Greywolf1: The TES series was certainly inspired by D&D, plus by all other RPG worlds / systems of the time, but I wouldn't call it a "clone" (for example, TES has usage-based stat development).
The discussion whether or not TES games are RPG's is a bit academic, in my mind, and I'm inclined to say, call it whatever you like, as long as I have fun.

You may have heard of the guy who calls himself crpgaddict, and his blog. There you find his definition of an RPG:
1) character leveling and development,
2) combats based at least partly on attribute-derived statistics,
3) inventories consisting of something other than just puzzle items.
You can agree or disagree, but there is no doubt that the combat system of Oblivion and Skyrim meets #2, is there?

Daishaclaire: This topic drives me batty, I must say. If you pile up the differences between TES3 and 4/5, IMO it gets more D&D-like, often specifically more like later editions of D&D featuring a horrid control-freak DM, Maybe it's unfair, but I associate D&D with the worst aspects of tabletop play simply because it's often the default for inexperienced game masters, so I consider most of the player-coddling changes to increase D&D-likeness.

Ways D&D similarity increased between 3 and 5:
* Armor slots were whittled down from 9 to 5.
* unfamiliar-to-D&D-heads magic school of mysticism was eliminated,
* alchemy equipment went from varied pieces of varied quality to an unspecific, undifferentiated, on/off alchemy lab
* clothing begins to conflict with armor
* challenges become character-matched instead of static, just like an invisible dungeon master in the background is trying to save the PC from his/her terrible, moronic choices regarding where to go and what to do.
* rewards become character-matched, like an invisible dungeon master is loathe to give a level 2 character a +5 artifact weapon, even if they come up with a very clever way to steal one.
* Essential NPCs simply get bulletproofed, like a DM who refuses to have his story spoiled, whereas Morrowind will roll with the punches like an old-school DM
* Perks (AKA "Feats") implemented
* undead-raising necromantic spells begin to depend on the actual presence of dead bodies

Exceptions to the trend of increasing D&D-likeness:
* Character attributes go AWOL, an absurd overreaction to the PITA of proper levelling in 3/4
* transition to always hitting if it looks like you hit as a combat mechanic, relegating weapon skill to only damage increases
* Weapon diversity decreased significantly, whereas D&D has long been a great source of weapon diversity.
* medium armor disappears

jackster79: I think the link you want is this one: http://crpgaddict.blogspot.com/2010/03/what-is-crpg.html

Greywolf1: I was quoting from another link, but yours is fine, too. In my mind, this discussion lacks from an agreed definition of what an RPG is, and the one from the crpgaddict is probably as good or bad as any. By the way, I personally see no reason to make fighting a necessary requirement for an RPG, but I seem to be quite alone with this. :-)

jackster79: I believe a true RPG would allow for not just horizontal improvement (which is where one gets better at skills and such) but vertical improvement, which by definition requires that roles get changed via promotions and thus responsibilities. This would mean you start out doing ye-olde-fetch-quests, and end up plotting faction expansion and resources.

jackster79: So really, a RTS-game is a RPG in the sense you (the player) are in the role of a field-commander micro-managing a battle. A grand-strategy game is a RPG in the sense that you (the player) are plotting with broad strokes how to improve your faction.