[RGTraynor]

I'll buck the tide: I'm quite content giving XP to individuals, and thus some will outpoint others.

First off, I'm airily unconcerned with eventual point disparities. If Player A gets 3 pts per session and Player B gets 2 pts per session, and they each make every single one of my biweekly games, then we're talking a disparity of what, 20-25 pts over the course of a full year? Under what circumstances would that unbalance a campaign? Seriously?

Secondly, we often get that anyway. A character dies and is replaced, a player drops out and is replaced, you're going to get a disparity. Do we tell the higher point characters that they're compelled to trade out every time a newbie shows up? (The record disparity in my campaign was 180 pts, which I admit was a bit challenging, but that's an extreme example.)

Nor do we (or should be, anyway) nerf excellence in other areas to avoid bruised feelings. The PC with skill-17 in her main weapon is going to hit more often and have more feasible combat options than the one with skill-14.

The one concession I make is that I not only hand out XP only every three sessions, but I include any left over "bank" from the previous set of sessions -- "Jillian, you have 7 pts to play with, including bank" -- and the only valid totals are what I keep in my own records. That shortcircuited the "How come Doug got more points than I did?" mutterings.