Streamlined Mechanics aren't all they are made out to be

I'll tell you what I instinctively disliked the first time I opened the 3e Player's Handbook: 

Priest spell levels going all the way up to 9th level. 

Now, the reasons for this change seem fairly obvious to my mind. It streamlines spell progression for priests and wizards and makes it easier to gauge power level of a priest vs wizard spell. 

But are those actually good reasons? Is streamlining in and of itself a positive? Perhaps being able to gauge power level is useful, but tangentially so if so. How often do you need to compare a priest spell to a wizard spell and determine how powerful they are compared to each other? 

As for streamlining spell progression between wizards and priests - This may seem useful as it makes progression transparently equal (getting rid of different XP tables was another move to ensure everybody progressed at the same pace. An alleged virtue I would question the virtue of), but it belies a point that is central to the argument of this blog post: Homogeneity is not necessarily a virtue in RPGs and is in fact often a vice. 

Homogeneity is especially not a good thing when it comes to classes. Having Wizards and Priests work the same way may make it easier to grok spellcasting overall, but it works against the point of having a class-based system in the first place. A game where the difference between wizards and priests are functionally d4 vs d8, armour/weapon selection and "divine vs arcane" tag on spells is straight up a more dull game than one with more mechanical distinction between the two.

I liked the fact that divine spells were fundamentally different in nature from wizard spells and that this reflected in a different hierarchy of spell levels, even to the point that some spells were both arcane and divine, yet had different spell levels depending on their nature. It says something about the game world that makes thing a bit more interesting.

Of course, Gygax is himself guilty of similar homogeneity. Why are clerics vancian casters? There are no good answers to this question, only excuses. They arguably work better casting spells on-demand from their spell list, it lends itself more easily to fictional impressions of prayer and makes them mechanically more interesting. The list of 12 spells per level in B/X is a finely curated list for on-demand casting and 2e Spheres lends itself very easily towards similarly curated lists for AD&D clerics. Unrestricted access on-demand to the 22+ spells at each level in AD&D might be overkill though.

AD&D in general however, revels in lack of homogeneity. There's a ton of derived stats from ability scores and they are all different, with different progressions and determining the math behind the curve of progression is not at all transparent. 

I suspect there is none and that Gygax et al used a more powerful tool than mathematical progression - Deciding on modifiers based on gaming impact. And this one of the great virtues of game design that are lost with streamlined mechanics. 

Modern games, I posit, suffer from a tyranny of number harmonies and easy calculation. Everything must be transparent, easy to calculate and preferably limited to a few basic methods the recur throughout the whole gaming engine.

But does the game actually play better when STR gives the same bonus to hit as it does to damage? Or CON an equivalent bonus to hit points? Does it yield the desired results at the actual game table or simply look pleasing in the rulebook and easy to memorise?  Harmonies do not necessarily equal better game play.

Is it really a problem that to hit and damage derived from STR progress asymetrically, in turn different from Hit Point bonuses from CON, in turn different from Missile attack adjd. for DEX, in turn different from AC adjustment from DEX? Not to mention the various percentile scores derived from ability scores.

You look them up upon character creation and note them on your sheet and then you simply refer to your sheet from there on out. No calculation, memorisation or comprehension really needed. 

The presumptive gain (giving Gygax the benefit of a doubt here) is that we  gain mechanics actually suitable to the circumstances it involves, rather than something that is easy to calculate simply because everything should follow the same basic principles of calculation.

Saving Throws is another example, that I feel has lost most of its interesting parts. By 5e, it has become simply an ability roll. In TSR D&D, you had asymmetric numbers across different classes and levels that reflected a more interesting range of capabilities between different characters. 

I am not championing calculators and massive tables together consult at the table. They are not the necessary opposites to streamlined mechanics. non streamlined mechanics can be complex, or non transparent at any rate, but still easy to use. 

The complexity or opacity of how a given mechanism is derived or presented is easy to render trivial, because once it is on the sheet it has no complexity at all. I put to you the following maxims:

• Complexity in mechanics are generally RPG vices.

This is not hard to argue for, I think most will agree, but I will make the case anyway:

Example: GURPS. Take this situation. "I run to try and jump over the ravine. How far do I jump?"
"Ok, that's (2 x Basic Move) - 3 feet. But a running jump, so add the number of yards you run to Basic Move in the formula..... (notice how it uses both yards and feet. wtf). Well, you didn't make it. You fall 10 yards, so that's a collision with an immovable object, which is ((HP*2)velocity)/100 where velocity is yards per second, as determined by the Falling Velocity Table". If <2d dmg, you round fractions to 1d with modifiers, otherwise you can mercifully round to the nearest whole number to figure the dice of damage. 

Some things in GURPS are delightfully simple, but some are annoyingly complicated. Here you have to calculate formulas with multiple calculations and attention to parenthesis and may well end up with fractioned numbers in order to resolve a simple running jump and fall. And still need to consult a table in order to calculate the formula. It's bad bad bad. However:

• Whatever can be put on a character sheet as a single number is not complex.

It doesn't actually matter that the formulas for jumping and falling in GURPS are complex. What matters is that it can't be pre-calculated into a table and then jotted on to a character sheet. Calculating Medium Encumbrance limit in GURPS is somewhat complex. It's ((ST*ST)/5) *3. But that doesn't matter, because there is a table you can consult and then scribble that number on to your sheet and never have to worry about it again. Suddenly, it's an easy to use mechanic.

Of course, this second maxim is a law of diminishing returns. There are only so many values on can put on a character sheet before it becomes a slog to look it up. Compare the character sheets for BX vs AD&D:

There is just a lot going on in that second sheet. And they both suffer from what I do consider a vice on a sheet: Tables. Needing to track along the row to find what AC you hit is not preferable to a quick addition after rolling the d20 in my book.  Table consultation during play may be preferable to complex calculation, but it is not preferable to simple calculation and ought to be avoided where possible.

But, the B/X sheet also 'cheats' a bit to gain its simplicity, the same way some modern rulesets boast of slim page count by omitting monsters or magic items (meaning you still need 3rd party books to actually play). That table for turning undead, spells known and different move rates depending on activity would be just as useful for B/X player to have on their sheet as it is for the AD&D player. This is the kind of simplicity that is not actually useful at the table.

That AD&D sheet is more than I would want to look at on a sheet, honestly. It needs some trimming to be a good sheet at the table. But, despite the overload of information, it has a redeeming quality. It looks fun! And this is where non-streamlined mechanics shine. Give me this

over this

Any day of the week. I want to hear my DM declare "save vs Death Magic" and not "make a Charisma save." Let me glance at those save tables and ponder what makes a 4th level cleric better at making that save than a 16th level thief. There is no math to answer that question. Those tables have nothing in the way of streamlining, transparency or ease of calculation. The only reasons for those numbers are gaming reasons, derived from game play. The best of reasons and a far more compelling dictum to follow than streamlining.

Streamlining does not necessarily make for simpler games in terms of actual game play. It simply makes for more numerically pleasing games. The trade-off is often less interesting games and, crucially, games that simply do not play as well, because their numbers are slaved to streamlining and ease of memorisation rather than outcomes in the game.