How about Spelunky?

That's not unpopular opinion, it's a fact.

No kidding.
Any game with a stealth element would require those things, that's pretty much the point of it. And even otherwise, why wouldn't managing to avoid enemies, if desired, be rewarded? I mean, it's usually penalized enough by not getting the experience and possibly loot from the combat, at least not at that time, until you get back there better prepared, so to make it impossible too... Players who are good at this should be able to get to areas above their level and gain the rewards from there earlier.

Regarding this last part, definitely, training by use is the best way, and makes sense too, though, in Elder Scrolls fashion, it should also be possible to use trainers, not with skill points, but paid or as part of story progression or both, so you will have both means available and not be restricted in how much or how many things you can practice at any point.

About the rest, yes, that is an ugly mechanic. And you need to know it all from character creation, because there are skill books too, which tend to randomly show up in stores and are cheap, and those gain you 2 skill levels (so worth 2 skill points) if you have the skill or 1 (so worth 3 skill points) if you don't. So idea would be to not gain any skill for which a trainer or book exists, then if a trainer exists do not put anything in skill nor use book (if available) until you take it to 5 by trainer, or if book exists but no trainer then first find book to get a level in the skill before putting any points. So first read a guide to learn all that, then start. Or don't and then feel like you wasted points... Gah.

But allowing up to 5 levels to be trained by trainers doesn't seem realistic. Not that any of it is, but, seriously, why would a trainer say sorry, too much for me after training you to level 5 and another being quite happy to take you from 30 to 35 before saying that?

One way is for training to be general training, just grant skill points (like in Lords of Xulima, also talking of what I'm playing... or was, till I put it aside to get back to some others now). Another is for training to still be specialized but grant something other than regular skill levels. Like in Might and Magic (bar early ones) or Arcanum.

Not every game needs a stealth element. In fact, the idea of stealth makes me nervous simply because of how many games have been ruined by insta-fail stealth sections (Zelda: Ocarina of Time is one example)l

If a player wants to explore areas above their level, they can look for strategies that allow them to defeat or otherwise clear encounters despite being underleveled. Such strategies might, for example, require a deep understanding of the game's mechanics, or they might require using consumable items that most players don't think to use. (An example of the latter is the Teleport Tome item in later remakes of Final Fantasy 2; during battle, it has a high chance of killing all enemies that don't resist Matter.) Instead of requiring the player to learn a different set of mechanics to explore advanced areas early, the player does so by virtue of the game's core mechanics, though perhaps with clever applications of them.

(Final Fantasy 2's remakes are an interesting example here; even if you save, the number of steps until the next battle is fixed, not every battle is runnable, and it is certainly possible to get to Mysidia (a town you reach about midway through the game) early and buy advanced equipment there.)

For the realism standpoint: The trainer teaches you tricks that you wouldn't learn on your own, but which do improve your skill. Each trainer has only so much they can teach you, but you can still learn from the trainer if you have been self-taught.

One could see it another way, from your second point that I quoted here: The skill levels granted are not "regular" skill levels. They are combined with regular skill levels whenever the skill is checked, but are still separate when it comes to checking whether a skill can be increased further, whether by the trainer or other means.

For someone who won't use consumables until the very end usually, and maybe frugally in some other boss fights or similar (would that count as unpopular? doubt it), I'd rather have the stealth...
That is rather the Arcanum way, isn't it? And those levels are entirely separate. Skills go to 20, trainers have nothing to do with that, they grant apprentice / expert / master levels, which translate into additional bonuses on top of what the skill level and associated attribute would grant. And you need a certain number of points in a skill to be able to become apprentice/expert/master. So tricks of the trade which you couldn't normally just learn on your own, but for which you do need to know enough about the skill, since if you know too little it'd just go over your head.
Wish I'd see that mechanic used more... Most preferably combined with the Elder Scrolls train through use + paid trainers method for the regular skill growth.

Indeed. However, talking about video games not worth your time, effort, and money is a popular hobby unto itself.

You know what else is a fact?
Taste is subjective.

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

DUDE!

Where's my car?

I'd rather have the game designed to reward good use of consumables, so that players will actually use them and not just ignore them until the end of the game, at which most consumables will *probably* go unused.

(It also helps if there are infinite sources for most consumables, including every consumable for which a stronger consumable that's of infinite supply exists. FF6 is an example of a game that fails this test; there are only 3 X-Ethers in the game (unless you count GBA bonus content), but there is an infinite source of Elixirs (you just need to rare steal from a certain enemy that doesn't like to stay alive).)

I thought of another reason I would rather not have the stealth aspect here.

In an RPG, the character's abilities are what matters, not the player's abilities; this is important enough that I often incorporate this aspect into my definition of what an RPG is. (In other words, a game where this is not true is not an RPG.) Hence, the player's role is to determine what the character does, not to actually execute the action.

The problem with the stealth aspect to avoiding encounters is that it simply ignores the RPG mechanics and ends up being based off player skill, not character skill, making the game less of an RPG. If I've chosen to develop* my character a certain way, I want to actually use the skills the character has developed, not have them be simply sidestepped by the game turning into an action game. (This is also the reason I dislike action minigames in RPGs.)

Now, if stealth were handled in an RPG-like fashion, with stats and skills being used to determing whether to avoid an encounter (perhaps with a dash of RNG), then it wouldn't be an issue. Use invisible random encounters, but if the character turns stealth on, there would be a random chance of avoiding encounters, based off skill checks. (It might be reasonable to have this consume some resource, so that players don't just sneak through a major dungeon straight to the end, and in most cases bosses wouldn't be skippable this way.)

* I'm thinking that, for games with FF2- or SaGa- style growth systems, "develop" might be a better term than "build' in this context.

i dont know but i think this:

Mass Effect Andromeda is awesome! And because of this i played ME 1-3 1 and 2 was bad and 3 was okay. But it wasnt as good as MY first Mass Effect Game. :D

I don't like online multiplayer. I play games to be antisocial, so the last thing I'm gonna want is a bunch of people shouting in my ear while I'm trying to play. My preferred multiplayer experience is local co-op. I want to go through a game and like my friend better, not go through a game and want to strangle them with a wired controller for chucking a grenade in my face after pressing the "wrong" button.

If a game doesn't have a story, or at least a definite endpoint, I'm not going to be interested in it. I don't have infinite hours to master something that has the potential to run indefinitely. No one does. Even if a game is only five hours from start to finish, I'm still getting a better deal per hour than going to the movies.

I can tell when a game's been designed to be more fun to watch than to play. Thank you, streaming industry. The developers are aware of you now and acting accordingly.

If your game has spelling and grammar mistakes, I'm going to notice and it's going to negatively impact the experience.

All RPG attempts at spicing up their games with 3D eroticism are castratingly awkward, hilariously embarrassing failures.