You only need the abstract of 'learning'.
I'd say you just need some way to define your character (AKA builds). Even learning is optional.
Keith Burgun explains why Sawyerism is inelegant.
In a party-based, combat-centric RPG:
Core Mechanism = tactical use of party members and abilities to kill enemies
Core Purpose = to make your party stronger through loot and XP
Goal = level up
By marginalizing combat rewards, Sawyer divorces the Core Purpose from the Core Mechanism. Therefore the tactical combat has no essential purpose in PoE, because it doesn't directly move the player any closer to achieving the Goal. In Burgun's terms: patchwork design.
God, what a dismal moron.
Unless you're derping around in some sort of arena mode the goal isn't "to level up". The goal is either to progress, or in case of sandboxes, it's left to be defined by player, but hopefully the reasonable goals are somewhat distant and require measurable progress towards them as well.
All RPGs and pretty much all sandboxes benefit from having a core made of a number of interlocking, yet individually optional mechanics and activities rather than singular one - it's part of defining trait of RPG and the defining trait of well realized sandboxes - the former have to support different possible roles adopted by the player, the latter need to support variety of possible gameplay goals.
Hell, no self respecting game with any pretense of complexity should ever adhere to the outlined, oh-so-insightfully-named "clockwork pattern". It's meant to be a game not fap simulator with single mechanics short-circuted and tied to manufactured orgasm - so much for patchwork design "antipattern" (about the only thing he got right there is that disconnected mechanics is bad, but linking can and sometimes should be realized on content rather than mechanical level).
Of course, a combat centric party game can allow greater part of its core to be dedicated to combat, but if it wants to be called an RPG it should allow player to consider different alternatives rather than funneling them towards one of them.
Hell, take a game that's far more combat centric and single-minded in terms of its intended gameplay than even the most combat centric RPGs can hope for - DOOM.
The gameplay mainly consists of running around and killing stuff with your weapons, yet you don't gain the weapons or progress based on stuff you kill, the enemies are just obstacles to your progression and both progression itself (a core reward mechanism allowing you to experience new stuff) and getting new weapons (the other core reward mechanism upping your killing potential and broadening your options) are mostly decoupled from the act of killing and it makes DOOM a far better game than it would be if you were forced to kill X imps to unlock the red door or obtain rocket launcher.
tl;dr:
stick to mobile and fb game design, brah, anything above that is and will remain way out of your league unless you get yourself a brian surgery.
He claims that zombie fiction is "...the author manufacturing a scenario under which violence could be not only justifiable, but so clearly justifiable that we can even glorify it."
Actually, that might be the only non moronic thing he's ever said (at least concerning zombie fiction in practice).
