Genres are defined by what they're trying to accomplish, not their mechanics. There are many games that can perfectly replicate core mechanics like stats and levels, but if they're not trying to emulate a tabletop role-playing experience then they're not really RPGs.
This is wrong, games are defined by their gameplay (ie. mechanics), not their aspirations. You can even
find it on Wikipedia:
Wikipedia said:
A video game genre is a classification assigned to a video game based on its core gameplay (type of interaction) rather than visual or narrative features. A video game genre is normally defined by a set of gameplay challenges considered independently of setting or game-world content, unlike works of fiction that are expressed through other media, such as films or books. For example, a shooter game is still a shooter game, regardless of where or when it takes place.
JRPGs for example, people started to add a 'J' in front of 'RPG' not because they were being xenophobic, but because even normies understood that games like Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy VII provide fundamentally different experiences than games like Fallout, Morrowind or even Wizardry, despite being mechanically speaking Wizardry clones. There are Japanese exceptions, though.
Genre names, especially in games (though not only there) are rarely descriptive - the "adventure" game genre comes from
Collosal Cave Adventure, not because in these games you are having an adventure and the situation is similar with Roguelikes... or even RPGs, not all games where you are playing some Role is an RPG. So paying attention to the genre's name is pointless, it is what the genre itself represents (the mechanics).
Nowadays pretty much everyone has at least an idea about how JRPGs play because they share a lot of gameplay characteristics - not because they come from Japan, despite the name's background. In fact if you look on Steam's JRPG tag page, the majority of games there by far are were not made in Japan.