eye-opener to the possibilities as you had stated is you intention. You know what works as an eye-opener? Individual games. A definition, even if you could find a good one for you purposes, is purely acedemic. All theory and no practice. When I read games like Baron Munchausen and DeProfundis, the possibilities were shown to me in a concrete form, it a form that makes sense and that can be used.