The biggest problem is : relative XP is not OGL...
And the other problem, though, a minor one I agree, is that I, as a DM, prefer the fixed XP system... Less things to calculate, and xp is a minor occurence in game...
And my players are not going to have xp for a no threat encounter... And they know that...
I think everyone is intelligent enough to understand why in PF (and in RPG in general) burning some ants won't give you xp... xp is a reward (it is unedr the reward chapter in the rulebook no ?), not a due... If as a GM, I esteem that killing this or that don't give players xp so there's no xp...
I think rule zero still exist in my book... When a player come to me with a very sound idea, a genius plan, an original character it's my duty to reward him and help him do what he want and I can give him some xp for that... If a player come to me with some ways to tweak the rules in order to gain an undue advantage it is also my duty to keep him in place and remind him that this is a game and the only one allowed to do whatever he want is the DM...
For now it work, I've got the same group of players for more than 10 years, have DMed them fore more than 5... they still enjoy playing...
So a little good sense will help you to get rid of all this players wanting to cheat by tweaking the rules...
Then House Rule the 3.5 Xp system back in... Fixed.
Or, in my case, I drop Xp awarded by 10% for each CR below the group's APL.
I think rule zero still exist in my book... When a player come to me with a very sound idea, a genius plan, an original character it's my duty to reward him and help him do what he want and I can give him some xp for that... If a player come to me with some ways to tweak the rules in order to gain an undue advantage it is also my duty to keep him in place and remind him that this is a game and the only one allowed to do whatever he want is the DM.
+1
The problem ofcourse is relative xp is a pain in the arse to calculate (or at least it was in 3.5) and it was definately one of the things pathfinder sought to simplify for the sake of gms lacking a degree in calculus. At this point its up to dms to ensure their party isnt running around killing boars in the forest to level up with pacing of the story and plot hooks. Short of facing down said army the party would have to spend alot of actual game time hunting down easier prey to actually gain significant xp(relative to how much xp is required to level up) at higher levels.
If my players were to spent time as you say boiling an anthill, they would find that the big bad has conquered the realm and they themselves are in a poorer situation for it.
You can do this in PF. You have Easy to Epic encounters. Basically APL -1 to APL +3. If you decided to have an ecounter of 12 level 1 comoners that would be CR 4 fight. Since Easy is CR 9 fight they'd get no XP for the CR 4 fight. That's how I do it my games.
I generally just use common sense though. If there is no threat no experience. Simple as that.
I don't think a Chart like 3.5 had helps and really just is pain in the rear.
This thread is about the differences between fixed XP systems and relative ones, specifically PF vs 3.5.
There are many problems with fixed XP systems, problems that do not exist in relative XP systems.
Here they are in short:
"Boil an antbed, gain one level."
Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quality.
Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quantity.
And now to elaborate on these points.
"Boil an antbed, gain one level." - Most of you have probably seen this card. But facetious remarks aside, this is exactly the sort of behavior it encourages - slaying large numbers of non threatening enemies instead of picking on something your own size. While in most games taking on large numbers of anything more dangerous than the illustrious insects would be a poor decision, this is D&D. The game in which 10th level parties of 4 can defeat an army, all in a day's work. It's not even a thing.
Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quality - 3.5 made it very clear that lower level enemies just weren't that dangerous to you, reflected by reduced XP. If they were 8 or more levels lower, you got 0 because you were assumed to be able to defeat an infinite number of level - 8 creatures without breaking a sweat. PF in no way changed what you were capable of but they did forget to tell you that. Just take a look around and see all the people spamming the party with meaningless mook fights as if they were making a convincing point about anything. It just leads to confusion and bad data.
Misleading impressions of what is and is not a threat in terms of quantity - There is some obvious overlap here as encounters have an Inverse Law of Ninjitsu thing going on but it still deserves its own section. 3.5 also made it very clear if you had to use more than a dozen enemies to make an encounter that those enemies were not really a threat and were just filler. PF, with its fixed XP does not. So they still aren't a threat...
I agree with your main point, and actually preferred the 3.X relative XP system.
That said, it'a flaw that is easily worked around. You can avoid the "boil the anthill" phenomenon pretty easily by the DM just making sure that such encounters don't happen. Some may view that as DM railroading, but if I have a mid-level or higher group that seeks out every kobold warren within a thousand miles to gain easy levels, then they have bought themselves a ticket on the train.
Also, it is easy to mix in some higher level types that actually might represent a danger to the party in these encounters. Nothing can ruin a characters day more than discoverin that that kobold he just contemptuously tried to take out with a color spray actually has 6 levels of cleric.
Finally, don't totally discount the danger large groups of individually unimpressive creatures can be with smart tactics. In this case, 3.X/PF actually made them more dangerous than previous editions of the game with the inclusion of grapple, flanking, and the aid another action. Still not very dangerous, but not nothing for lower to lower middle level parties.
I ditched XP in early 3.0, and just leveled characters by fiat. Sure, it takes some of the "control" away from the players, but it also gives it back to teh DM to run the game at a power level they are comfortable with. In my mind , new levels are a reward for good playing, not an investment scheme, if that makes sense?
I've just told my players that "you will gain a level every 4th session, from now to eternity" and they go with that. They plan ahead and know when they will advance and it allows them to ignore things like worrying about if they've gotten enough encounters in or if they wasted too much time roleplaying in town talking to commoners about selling loot etc. This way they just play naturally, without concern for meta elements like worrying if they've killed enough bad things to advance or not.
Works for me.
I ditched XP in early 3.0, and just leveled characters by fiat. Sure, it takes some of the "control" away from the players, but it also gives it back to teh DM to run the game at a power level they are comfortable with. In my mind , new levels are a reward for good playing, not an investment scheme, if that makes sense?
And another +1.
Translation: You latched onto a facetious comment and took that as the whole point. Namely, that beating up large numbers of weak enemies doesn't justify any XP reward, but with fixed XP it does. If you have to fix something you are admitting it is broken.
Relative XP = simple math.
PF XP = also simple math, but throwing much larger numbers around and more often.
No it doesn't, it does if you want it to... You're the DM remember ? :)
And the rules is not broken, it works well 99% of the time... And it make my day brighter by having just to look at a table and say "okay you all gain X xp, let's move on now". Yes, the rule can be tweaked, but a sound GM will not permit that at his table no ? And I think the players who try to tweak rules have forgotten the spirit of the game...
In 3.X it's simple clacul but it's calcul nonetheless, and I'm really no good with calculus, I count on my finger and my players laugh at me...
Now if an enemy is a little lower level than the party, like 1 or 2 there's specific builds you can use (in 3.5 at least, most of them don't work in PF) to keep them as relevant threats. But once they get weaker than the party cohort you're just wasting everyone's time to even roll initiative on that fight. It's just going to end up being a 'horde of enemies you don't care about, who might or might not come with 1 or 2 enemies you do' situation.
I have to disagree with this a bit. My last campaign the party ended up invading a series of islands ruled by a night hag, who commanded an army of minotaurs. Despite being CR4 to the partys APL7-8, they easily put out enough damage and succeeded often enough on maneuvers that they had to be taken seriously as opponents, if not as seriously as the 1/2 fiend minos or the hags/witches. sure, it was not an optimized party, but they were geared properly, and experienced players to boot. Sometimes, Quantity has a Quality all it's own.
|
...slaying large numbers of non threatening enemies instead of picking on something your own size...
Never had this problem personally. If an encounter isn't threatening because the party so outclasses their opponent that there is no risk of failure, then that encounter isn't worth any experience. The characters didn't learn anything new, or challenge their skills in any appreciable way. As a DM, I wouldn't give experience for boiling an anthill any more than I would for eating a sandwich.
It's the old "I'm 10xp short of a level, let's go beat up an orc" issue that is called out in the the 2nd edition DMG. My group and I have used the same rationale in gaming ever since.
I have to disagree with this a bit. My last campaign the party ended up invading a series of islands ruled by a night hag, who commanded an army of minotaurs. Despite being CR4 to the partys APL7-8, they easily put out enough damage and succeeded often enough on maneuvers that they had to be taken seriously as opponents, if not as seriously as the 1/2 fiend minos or the hags/witches. sure, it was not an optimized party, but they were geared properly, and experienced players to boot. Sometimes, Quantity has a Quality all it's own.
I've had pretty similar experience.
The nature of the game is that not every character can be optimized to deal with every kind of threat at all times, and sometimes a particular character's or party's relative Achilles heel at the moment might include more numerous slightly weaker enemies, especially if those enemies are smart enough to avoid clumping for area spells.
I don't agree that the 3.5 chart was a pain. I think it's much simpler. Of course, I've been using it since the playtest rules for 3.0 came out, and we're still using it. Main advantage, the players know how many XP they need to level without checking any chart. I award based on the CR of the encounter, ignoring the fixed XP. We're on our third AP, and the levels come out pretty much exactly where they are supposed to for the AP. Don't see a problem with it.
That's because of the way the Paizo staff calculated new Fast Track XP chart so that it would line up basically 1:1 with the advancement rate of the 3.5 chart if you stick to the assumed number of APL = CR encounters per level. Which is how the APs are structured.
...slaying large numbers of non threatening enemies instead of picking on something your own size...Never had this problem personally. If an encounter isn't threatening because the party so outclasses their opponent that there is no risk of failure, then that encounter isn't worth any experience. The characters didn't learn anything new, or challenge their skills in any appreciable way. As a DM, I wouldn't give experience for boiling an anthill any more than I would for eating a sandwich.
It's the old "I'm 10xp short of a level, let's go beat up an orc" issue that is called out in the the 2nd edition DMG. My group and I have used the same rationale in gaming ever since.
I don't even roll out fights if they aren't threatening. If the party can easily defeat the encounter with no threat we skip it like moving a bit rubble in front of a door.
*Chuckling*
So let us say that the group finds annihilating every critter in a 60 mile radius. What are the repercussions? Piles of carrion, no worthwhile loot - and no one to sell it to. Some one - or even a lowly token got off with a message to call for help. Critters of all stripes are possible. Anything that eats carrion (more XP!). Undead that arise from their horrific demises (more XP!). Heroic NPC types, at the head of an army (oooh, loot AND more XP!). Ancient dragons coming to investigate what all the fuss is about (AAIIEE!! We're more XP for the dragons! Ooopsie ...)
Sounds like fun. :-)
That actually does sound entertaining. Still an abuse of the term level appropriate encounter though.
Uh ? What's the term level appropriate encounter ? How can a player abuse it ?
|
|
Umm green, you do realize that slaying large number of low CR critters STILL upped the exp in 3.x right? 12 cr 1 critters that can be slaughtered by a fireball is a ECL 7 encounter and is considered a difficult challenge by the 3.5 exp system and gave a TON of exp. It was MUCH easier to do the boil an anthill in the 3.x system then in PF.
None of those actions are anything new. Though they are actually less effective for the following reasons:Grappling: It's a maneuver. In Pathfinder. Therefore it won't succeed.
Flanking/aid another: Ok, it's a little more likely to hit. And do small amounts of damage. Except you have more HP, so you care even less than you would in 3.5.
Now if an enemy is a little lower level than the party, like 1 or 2 there's specific builds you can use (in 3.5 at least, most of them don't work in PF) to keep them as relevant threats. But once they get weaker than the party cohort you're just wasting everyone's time to even roll initiative on that fight. It's just going to end up being a 'horde of enemies you don't care about, who might or might not come with 1 or 2 enemies you do' situation.
Sorry. I should have been clearer. Grapple, aid another and flanking were added with 3.0, not with PF. That's what I meant. I've been playing long enough that 3.0 is still relatively new for me, as the majority of my gaming life was during 1st and 2nd editions. So that's where I tend to draw my comparisons from, rather than from the relatively smaller changes from 3.5 to PF.
Also you can have other adventuring parties sometimes kill all the kobolds if they are level one and find an empty dungeon that smells bad. Or other evil monster could have taken out the kobolds of goblins whatever and now inhabit there dungeon. NOw you have a harder dungeon.
Godammit, who let the troll out of his pen again...
Technicly he's not the troll. He started the thread.
I'd be pleased to know what the "fake" problem was.
...Each monster, trap, and obstacle awards a set amount of XP, as determined by its CR, regardless of the level of the party in relation to the challenge, although you should never bother awarding XP for challenges that have a CR of 10 or more lower than the APL. Pure roleplaying encounters generally have a CR equal to the average level of the party (although particularly easy or difficult roleplaying encounters might be one higher or lower)...
Uh, you could do this in 3.5 too? It's not a problem with relative vs absolute experience, it's a problem with bad players and worse DMs. And, really, have you actually looked at the experience charts? A CR 1 creature gives 100 experience each to a 4 person party. Let's assume they're 8 levels higher than that, since that was the cutoff in 3.5; that means they're level 9 and need 30,000 experience to level to 10. That's 300 CR1s. 300 CR1 creatures are absolutely a threat to a group of 4 CR8 creatures. Don't believe me? Try 300 kobold sorcerer 2s. 300d4+300 auto-hit damage? Yes please. And then they run away into a trap-filled lair with lots of Tiny-sized hidey holes that they can pop out of to cast more spells at you and run away where you can't chase them.
Even just using level 2 fighters, and assuming that they need 20s to hit (which is unlikely to be the case), that's still 15 hits every round.
This is one of those "problems" that is only ever theoretical. It will never actually be encountered in real play. As such, it's not a real problem.
it is also my duty to keep him in place and remind him that this is a game and the only one allowed to do whatever he want is the DM.+1
I don't want to hijack this thread, but am I really the only one who takes exception to this thought process? If I could, I would so down-mod -1.
On topic: if leveling too quickly is an issue, you could try running on the Slow column of the Level Advancement Table. That's a good way to keep characters at X level for longer periods of time (and it's not even based on DM fiat.)
I don't use XP at all. I simply tell my players when their characters gain a level and do so when I feel is appropriate. Using the XP system is something I don't miss at all and I am glad I ditched it many years ago.
That said, on the actual topic of the relative versus fixed XP sytems, the difference in potential abuse of low-level enemies is not much of a problem in either. The experience needed to gain higher levels increases much faster in the fixed XP system, so killing low level enemies might net some experience points, but the number is relatively insignificant compared to the number one must gain to achieve a new level. Killing such vast numbers of very low level enemies so as to make a significant difference would actually be very difficult to do. One would have to find such a group and somehow make sure it is isolated from more powerful beings (if one finds a town or a Kobold lair or whatever, it is likely that some of the population of each will not be completely low-level and one has no way of knowing beforehand anyway). Even if one could manage it, then there would be the repercussions... Killing off a town or hordes of Kobolds is likely to attract significant attention. Heroes and other 'noble creatures' might pursue town-killing groups, whereas slaughtering kobolds en-masse, could attract the attention of some patron dragons. Either way, the group would quickly have to deal with the consequences of its actions.
"Boil an antbed, gain one level." - Most of you have probably seen this card. But facetious remarks aside, this is exactly the sort of behavior it encourages - slaying large numbers of non threatening enemies instead of picking on something your own size. While in most games taking on large numbers of anything more dangerous than the illustrious insects would be a poor decision, this is D&D. The game in which 10th level parties of 4 can defeat an army, all in a day's work. It's not even a thing.
Another game I like a lot, Burning Wheel has a solution for this. If there is no challenge to what you're doing (ie, there's no serious consequences for failure, it isn't important to the story, or failure is just uninteresting), you don't roll, but instead automatically succeed. Automatic successes do not count towards that games version of "experience".
BTW, automatic successes is one of the best "railroading" available to a GM. Most GM's I've seen try to use automatic failures, they let the players roll, but no matter what they roll, it doesn't work. This leads to frustrated players who can end up fixating on an unobtainable goal. Whereas if the GM just lets them succeed automatically and handwaves their goals, the players get their victory and move on.
|
I've just told my players that "you will gain a level every 4th session, from now to eternity"
This is essentially what I do too. I still award XPs, but have a standard per session award specifically designed to average giving them a level every 3-4 sessions. So, obviously, the number goes up over time -- I pick it to always be just slightly below that 1/3 of the way to next level figure, giving me leeway for bonus awards when they do really cool stuff.
Other than that, I don't give XP much thought at all.
|
|
That said, on the actual topic of the relative versus fixed XP sytems, the difference in potential abuse of low-level enemies is not much of a problem in either. The experience needed to gain higher levels increases much faster in the fixed XP system, so killing low level enemies might net some experience points, but the number is relatively insignificant compared to the number one must gain to achieve a new level.
Yes, on-topic, this is my POV also. I can't imagine my players bothering to go slay easy "prey", it is just too tedious.
I don't think I'd need to actively discourage such ideas -- if they wanted to seek out a 1st level adventure hook, I guess they could do that, but I'm not sure if I'd just shrug and say "OK, mark 1 week off on the calendar, and you kill a bunch of orcs" or if I'd make them tediously play out the entire slaughter and make sure it was really boring. Either way, the un-fun nature of it seems discouraging enough.
On topic: if leveling too quickly is an issue, you could try running on the Slow column of the Level Advancement Table. That's a good way to keep characters at X level for longer periods of time (and it's not even based on DM fiat.)Which has nothing to do with the topic.
Then I guess I don't understand the topic or your problem.
As the DM, you control encounters. If you think something about an encounter is obviously skewed one way or the other, then alter it. Isn't that true of a fixed or relative system?
Furthermore, what is experience used for? It's used or leveling. If you have a problem with XP awards, is it because the characters are advancing too quickly?
|
|
I don't use XP at all. I simply tell my players when their characters gain a level and do so when I feel is appropriate. Using the XP system is something I don't miss at all and I am glad I ditched it many years ago.
I did the same a few years back and the other GM's in my group have followed suit. This allows for more flexibility in level gaining. If you need to power-level the PC's, you can do it without having to create a bunch of mindless encounters simply to provide XP's. At the same time, if you need the PC's power level to remain static for a longer than normal period of time, you don't have to justify gimping the XP's. In any case, I don't have to track CR, XP, etc on an encounter by encounter basis. If a mod starts at 1st level and ends with the PC's at 4th, then I just divide the number of encounters by the those levels and then match up the breaks with the closest logical breaking point. This creates the concept of milestones. It also allows the PC's to focus on the role playing a bit more since they not worried about that one more kill that will "ding" them to the next level.
If you need to power-level the PC's, you can do it without having to create a bunch of mindless encounters simply to provide XP's.
Why not create fun and exciting encounters that challenge the PCs and allow them use all of their neat skills and abilities? Then you could award appropriate XP and the players could talk about hits and near misses and level-drains and all of that good stuff. Combat can be exciting AND worthwhile. :)
XP Teh Brokezorz!
Green sees only red 'round here.
Maybe the author?
Say you have a group of 9th-level characters on the Medium track. They each have 75,000 XP. They need to get to 105,000 XP to level up.
Say they decide they want to stick to killing orcs. Maybe all of them have the "orcs killed my parents" background hook. So they go on a genocidal crusade to kill all the orcs in the world.
1,000 orcs later (whether singly, or in fireball-sized bunches), they've accrued approximately 1000x135 XP = 135,000 XP. That's 33,750 XP each for a party of 4, which puts them at 108,750 XP, or a little bit into 10th level. All that work for ONE level.
The PCs have gotten pretty junky loot compared to CR-appropriate monsters.
Their adventures have probably been generally unremarkable, repetitive, and easy.
But... did the players have fun? If the answer is "yes," then my question is, "then who cares if the characters faced challenges that weren't risky?"
|
Looking over this conversation all I can think of is The Incredibles (slightly modified for our current topic):
Complaints I can handle. What I *can't* handle is your customers' inexplicable knowledge of the XP system's inner workings! They're experts! EXPERTS, Bob! Exploiting every loophole, dodging every obstacle! They're penetrating the bureaucracy!
Say you have a group of 9th-level characters on the Medium track. They each have 75,000 XP. They need to get to 105,000 XP to level up.
Say they decide they want to stick to killing orcs. Maybe all of them have the "orcs killed my parents" background hook. So they go on a genocidal crusade to kill all the orcs in the world.
1,000 orcs later (whether singly, or in fireball-sized bunches), they've accrued approximately 1000x135 XP = 135,000 XP. That's 33,750 XP each for a party of 4, which puts them at 108,750 XP, or a little bit into 10th level. All that work for ONE level.
The PCs have gotten pretty junky loot compared to CR-appropriate monsters.
Their adventures have probably been generally unremarkable, repetitive, and easy.But... did the players have fun? If the answer is "yes," then my question is, "then who cares if the characters faced challenges that weren't risky?"
Plus, you know, party bonus, 'cause now there are 1000 less orcs in the world, and you have 1000 skeletal servants who won't unionize on you. Do something about those elves infesting Golarion and I think you have an idea there.
Seriously, though, I agree. And if your DM has fun running sessions where the player's hunt down orcs for trivial rewards then your idea of a fun game is waaaay different than mine, and more power to ya, go have fun with it. This is a rule zero issue, and not even a major one. For all the digital ink spilled over it you'd think it was weapon speed factors, drow equipment decaying in sunlight, armor as DR, infravision, called shots, or some other thing that people might rant about...
I had one instance where the group I was running for, one of the players made a comment, along the lines of only needing a CR 8 encounter to level.
I hit them with stirges. 16 of them, to be exact. They were in the swamp looking for an orc envampment, so it fit. I followed the rules, they each drain 1 con per round for for x rounds then leave. All through the fight, everyone was "OMG!!" as they saw their CON dwindle, and there was nothing they could do about it...
After it was over, and they all had like 3 or 4 CON left (except the pally) they leveled. 16 lowly stirges left them in a swamp to camp, fearing someone stumbling accross them as they had no health to repel newcomers from temporary CON damage. The previously cocky party had their morale devastated by...Stirges.
<evil grin>
That said, on the actual topic of the relative versus fixed XP sytems, the difference in potential abuse of low-level enemies is not much of a problem in either. The experience needed to gain higher levels increases much faster in the fixed XP system, so killing low level enemies might net some experience points, but the number is relatively insignificant compared to the number one must gain to achieve a new level.Yes, on-topic, this is my POV also. I can't imagine my players bothering to go slay easy "prey", it is just too tedious.
I don't think I'd need to actively discourage such ideas -- if they wanted to seek out a 1st level adventure hook, I guess they could do that, but I'm not sure if I'd just shrug and say "OK, mark 1 week off on the calendar, and you kill a bunch of orcs" or if I'd make them tediously play out the entire slaughter and make sure it was really boring. Either way, the un-fun nature of it seems discouraging enough.
Agreed, even if I used an experience point system I wouldn't actively discourage it, but mass slaughter would have appropriate in-game consequences (e.g. perhaps the orcs being slaughtered feel threatened and thus accept Ogre overlords in exchange for protection and so on).
I don't use XP at all. I simply tell my players when their characters gain a level and do so when I feel is appropriate. Using the XP system is something I don't miss at all and I am glad I ditched it many years ago.I did the same a few years back and the other GM's in my group have followed suit. This allows for more flexibility in level gaining. If you need to power-level the PC's, you can do it without having to create a bunch of mindless encounters simply to provide XP's. At the same time, if you need the PC's power level to remain static for a longer than normal period of time, you don't have to justify gimping the XP's. In any case, I don't have to track CR, XP, etc on an encounter by encounter basis. If a mod starts at 1st level and ends with the PC's at 4th, then I just divide the number of encounters by the those levels and then match up the breaks with the closest logical breaking point. This creates the concept of milestones. It also allows the PC's to focus on the role playing a bit more since they not worried about that one more kill that will "ding" them to the next level.
Yep, it allows for greater flexibility (I can keep them in the power range I want them to be, or level them faster if I want them to be ready for something major) and reduces any XP-tracking burden (which is even worse in a relative XP system than in a fixed XP system. As you said, it also removes the pressure on players to have their PCs to kill, kill, kill, as they know that advancement is not dependent on that, so they are encouraged to play their characters more appropriately to the circumstances.
To expound on this further, I am a huge fan of ditching rules that restrict me in how I should run my game. I have also ditched wealth by level guidelines, the various rules for how much treasure each encounter is worth, as well as CR/EL. It is extremely liberating to do this, makes my life as a DM much easier and more enjoyable and provides much more flexibility for me to do what's appropriate to the setting/adventure, rather than what the wealth by level or encounter level guidelines say. Well, to be fair, I do eyeball the general power level and the CR is a nice shortcut for that, but I certainly don't sweat it and feel like I need to provide X encounters of CR Y or something like that - whithin a reasonable power level range, I just do what I feel fits the adventure (and within the setting not even that - if 1st level PCs wished to go dragon-hunting at level 1, well in theory there would be nothing to stop them in theory, but I will not try to 'hook' them into such a suicidal venture on purpose, and would provide them with in-game warnings and opportunities to back out, or delay their goals - perhaps trying to hook them into something related to prepare them for their desired goal at higher levels).
If you need to power-level the PC's, you can do it without having to create a bunch of mindless encounters simply to provide XP's.Why not create fun and exciting encounters that challenge the PCs and allow them use all of their neat skills and abilities? Then you could award appropriate XP and the players could talk about hits and near misses and level-drains and all of that good stuff. Combat can be exciting AND worthwhile. :)
I don't presume to be TwilightKnight, but what if interspersing more encounters just to get the PCs to level would be inappropriate to the adventure/story/situation the PCs are in? I see no reason to detract from the story/situation/adventure and provide inappropriate ballast (even if the encounters would be fun) when I don't need to do so. Sure, combat can be fun when it is in the right context, but forcing it just for the sake of XP is unnecessary, when the alternative is more flexible.
I'm not sure I get this argument.
First, in the Core Rulebook, it states that there is a certain point where challenges no longer yield XP. Granted, it's not until 10 levels up, but it is still there. And, for that matter, the 10-level cutoff is only a little beyond the 8-level cutoff that 3rd edition had.
Second and most importantly, I always thought it was pretty well-established that XP isn't given out if there is no challenge. If the PCs are 8th level and want to just beat up beggars, I don't know of too many GMs that would give out XP for that. I know the "boil an anthill" thing is a joke from Munchkin, but if put into practice, it would yield no XP because there is no challenge there. The CR, for all intents and purposes, is 0...after all, it's called Challenge Rating for a reason.
I'm not saying the argument is wrong; I'm just not sure I get why this would come up in a game. Is the group that's stomping bunnies or whatever for XP a hypothetical group, or is this a common occurrence in other people's games? If it's a common occurrence, it might be worth revisiting the Core Rulebook and, more importantly, revisiting what actually puts the Challenge in Challenge Rating.