Combat xp not so important for now, even though I still haven't seen a single argument against it that makes any sense.
A band of adventurers go out into the field, armed to the teeth.
Killing hundreds of enemies in epic encounters. ------ No xp.
Talking three times to a fat man on the corner, spotting a rabbit, walking over new piece of grass. ------- Truckloads of xp.
Objective only XP is not so important for now, even though I haven't seen a single argument against it that makes sense.
A band of adventurers goes out into the field, armed to the teeth.
Killed hundreds of minor enemies in trivial encounters. ----- tons of xp in the aggregate.
Going through multiple steps to secure a rare and powerful item for a merchant. ------ less XP in the aggregate.
Of course, some folks might decide to respond to the post rather than the point at hand. You can restructure any argument in order to trivialize it, but at the very least, you should properly represent it. I don't think I have once misrepresented an argument in order to refute it.
in per kill XP, you get a whole bunch of incidents where you receive relatively small XP that adds up to a lot, then you also get XP for talking to the fat guy. Now, I don't think that there are many folks calling for per kill XP who say we shouldn't get quest XP also. That's going by comments in this thread as well as the poll numbers themselves. Maybe it's different overall, but we're in a discussion here and in this discussion, I don't see an example of a substantial group calling for the removal of quest XP. Only about half more or less for inclusion of per kill XP.
In objective XP, in this case culminating in dialogue with the quest giver on three occasions(?), the characters not only overcome, kill, confuse, or make peace with tons of monsters, they might also get past or through locked doors, solve riddles, dispatch, spring, or otherwise bypass traps, and other 'epic' things. The culmination of these experiences is in stages, one of which is to talk to the fat guy three times.
As for you, Cap'n, I don't actually mind trash mobs as long as the combat is fun. I tend not to go out of my way to kill things anyway, but sometimes I do want to kill off monsters or npcs. A good example is Wasteland 2. It wouldn't matter which system it used, I would still go after the many raider bands in Canyon of the Titan. I feel kind of bad killing off the Monks, but they are either retarded or insane in the first place, and I knew that straight away. I thought they had it all wrong from get-go City. In the Wasteland universe, if the fear of MAD worked, there wouldn't have been a game in the first place. Out in the wilderness, I have virtually *always* run from battles with animals and raiders, even though I could pick up XP gear, especially in areas where the raiders are so pathetic I dispatch them with melee or brawling. Nevertheless, I don't want to take the time. Trash monsters are only bad when they're completely trashy. So, in my mind, I think of them as minor enounters random or not. I don't want to slog though completely forgettable encounters, which is what I think of 'trash encounters.' ...But that's a whole different discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the XP gorilla beats down a lot of other discussions. I think it's actually interesting to debate entirely set encounters vs. random/minor/semi-random etc. What is a trash mob? I know there were truly minor encounters in all of the IE games.