I think this is the difference between computer RPGs, where they have to be prescriptive about XP awards, and tabletop RPGs, where common sense (hopefully) prevails.
My own method of awarding experience points is based on how much the character challenged themselves during an adventure and how valuable their contribution was. If a sorcerer just firestorms a cave full of bats, or a knight just ploughs his way through a load of peasants, I probably wouldn't award much (if any) experience points. In how much risk have they put themselves? Is the difficulty of the task commensurate with the experience reward? Is the action in keeping with both the mood of the game and the character's personality? How much did their actions progress the story? How much did their actions progress their character's development? And so on.
For me, experience points represent personal development: the translation of in-game experiences with improvements with the character's skills and abilities - if the experience does not develop the character, then it doesn't get an award. Incidentally, I do award XP to sorcerers the first time they cast a spell in a stressful situation (such as combat, or otherwise where there is pressure on the spell), so if the party were putting pressure on the sorcerer to clear the cave of bats (if it was in some way fundamental to the success of a meticulously conceived plan, for example), then I'd award a point for the use of firestorm if it was the first time the sorcerer had used firestorm on an adventure.
There are many exploits for computer RPGs like Skyrim, but the only way to abuse a tabletop RPG is for the GM to allow the players to do it. Not that I'm saying GMs don't occasionally make bad decisions - we've all been there and done that!!
|
.