XP only exists as the remnant of a poor design choice made four decades ago kept alive through sheer inappropriate respect for "tradition."It also creates all sorts of metagaming issues and is a major cause of negative gaming group dynamics.
Throw away the chains of habit and embrace plot based leveling. You'll never regret it.
So, the idea that characters should improve and a way to measure it and chart progress was a "poor design choice"? Plot based levelling is fine for those in an AP. Players chose in a sandbox game. They don't always go the way you want, or think they will / should, as DM. XP are a handy way of measuring progress without running an AP with it's set / calculated path. My players like to have an idea of their progress. They also like to make choices. Xp does fine for that. Metagaming happens, no matter the system or method of advancement. That has to do with players more than the system.
I still use it. I use it in a lot of ways when I am running. If I'm running a game and you're absent from a game, just a quick page of what you were doing while the rest of the party was slogging away (plus open up some more bunny trails for later levels) helps out.
I understand why a lot of GM's don't, but I like it for my services.
|
Plot based levelling is fine for those in an AP. Players chose in a sandbox game. They don't always go the way you want, or think they will / should, as DM.
No matter which way they go, you will have to figure out how far they advance. If you want an XP chart to figure that out, more power to you. But XP is no more needed in sandbox free roaming than in APs.
DM by DM basis. I would play in your game if you had no xp, and you would probably play in mine. Even though I use XP, I don't always let people know where they stand. Yeah, they've got their cellphones and other ways to figure out how close they should be per RAW, but I don't like having people use anything but dice and paper and pencils when we get to game.
The more I feel you let a person be statistic free, the better they are at actually being in character. So why let someone know how far they advanced?
"After a few days of travel along the coast towards Korvosa, Don, you feel like your experiences have mattered a lot to you. Lets start off by rolling your new level HD and by the time you get in town, unless you plan on changing class and needing to find a possible trainer, you will be reflecting your new skills and feats."
My GM keeps saying he likes the Pathfinder system for awarding xp vs say 3.5. It is a lot quicker and if I had to run a game, I would agree with him.
We had a game with another GM who ran pathfinder who didn't give us xp. At certain points in the game he would tell us that we had enough xp to level up. I think this might have been one of the first times I played the game so it was a little strange just being told to level up.
I've played all sorts of games. The only one I can think of right now that had a minimum of xp award was Champions.
Plot based levelling is fine for those in an AP. Players chose in a sandbox game. They don't always go the way you want, or think they will / should, as DM.
No matter which way they go, you will have to figure out how far they advance. If you want an XP chart to figure that out, more power to you. But XP is no more needed in sandbox free roaming than in APs.
They go this way and are overpowered, they go that way and are underpowered (but win anyway), thay have a random encounter on the road, they decide to go follow up on a dungeon they never finished, they decide to help out an npc friend in town, they... do a really wide variety of different things. They don't always run together. They have PCs who are spread across multiple levels due to player death and choice. You need a simple way to determine who levels up when at a given moment. XP will do that for you. You could develop a system of GM based levelling to do it as well, but you'd end up with a more sophisticated system than the formulaic "level up at point x" AP type. Or you could, as GM, arbitrarilly decide who levels up when. I prefer XP to redeveloping the wheel or making arbitrary decisions. Ymmv.
*edit* By the way, I agree with Beercifer on keeping track of XP. My players keep their own counts, or not, and I have the official count.
Mine certainly does.
Depends on the game, the players, and the GM as to what works best.
I stopped using XP not because it was distracting for my players, but because I felt that I could never get a good balance of an amount of encounters before they level. Too many encounters and they might level far too quickly, but too little, and they may get bored waiting for the next level. That and as GM, I like getting to higher levels so I can use certain creatures that maybe be a little higher than a 1st level party could handle. Without XP, I don't feel as constrained when I write encounters. I just kind of go with the flow and it works out fairly well. I too run a sandbox game where the players are in a city and do their own missions, with some missions falling into their lap. It's like GTA: Pathfinder.
That said, I've gotten much better at combat pacing with XP so I could go back to it again. But for now, I prefer no XP. I can see why some people would be leery about no XP. To them, it's a set way for them to know when they level and there is a certain level of satisfaction when you do. If it's up to the GM, some players may be afraid they'll be stuck at X level for months without any headway. I can understand that, especially since I've had to deal with my own set of GM's trying something different and it just really not working. Different strokes I suppose.
|
|
Depends on the game, the players, and the GM as to what works best.
Mine certainly does.
Hell, I'd play an entire campaign at a single static level so the DM would never have to worry about adjusting encounters because we leveled unexpectedly. I'm tired of having to start at 1st and claw my way up just for the game to peter out.
I have found that adjusting the XP level actually is a nice way to throttle up or down the campaign timing.
Heroic/Epic Campaigns tend to use the Fast or Plot based. Heroic Sandbox uses Medium. And open sandbox I tend to use the slow.
Unless my players want stables of characters to play in a open sandbox then were use the Medium Path.
@TOZ: I am planning a Open Sandbox PbP after I Finish the Arena I am running. Feel free to come join as I will let you level up to a level you like and hang at that level as long as you want. Heck, I would even let you pick to do an Ex character.
Depends on the game, the players, and the GM as to what works best.
Mine certainly does.
Hell, I'd play an entire campaign at a single static level so the DM would never have to worry about adjusting encounters because we leveled unexpectedly. I'm tired of having to start at 1st and claw my way up just for the game to peter out.
Like playing Traveller. No experience system in the original game once play started.
My campaign has run since 1974. I've moved a number of times. So have my players. Major changes to the game with edition changes. Other changes between changing players and moves. And real life based suspensions. My players mostly run together. Some have "side adventures". Some sit out some sessions for various in and out of game reasons. Some have retired characters because they wanted to try something different or thier character found that "happy place". It's an interesting bunch. A while back my players took a "left turn". I looked over the area they were entering and it occured to me it was written out for 1st edition AD&D. That took some good improvisation followed by a makeover between sessions. All in all, that's why I've stuck with XP. It brings order to the madness :)
Gladly. PM me if you wanna discuss it. It probably won't start until Mid-Spring or Early Summer.
I am currently not using the exp. system in the AP I am running. It is a system that is optional from what I alway saw( except in 3.5 where crafting magic items and some spells cost exp.). It is not a bad system to use. And I use it in my non-AP games.
In other words you are not right or wrong for using it or not. Like almost every aspecvt of the game it depends on the GM and the players.
I long ago stopped worrying about leveling up my characters. I made a conscious decision that I wanted to focus on playing my character NOW, not look forward to playing my character LATER. So I decided that my goal in playing the game was to focus on what my character could do, enjoy the interaction with the other players and the game world, and then, whenever a level up occurred, that was just a new opportunity to play my character a little differently.
I long ago stopped worrying about leveling up my characters. I made a conscious decision that I wanted to focus on playing my character NOW, not look forward to playing my character LATER. So I decided that my goal in playing the game was to focus on what my character could do, enjoy the interaction with the other players and the game world, and then, whenever a level up occurred, that was just a new opportunity to play my character a little differently.
You and Me both...
In a sandbox style game, lets say there is a mountain to the North where a dangerous dragon lives, a swamp to the south where a tribe of lizard people live, a desert to the west haunted by ghosts and a a vicious pirate town to the east. If the party want to go to the dragon first, how would you adjust it to make a low level party succeed? Would you just let them go and die? If they went and succeeded against all odds, would you reward them the same as if they cleared out the lizard folk village?
While it would be convenient if they gained levels doing quests in the pirate town until they were strong enough to clear the lizard tribe, then do more quests until they can sanctify the desert, and then do more until they could reasonable beat a dragon, what happens if they do not go the easy way?
Random encounter tables need to be changed every time they level up, to keep things at an appropriate difficulty?
I can understand story leveling in any sort of AP, or even in a railroaded adventure, or episodic adventures, but it really does seem like in a sandbox, the system for non XP-based leveling up would end up being clunkier and more prone to metagaming than the XP system (i.e. lets go to the mountain first. It is harder so we will need to be leveled up more for it to be appropriate, and then we can rule everything else like kings after).
I would let them encounter it and need to run away.
But that problem can be negated by simply not setting things other than the basic terrain and things the party has already encountered in stone.
In a sandbox style game, lets say there is a mountain to the North where a dangerous dragon lives, a swamp to the south where a tribe of lizard people live, a desert to the west haunted by ghosts and a a vicious pirate town to the east. If the party want to go to the dragon first, how would you adjust it to make a low level party succeed? Would you just let them go and die? If they went and succeeded against all odds, would you reward them the same as if they cleared out the lizard folk village?
While it would be convenient if they gained levels doing quests in the pirate town until they were strong enough to clear the lizard tribe, then do more quests until they can sanctify the desert, and then do more until they could reasonable beat a dragon, what happens if they do not go the easy way?
Random encounter tables need to be changed every time they level up, to keep things at an appropriate difficulty?
I can understand story leveling in any sort of AP, or even in a railroaded adventure, or episodic adventures, but it really does seem like in a sandbox, the system for non XP-based leveling up would end up being clunkier and more prone to metagaming than the XP system (i.e. lets go to the mountain first. It is harder so we will need to be leveled up more for it to be appropriate, and then we can rule everything else like kings after).
In my campaign world, which can very much be run as a "sandbox," if players ignore the warnings and consciously decide to put themselves at excessive risk, they'll likely get killed.
The way I run campaigns I do my best not to "railroad" the players, but instead I give them choices that usually have incentives. The group I am running right now has a tendency to argue about what to do after each significant encounter, and on occasion they do choose to do something that I wasn't planning for. In that case I just adjust my plans to accommodate their choice and revise the story arc. Usually I can restore the basic arc, but on occasion such things have opened up entirely new opportunities for building out new areas of my campaign world. Which is always worth doing.
Back to the dragon. I do have dragons in my world. If the party goes to certain parts of the world, they will be told "there are dragons over there. Nasty ones. Sometimes they raid down here and kill lots of people. I highly recommend that you not go bother them unless you are a whole lot tougher than you look."
dragon
lizard people
ghosts
and a vicious pirate town
The same as in real life.
Where did you get your life because I kinda want it
|
I found that since I was just taking the XP per encounter and dividing it by the number of PCs in the party, everyone was pretty much leveling at the same time anyway. Thus I might as well just keep track of the total myself and just tell everyone when the group levels. On the other hand, the players love getting their XP candy so going to a non-XP model might be disappointing for them.
An alternative would be the Awesome Point (AP) model used in Old School Hack (www.oldschoolhack.net), where the players award each other single APs (taken from a per session pool) for doing something fun/awesome/clever. The APs can be spent to add to rolls, etc. and when everyone has spent 12 APs then the entire group levels together.
Everyone in our group is mostly used to Pathfinder Society, so when we do a home game we all cringe at the idea of tracking XP.
|
|
In our home stuff we level up based on the GMs discretion (based on content and story). This seems to bother those that plan each level out waiting for the ding to get better. In our group at least it does.
I sort of like the society way of doing it...it gets rid of the big numbers and allows the players to track and plan advancement. Keeps it simple yet still in the players hands I guess
@Slamy_Mcbiteo: Check out the link I posted above if you haven't. It has a nice breakdown of how many APL=CR encounters are expected to level up.
|
Ok guys, big bombshell here but I want to know how people feel about player experience points and whether or not they are actually "necessary" for a successful campaign. After recently starting a Pathfinder campaign with some friends (that I'm a player in) we decided as a group to completely eschew player exp for purposes of leveling up during this campaign.
To give a little background, my group of friends and I have played several GURPS campaigns (which give points after successful sessions with which you can buy stats/abilities for your character) and a Dresden RPG (based on FATE based on FUDGE) campaign (which allows players to modify/improve their characters after story "milestones"). We all really liked the FATE model and decided to let the GM arbitrarily choose when we level up (updating us after sessions with phrases like "1/2 way to level 3"). We decided on this for several reasons:
What are all y'alls thoughts on this? Has anyone else done it this way? Should we be tarred and feathered for thinking such nonsense? Comments are welcome!
- Big numbers scare us (except for gold count)
- We have a new GM who doesn't have a physical beastiary book with monster EXP
- We are all planning on attending all sessions
- It gives the GM a tighter hold on party progression
- Easier for GM to balance encounters when everyone is always on the same level
- We have a mix of combat and non-combat oriented PCs who don't want to play straight up "KILL all the things for EXP!"
- We're planning on a super fast leveling campaign (1 session got us to lvl 2, 2-3 sessions will get us to 3, etc).
- It's not like this is early D&D where EXP is directly used for making potions / crafting things.
-KaptainKrowbar
An interesting concept not using XP. I can see some advantages not to use XP.
Here is my favorite passage in the core rules.
The most important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt. Page 9 Core Rule book
I can also see advantages in using xp. One of the simplest uses of experience points, is to measure their accumulation of power, and if your players don't make every game, you have a ready means of measuring comparative progress.
So if you find not using XP is good for your game great.
Oh one final thought. I am terrible at math. In high school i was so bad at math, that they gave it a label : Dyscalculae. But even I was able to handle Thaco, -2 AC, and the statistics of die rolling. It was hard to pick up, but with enough practice through playing the gameI finally got it down. Luckily you don't have to deal with Thaco....you have BAB to deal with. So in short, I hope you don't back off of XP because you are scared of big numbers. I hope you do the math...Its part of the game. You might find it helpful in the long run.
I apologize for my rant. Good luck with your XP less games.
Thanks to everyone who left comments! I read each and every one of them. It seems that the XP system is still in a bit of discussion / debate among many players but I'm glad to see that people aren't willing to make it a point of division.
Our XP-less campaign has gone pretty well so far!
During our last session, we managed to take down a young red drake in an arena we were trapped in. Afterward.
Party member: Phew! That was pretty tough for a party level of two!
Me: (Trying to hint) What party level?
Party member: Two
Me: (Trying to hint again) Oh. What party level?
GM: (overhearing) Two
Me: (feigning disappointed): Oh. Ok.
GM: (finally getting it): Oh. OOOHHH! Yeah, three.
Whole party: Yaaaay!
GM: (finally getting it)
That is my favorite part.
Best of luck with your campaign.
Really the only pitfall of XPless games is to me that appropriately difficult encounters are properly rewarded vs easy encounters. IE if you face a series of CR level+4 encounters, it should get you towards your next level in fewer encounters then if you fought a bunch of CR level-1 encounters. Obviously its easy enough to be aware of this as a dm, but at least for me I want to make sure my players feel appropriately rewarded for tough fights.
We have an upcoming 24hr Gaming Endurance Challenge in my club, and for the adventure I'm running then I won't use EXP because it's going to be one giant session divided up into chapters. I've always used EXP in the past so I'll see how it goes.
The only thing that makes me hesitant is I usually give out small amount of bonus exp when a character manages to pull off something really risky or cool, and without exp it's a bit harder to tangibly reward someone for that, but we'll see.
GM: (overhearing) Two
Me: (feigning disappointed): Oh. Ok.
GM: (finally getting it): Oh. OOOHHH! Yeah, three.
I don't think I'd do that with my players. I wouldn't want then to think the way to level up was to ask repeatedly until I gave in.
I'm currently awarding XP at the end of every battle, as well as when they achieve anything else that deserves XP. It gives players a sense of being rewarded without having to throw around gold and magic items.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We have an upcoming 24hr Gaming Endurance Challenge in my club, and for the adventure I'm running then I won't use EXP because it's going to be one giant session divided up into chapters. I've always used EXP in the past so I'll see how it goes.
The only thing that makes me hesitant is I usually give out small amount of bonus exp when a character manages to pull off something really risky or cool, and without exp it's a bit harder to tangibly reward someone for that, but we'll see.
In the cases where I actually feel a desire to single out a particular player for a "reward" (which is rare, because of so many possible complications such things can create) I have a set of tangible, meaningful rewards such as:
A "coupon" for a single reroll of any single die.
A "coupon" for a +2 circumstance bonus for any upcoming d20 roll.
A "sudden inspiration" which is sort of like a divination which grants the character some insight into the near future.
A temporary "morale" boost to a character attribute.
I've found all of these things tend to be more meaningful to a player in game, and none of them create discrepancies between when characters would level up.
Now, having said that, this is extremely rare. Even when someone does something "really awesome" I try to reward the entire party in such a way that the PC gets the credit and the PLAYERS expresses admiration and gratitude for the player in question.
I don't think I'd do that with my players. I wouldn't want then to think the way to level up was to ask repeatedly until I gave in.
I have yet to have a single instance of any player asking me "when are we going to level up?"
In fact, either the level up situation is so obvious ("well, we killed the big boss, what's next?") or else the players are genuinely surprised when I say "OK, that's going to be a new level for the party. Get your characters updated for our next session and send me the changes you make."
|
I don't really think that's any kind of bombshell. Honestly people have been doing without experience for longer then Pathfinder was it's own RPG. Sometimes its due to a pace the GM wishes to keep, a narrative tone they want to set, or even just due to general laziness.
Heck, the living campaign doesn't even use a true experience.
One advantage of managing leveling up by plot is that it encourages your players to "live in the moment" and play their characters as they are, instead of constantly looking at their status and trying to figure out how to get to the next step faster.
I find that creates a more relaxed and casual environment for the players. They can focus on the story and stop worrying about where their next XP fix comes from.
|
|
I choose when to level up my players in an AP when one of them comes close to dying in a fight. I am only partly kidding...
I have found I tend to keep them below the recommeded levels to make it more challenging for them. So far none of them have actually died, but I do use Hero Points quite liberally so that helps.
This is the first AP in which I have given up tracking XP and I will never go back. So much simpler and if your players trust you, it can make it so much more satisfying when they do go up a level.
I tell my players to level after every two or three sessions, depending on pace of the story and their characters' progress toward their goals.
Warning: Personal Anecdote :P
Even with a regular group, I fear wasted sessions. As we've entered our 30's, keeping a consistent schedule is difficult at best. And so I want my players to always be excited by the content, engaged by the Plot, and satisfied by the rewards because truly, it could be someones last game for a long while, or in the case of many of my friends, the last ever. I run each session as if there isn't a 'next time.'
I had always struggled with how the drive to accrue XP ultimately created a negative, competitive, selfish gaming environment. As in some of the stories above, my fellow players would monopolize game time for the sake of additional personal XP. Since growth is measured in earnable, incremental value, its basically a currency--and since one's personal power is tied directly to it, it is the most valuable currency in the game. It is in our nature to focus on amassing a wealth of said currency, to create/force opportunities to earn that currency, to argue over how much of that currency is due, and to hoard it.
The worst for me as GM is when I think I'm being generous by handing out extra exp, but a player or two is still a few hundred shy, those players are often bitter at not having been allowed to 'do more' that session to level up--and so I just give it them any how out of guilt or frustration. There's also the aggravation of trying to tell a story, to really focus on character development and The Plot, but the attitude of the group is that there is little to no value in this type of gaming (as in XP reward). And so they do all they can to get back to killing things.
Ironically, the players will never level faster than the GM wants them to. The encounters that a GM makes available each session follows a predictable curve of Time-played v Plot Advanced. And so XP is just a placebo, not a real reward of any kind. So basically its a tumor in the game system, eating away time, energy, and enthusiasm.
As AD has said, dumping XP for Plot advancement changes the group dynamic to one of interested cooperation, where tackling challenges becomes the reward--be it Social, Political, or Combat. Satisfaction comes from feeling both accomplished, as well as clever. One simple example: In stead of killing those Kobalds by the Radish patch, turning them into servile allies who'll mine out the silver and tend the hex is now the better option. So after a little combat to establish dominance, you RP with the Chief and now have some specialized followers. Another example from above: in place of exterminating those Lizard Folk, you broker a trade route, and convince some of his warriors that there is glory in slaying the Dragon to the North. Now you can march upon said dragon with a force to drive him out, or slay him if necessary.
Killing things becomes the option of least value, while talking with and developing relationships becomes tangibly meaningful. Dumping XP really does change the way players think about this game.
My group is enamored with the Adventure Path concept, and since there are six books we pick one level at which we'll engage each. Typically 4th, 7th, 11th, 15th, 19th, and 20th, respectively. This allows me to customize each prefab encounter ensuring that all combat is challenging and all loot rewards appropriate and useful to the group.
I had always struggled with how the drive to accrue XP ultimately created a negative, competitive, selfish gaming environment. As in some of the stories above, my fellow players would monopolize game time for the sake of additional personal XP.
You can keep XP and avoid most of the problems you mention. If group XP is shared, then no-one can do selfish things for the sake of personal XP. And there's nothing to stop you giving 1000xp for killing the ogres or 2000xp for befriending them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Paizo, there you go! Clearly, a group of regular posters has spoken, and XP are a vestige of gaming long past, a desperate thread connecting us to a heritage we no longer need. I hope that the clamour of voices here will convince you to eliminate the whole, archaic concept of "xp" and simply let GM's tell the players to level up whenever it feels good and right. In fact, why have it be the GM who decides when players level? Let's toss out that old, patriarchal system and let the PLAYERS decide. I mean, they're the ones whose characters are facing the dangers, right? Let's see it in action!
GM: Okay, your party has had their ideas-exchange with the misunderstood Orc band and convinced them not to sacrifice the village's babies to their dark, evil, Goddess-denying Male idol. You all deserve a reward for your great play and exceptional teamwork! Let's go around the table and everyone can claim their xp...
Jimmy (playing his CG Paladin, as he refuses to be bound by the prevailing morality of the traditional Paladin, which is hidebound and stuck in the past): Whoa there, GM. Imma let you finish, but we don't use xp anymore. Didn't that TriOS College dude on the Paizo forums say they weren't necessary?
GM: Oh. I didn't know he had ruled on that! My bad. Everyone can level themselves up as they see fit - I certainly wouldn't want to engage in hierarchical behaviour!
Madeline (playing the human wizard): You know, I felt I grew during this campaign, you know? I felt like I really came into my own. My character should be level 5, I think. Yeah. I certainly didn't just choose that level so I can start tossing around fireballs!
Barry (playing the Rogue): And I sort of felt that my character grew as a person too, you know? I sort of felt good when I reallocated the unneeded wealth from those commoners and gave it to myself. I felt like, you know, I had really connected with my own needs for a change. I think he's level 6 now. Yeah.
Chris (playing the Cleric): I felt that I contributed a lot, too. I liked the part where you were all injured after that fight with the giant rats - where I refused to harm them because I'm a cuteitarian - and you were all desperate for healing and I was like "No! I'm a modern cleric, not a healbot!" and I really feel that I expressed my viewpoint, you know? And you all learned a lot? I know you're all still taking it in and that's why you're not talking to me. So I've decided that I'm probably level 10 after changing your lives like that!
Jimmy: I want a Holy Avenger. Oh, and 12 levels.
So, yes, obviously, XP are a blight and NONE OF US should ever use them.
I had always struggled with how the drive to accrue XP ultimately created a negative, competitive, selfish gaming environment. As in some of the stories above, my fellow players would monopolize game time for the sake of additional personal XP.You can keep XP and avoid most of the problems you mention. If group XP is shared, then no-one can do selfish things for the sake of personal XP. And there's nothing to stop you giving 1000xp for killing the ogres or 2000xp for befriending them.
We did switch to group XP before giving it up :) All problems I mentioned were still on the table. To boil it all down, players want to have some measure of control over how they gather XP. If they can't figure out how to optimize their level advancement (read Power-ups), they'll become antagonistic. When advancement is tied to specific outcomes players will push to have X number of outcomes each session. They'll want to be efficient, rather than engaged. If they learn that befriending everything is worth twice as much, they'll just snap to that outcome instead. But what if its not the right moral choice? In the end, they're just doing that because it earns them the most exp per time spent, rather than really trying for the most character-appropriate, or most interesting outcome.
But I do agree that a good GM can read his group, and fiat everything to their satisfaction. However, he can do even better by removing the source of aggravation :P and simply level them up when its time. Its what GMs who give XP are doing anyhow.
|
While I agree that DM Locke is being kind of ridiculous with his strawman, many of us do feel like the whole idea of "Why don't we actually play the game and see what happens" mindset is being replaced with "I want this thing to be exactly how I want it, regardless of what the story is."
At least on the boards.
In my experience players (including myself) are chomping at the bit to see what is going to happen to them next rather than trying to dicate from the other side of the table.
If your table likes conforming XP, it's fine I guess. But I personally feel like it robs regular players of the reward of actually playing through week to week and rewards players who don't bother showing up.
The thing with that is I let my PC find their own missions. Handling it your way would make them feel cheated as they enjoy trying to obtain the XP to level up, gold to buy what they need, and finding challenging missions.Hmm. Well, there would still be gold and treasure and all that.
There would also be the fun and challenge of overcoming difficult encounters and learning how to get their characters working together as a team.
There just wouldn't be some arbitrary number that was supposed to represent all that.
It would just be represented by arbitrary DM fiat. What's the difference?
In a home game, the only difference would be less math if you don't use XP, and you'd also lose the ability to use XP for things other than leveling like player rewards and crafting.
In an AP, I could see the benefit of not having to worry if the PCs are over or under-leveled at any particular point. Honestly, I wish I could go XP free in my Kingmaker game.