As @Bankai pointed out in the past, RPGs (Action or otherwise) are determined moreso by player choice (over character development and/or story), rather than the presence of dungeons, an overworld, sidequests, ect.

For example, at the end of Ocarina of Time, your Link & mine will be almost identical (with the possible exception of the of heart containers we have, and one optional sword), while in Kingdom Hearts: Dream Drop Distance, your Sora & mine are likely to very different. My deck commands may be focused on a ranged approach (Blizzaga, Fiagra, ect), while yours might be focused on up close melee combat (collision magnet, circle raid, ect), or somewhere inbetween. My Dream Eaters will be different than yours as well, which in turn determines which skills we may equip (maybe I have a fire type Dream Eater, allowing me greater fire resistance, while you might have an ice type, so on so forth).

As you can see, in Zelda, we'll both end up approaching situations & battles very similarly (due to a lack in player choice over Link's development), while in KH:DDD (an action RPG, no less), our input in Sora's/Riku's development will result in two different play styles, and we will approach the same situations in different ways.

Of course, that isn't to say Zelda is somehow less of a game (because it's not). Due to it's tighter, more "guided" structure, it allows the developers to include very complex bosses/puzzles that might be deeper than what you see in an RPG (due to having to solve the problem in a very specific manner).

Got Denpa Men and Kingdom Hearts, looking at Tales of the Abyss. Not much to choose from.

Also, is Zelda II an RPG? It's the only Zelda game to include leveling up.

It's still debateable. At the very least, it's definitely by far the closest the series has ever been to an RPG, if it isn't one already.

I will never say Zelda is an RPG. Just like @Canis has been emphasizing, it is an Action/Adventure series. That being said, I think you could call Adventure of Link (and it alone) an Action RPG simply because of the level up system.

Have you gotten the Sword of Hope II or Crimson Shroud yet? If you're on a tight budget, these are a couple of solid downloads.

Paper Mario: Sticker Star will probably be easier to find than Tales of the Abyss, if you're looking to go retail (although definitely get TotA if you're able to).

If Harvest Moon: A New Beginning doesn't count, than it's either Fire Emblem: Awakening or Kid Icarus Uprising

KI:U is a shooter...

Fire Emblem Awakening. Nothing else comes close.

Sssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.......................................................

It's okay to be confused @RR529....

It's okay...

I have access to several GameStops which are all stocked with several TOTA copies. Since those don't always get too many print runs, that's first on my list.

Paper Mario: Sticker Star is also on there, but the prices seem to be dropping (averaging $35 for a new copy on Amazon already) so I'll wait out on that. Going to use that judgement on Fire Emblem as well when the stocks finally come in (FE games haven't sold too well in the US (at least by Nintendo standards) based off of VGChartz). Crimson Shroud maybe, but I'm not interested in Virtual Console.

I'm not confused. Kid Icarus: Uprising is a shooter, not an RPG.

Just as @CanisWolfred said last page, just because some shooters are starting to incorporate some elements typically found in RPGs, doesn't make them RPGs themselves.

What RPG elements are in Kid Icarus? The weapon equipping is the closest I can think of and that's a pretty common staple of shooters (just without the whole value and stats system).

If somehow that's classified as an RPG, that definitely wins for me. Now I want to see an actual Kid Icarus RPG-TPS hybrid.

@CM Harvest Moon is most certainly an RPG. You have complete choice over what to do in your game world - what crops to grow, what animals to raise, who to befriend and who to marry. I'd say it's more of an rpg than either Fire Emblem or KI:U

I would definitely classify Harvest Moon as an RPG. It's a limited one, but because the games never really ask you to do anything (there's a plot in the background, but it's largely unnecessary), you have ultimate control over everything that happens in your game world.

Fire Emblem is not an RPG - you have no control over any kind of character development, aside from statistics, but for a game to be an RPG, you need to have control over characterisation. In actual fact, it's also not a strategy game, because the 'strategy' of the game is actually only at the tactical level.

Fire Emblem is a Tactics game. SRPG is a complete misnomer.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/tactics

I know, there's a difference, but come on. We can at least drop the sophistication of genres when one is marked as a definition of the other can we not?

Also, you have world control in games like Thrillville alongside an unnecessary plot. Is that an RPG (never played HM).

Once again, the point of genre is to create these little categories that the can list games under that share common traits. So that, if you say to me "I like strategy games" I can say "oh, you will like XXXX, then" - because XXXX shares the common traits of the strategy genre.

Tactics games do not share the traits of strategy games

Tactics: Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, Fire Emblem, Frozen Synapse, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. These are skirmish-level turn-based games which focus on individual unit ability.
Strategy: Civilization, Hearts of Iron, Total War, Europa Universalis. These games are army-level games. They can be in real time or turn-based, but if they are in real time, they're slow-paced. The goal of these games includes resource management, political manoevering, social and economic management
RTS: Starcraft, Ogre Battle, Command and Conquer. These games are fast-paced games where the strategy involves being able to react quickly to your opponent's real-time decisioning. As such the actual tactical management of your units is generally ignored in favour of resource and army management.

Also, you have world control in games like Thrillville alongside an unnecessary plot. Is that an RPG (never played HM).

Isn't Thrillville a park-building game? Simulation games (Sim City, Populous, Rollarcoaster Tycoon) are not RPGs because you, the player, haven't got direct control over a character.

You have direct control over one character and interact with park guests and attractions with this one character. He also manages park-building like the development of roller coasters.

It would depend on what you can do with that interaction with the park guests.

If you can build some kind of relationship with them (not romantic relationships necessarily, but like how in the Elder Scrolls games, your actions can adjust how they respond to you in the future), then yes, you could call it an RPG.

It would depend on what you can do with that interaction with the park guests.

If you can build some kind of relationship with them (not romantic relationships necessarily, but like how in the Elder Scrolls games, your actions can adjust how they respond to you in the future), then yes, you could call it an RPG.

Relationship building is usually in the realm of simulation games. For example, the Sims, or any Dating Sim ever, or Harvest Moon, which is actually a farming simulator. Elder scrolls relationship values are mostly borrowing from that, along with its "go do whatever you want" attitude.