(thread)I don't play Paper Mario so I won't get too deep into the discourse, but I've seen people citing the removal of exp as an example of dumbing down the game or whatever. Someone should point out that removing exp from an rpg without hurting anything is actually really easy.

The majority of D&D games that I've run and played in have not used exp. That's the game that invented it. It is helpful for staggering character progression to facilitate customization (Skyrim perk tree, for instance), but there are other ways of doing that.

We haven't even agreed that character customization is necessary for a good rpg. Earthbound has basically no customization and that's a great game. Once you take that away, exp is really just a reward system for fighting lots of monsters, in other words grinding.

From that perspective, getting rid of exp is a positive, modern game design decision. Reducing grinding is good. There is a more positive way to implement exp that I'm experimenting with in Chryse.

If it's balanced right, the major fights will be easy with extra levels and difficult with not enough levels. The reward for beating harder fights is not having to grind, and grinding is the punishment for taking the easy way. But you can still do this without exp.

But anyway, I didn't plan this thread and I'm massively rambling. Just a lot of armchair game designers acting like removing a mechanic ruins the game objectively just because the mechanic is old, I guess. Felt like saying something.