ResidentLeever: SaGa has a use-based system which is a variation on exp points, and you're talking about exceptions now.
Actually, not entirely true.
SaGa 1, in particular, doesn't use any sort of use based character growth at all. In particular:
* Humans gain stats by using buyable consumables.
* Espers (Mutants) gain stats based off what the RNG decides after each battle. (Note that the RNG is quite poor in this game; it gives you the same results after each battle.)
* Monsters change form when eating meat, and when doing so the monster gains entirely new stats and abilities.
I also note that, in SaGa 2 and SaGa Frontier, Robots and Monsters still have growth systems that do not depend on actions performed.
These growth systems really don't feel like variations on experience points to me.
ResidentLeever: "dark dungeons"
That's pretty arbitrary since JRPGs still used a bunch of other elements from WRPGs when they evolved into more of their own thing by removing character creation, interactive dialogue and open worlds. It's like saying that if they still had hobbits they would be WRPGs but not when they still have elves and orcs.
Yes, it is one characteristic I use that puts Dragon Quest 1 more in line with WRPGs, but there's also the open world, as I mentioned.
Final Fantasy 2 has some semblance of interactive dialog, in that you learn keywords and can use them in conversations with some NPCs. (With that said, the game underuses this particular mechanic.)
Dragon Quest 3 has character creation, and that mechanic would return again in Dragon Quest 9.
Final Fantasy 1 and 4 both have elves in some form (more in 1 than 4), and dwarves are present in 1, 3, 4, and 5.
In any case, seeing what is usually a WRPG element in a JRPG is a sign of WRPG influence; either the game was released before JRPGs fully established their conventions, or the game has some WRPG influence that came later (though DQ9's character creation may have come from MMORPGs, which are a separate genre with their own convention).
ResidentLeever: Story is definitely an important part of RPGs too, it just isn't unique to them and has become less so over the years as action genres have incorporated more RPG and Adventure elements (and copied movies). It's the combination of various elements rather than any one thing that makes an RPG.
The thing is:
* Story isn't necessary for a game to be an RPG; look at early RPGs which didn't have much story at all, or if they did, it was only found in (optional) NPC dialog and/or the manual. The early Wizardry games didn't have much more than an excuse plot, for example, and neither did Rogue.
* Story isn't sufficient for a game to be an RPG. In fact, if you have only story and no other game aspects, you would have a kinetic novel, not an RPG.
ResidentLeever: I don't agree that stats over skill are what defines RPGs either but evade and hit rolls are a part of non-ARPGs (and various ARPGs), sure. It has nothing to do with roleplaying after all, but rather if a game is "abstracted" and tactical or not.
Actually, I would argue that the abstraction that you are referring to is what defines the RPG genre and separates it from other genres. (Also, note that I don't consider the games commonly referred to as "ARPGs" to be RPGs at all.)