Many S-RPGs usually allow you to eventually overpower enemies and ignore all tactics if you choose to do some side-quests / some farming. That's the beauty of it being S-RPGs and not just Strategy. One and only way to win fights is boring indeed.

I see this sentiment expressed a lot or the alternate version about the importance of classic cRPGs. I wish I could get more excited about going back to some of the classics but graphics, controls, and the isometric perspectives tend to be off-putting. Also linearity is a problem. I can't even get through the first Witcher game because it so oppressively linear and that game is hardly as old as the ones to which you're referring.

While I'm not a fan of the Elder Scroll series. I did find Skyrim to be easily engaging (after the choke hold of the first hour). This was mostly due to some of the qualities others have expressed as positives for RPGs, agency, exploration, nonlinear-ness, graphics (minus the npcs), character customization, etc.

Your distaste for anything that smells of action in RPGs is often echoed among a certain group which is fine. I don't find combat to be the most engaging part of a RPG. However, there never seems to be as much scorn from this group for the verbose, hackneyed, or poorly paced writing which pollutes many RPGs. To me combat is hardly the game breaker when stacked next to this.

There's nothing more shattering to my engagement with a game than finding a npc that might be an interesting lead to a new quest or help with a current one suddenly become a wall of clicks and text. Engagement leaves something to be discovered outside of what's in front of you. Combat (likewise) can become just as much an obstacle to engagement when it transforms itself from hurdle to obstructionist grind. Elminage Gothic as you mentioned would seem (after review) unfit (for me) by this standard for example.

I've been tempted by the newer Wasteland 2, Divinity Original Sin, & Pillars of Eternity with their modern aesthetic polish and old school homage, even if the isometric view is not my preference. If readers have played any of these I'd be curious about what they find important in RPGs and how these titles delivered or failed in relation.

I wasn't really asking for suggestions, it was just a general comment. Though I used to play D&D and other TRPG's back in the day, I also owned a WH40k army (Chaos Black Legion) before selling it on ebay some years ago now.

We all know triple-A RPGs are aimed at the largest consumer group, but what constitutes and defines this 'largest consumer group' changes over time. Back in the days Might & Magic might have been considered mainstream as it was the dominant style of RPG. With the advancement of 3D we got styles that looked more realistic and thus became more appealing to a wider consumer base, especially to those entering the gaming world at that specific time. Those that looked better, i.e. more realistic, sold better.

When kids and teens today think Fallout 2 is unplayable because it looks so old what chance do cRPGs have ? Heck even Fallout 3 is considered an 'old game' by this demographic.
Having said that, most older gamers I've met are not interested at all in playing games they played 15+ years ago, including cRPGs. Gamers who prefer DRM-free PC games are still in the minority, so a specialized consumer forum like GOG is bound to have less game-specific activity than places like Steam. The sheer number of Steam users more or less guarantees that there's an active group for every game they sell, even older games.

i think i've seen more than enough steam users on this forum when witcher 3 came out. no more, pls!