One thing I like having the luxury of doing in an RPG is, instead of fighting 100 battles to gain a level, fight these elite monsters instead. They can be way, way more powerful than your typical mobs and reward way more experience. Ideally, they would be in some way easily controlled as to when you encounter them, so that you aren't randomly encountering unbeatable monsters. Final Fantasy 1 had an area like this where you could potentially encounter roughly level 15 enemies like Zombie Bulls and Trolls when you were only about level 5 or 6, and you might manage to win the battle by unloading all of your highest level spells and getting half of your party killed. For the few months that I played WoW a long time ago, I was also grinding higher level monsters instead of equal-leveled monsters, and it may not have been the fastest approach to leveling, but it was a strategic gamble that should be available to the player. Whenever I replay a game that I've already beaten, I like the opportunity to fully exploit the strategies I've learned to progress through the game way faster, and this is an angle that makes that possible.

So I tend to like having this in most / every RPG I play where there is experience / levels. Try to include it in your game, I say

I'd argue a well-balanced system would work better than the risks players take by fighting elite enemies. It just seems like a cop out for poor design or engaging battles. If you're battle system's purpose is to just level up the party then I think you're doing it wrong. Battles should be their own little game full of little strategies and such. Of course this depends on the combat system, I'm using a modified default front battle system so take my viewpoint from that perspective.

RPG is such a vague genre these days. It's like saying Metroid, Super Mario Bros, and Bad Dudes on NES were platformers. Each of those three games had something unique to bring to the platform genre.

The same is with RPG's. Game like Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil are seldom considered as an RPG, but I'm inclined to put them into that category for the simple reason that you play as a character of sorts and must explore your surroundings.

Old-School RPG's generally required the level grinding approach, which worked fine for a system that was short on story and game play. Considering how much a new game was priced at back then, level grinding ensured that the customer would get every value of their dollar out of that game before buying another.

But as technology has increased, so have the way we design video games. While most indie developers aren't at the level of professional designers, we have the ability to make up for that in our creativity. I'm not a big fan of random encounters. In most cases, I want to be able to see the enemy and decide for myself whether or not to engage in combat. If random encounters are desired, then the appropriate walking space of about 20 to 35 steps should be implemented, because I'll be damned if I play an rpg where I'm sucked into combat every 2 or 3 steps (no matter how much the developer cries how good they think their game is).

As Cleril stated, strategy is a key factor. It is, admittedly, one of the hardest things for me to get right myself, and generally requires a bit of trial and error and constant play testing. I've played some games where your party heals up right after each battle. There are no random encounters, and you fight very few battles in whatever stage you are on. As a result, battles are more like mini-boss fights, each one requiring strategy. You don't get a lot of potions, because aside from being in battle, they aren't really needed. So while it may seems somewhat easy, it's not, because each fight has meaning, and requires thought. The plus-side is that battles are more story driven and because they are limited, the player doesn't get bored.

Even if you opt more for a limited level grind, there shouldn't be a reason why the battles can't be more engaging. And leveling up doesn't have to come just through EXP gained from encounters, either.

Leveling up can come from purchasing stat upgrades, from completing so many quests, or from using unique abilities.

Actually I'd like to prop in Planescape Torment (PT). That game actually has no emphasis on leveling because the combat is pretty much straightforward. It's one of the few RPGs I've played that places emphasis on exploring who you are rather than on leveling up or boosting stats. In Planescape Torment you're The Nameless One (there is no name input option) and you discover your past (while creating your past) through your choices. That's the emphasis of the game and in fact the general consensus is to not put stat points into any of the skill you'd generally use for survival. Instead players choose to put points in wisdom, intelligence, and charisma.

Most RPGs have this notion that leveling up and getting more powerful is the goal. Planescape Torment's notion is figuring out who the hell you are and it's design is wholly based around that. Just something to consider when designing an RPG and how to developer the term RPG for your game.

Bit off topic, but I suppose amerk got me on a roll.

Wouldn't you say fighting such a stronger (regular) enemy is a challenge in itself?
This is a pretty popular system taken from some of the most successful mmorpgs. I confess what we're doing is a little different though I think its definitely adaptable. For example, you're in a barracks, the common enemy is a foot soldier and there's one guy on the map who from his attire looks like a higher ranking guy, captain or whatever. It makes sense there'd be less of him and why he'd be that much tougher.
Now, normally we die-hard 'traditional' rpg fans would go down a different route, making them a boss or a sub-boss if we decide to include them at all. But, honestly, this seems a great way to add a layer to that enemy hierarchy, and supply the player with another choice.

As a choice, I suppose. But if the only options I have are:

1. Grind up on enemies that provide no challenge and so it's basically "Press A to win"

2. Fight an enemy beyond my character's ability to fight and through a little luck possibly win.

Two polar extremes is just not good design to me. I'd rather have a proper progression of difficult enemies who get more intelligent or pull off different AI as the game goes on rather than grind of dull enemies or chancing myself on artificially difficulty enemies.

And yes, giving the player an enemy that their stats aren't meant for is artificial difficulty. It has nothing to do with skill, just numbers, and that does not a game make.

I'm pretty sure that was actually an Area spillover, like where you square out regions where monsters appear. It's actually okay to have these, but they should be like they naturally are, something you have to find. And no, I don't believe this is artificial challenge. Going the ordinary way there should be some challenge (plus the added effort of grind), but you should be able to use shortcuts too. It's sorta like a slope time/challenge. The important thing is that it should be very challenging but doable. Also, it's good to have enemies that are difficult at any level (like the Tonberry), or have very extreme damage resistance.