Rant spoiler-ed below, because its mostly just complaining, but it feels like a lot of games lately have added 'gamified xp' to their systems, and I don't understand the appeal at all. The most positive any player I've talked to has felt about the systems are 'meh, I could take it or leave it', with most slightly disliking them.
So, mostly, I'm looking for people that like these kinds of mechanics (I have to assume they're out there if so many games feel like they're adding them), and what you is it you like about them.
But I feel like Milestone XP just makes the most sense for any traditional coop party RPG.
rant
I like trying out a bunch of different systems, and there's a lot to like, especially with a lot of the smaller games out there. I do like there 'narrative' approach ttrpgs feel like they've been taking recently, but between Chronicles of Darkness, ICON, Forged in the Dark, Apocalypse world, etc., and all there spinoff systems all having XP be earned for specific actions in game, its just a pain in the ass, that takes me out of the action.
I mostly GM, but I strongly prefer milestone XP. For some of the above games, its easy enough to gut their bespoke XP systems out of it, and just have players advance over time, but in several of them, it fucks with the overall balance, since several actions are 'bad', but made worthwhile because they earn XP.
But I don't like the feeling of interrupting game to award point, and adjudicate character advancement. And I hate systems that have players advance unevenly. There's always going to be a certain degree on uneven-ness in player attention, of rules mastery, and of spotlighting. As GM, its important to manage those so that everyone gets a chance to shine. But it just feels like increasing that workload for the GM, to need to additionally pay attention to the XP, and try to drag or XP share the players that don't find those systems engaging to not mechanically fall behind.
And as a player, I tend to have higher system mastery and attention than the others I play with, and tbh it feels bad to end up with more XP because of that. But also, it feels bad to knowingly pass up free XP by purposefully not engaging with those systems.
Really, only Call of Cthulhu and Paranoia feel like their gamified XP fits, and that's largely because the games are supposed to feel hopeless and unfair, and in the case of Paranoia, gamified and playing favorites.
First of all, assigning XP is not the GM's job in Blades in the Dark. RAW, it's the players job to assign XP to themselves, and the GM only needs to adjudicate if players are being weasels. The question to ask is why the players fell behind in XP? Was it because they weren't engaged with the game to do the things that would earn XP? Is it because other players hogged the spotlight? The XP is setup that if you engage with the game's premise and themes, that XP will flow pretty naturally.
I thought, for the desperate action thing, that that's the GM's decision?
And, at end of game review, there's that 'group discussion' of 'did I do these things?' which, I feel like is just a reward for playing your character? Maybe I just don't 'get it' but playing your character is what you do, and it felt perfunctory to go through and ask every player: did you do your thing? When it felt like they are RP'd fine anyway. Just felt very arbitrary.
So, the XP difference is mostly, who got more desperate actions taken, which feels weird.
Yes, whether an action is desperate or not is ultimately the GM's decision, but players can always trade position for effect to make actions desperate if they like. Desperate action XP is also more limited, since it only applies to the stat pool that was used for the desperate action, while end of session XP can be assigned to any stat pool or to new character options. There's an obvious trade-off, since taking more risk means taking more harm and stress, reducing the lifespan of the character. So, if you do burn out a character that way you get rewarded mechanically for "burning bright and fast."
As for the end of session review, I personally like the opportunity to reflect a bit on the session, both as a player and a GM. Again, this should be led by your players, and not by the GM. Ask your players how many XP they earned, not whether boxes were checked off, that's their responsibility to track. I think the problem here is taking on a specific player task as a GM, which does undermine the system.