[Old school] I can't deal with inventory

[Sacrosanct]

I really like a lot of the ideas behind recent streamlined old-school games like Into the Odd, Mausritter, Shadowdark, Liminal Horror ... but one thing that really doesn't work to me how they tend to put your inventory front and center, often linking it directly to health/wounds. I just never found it fun to deal with equipment in RPGs; as a GM, my approach has been "if it makes sense, you have it on you." I theoretically understand the fun in it, but whenever I'm playing, the whole thing just totally disappears from my mind - for me, it's a chore part of RPGs that I always strive to minimize. However, these systems treat equipment as one of the most basic building blocks of an RPG session, which, for me, is a really big disconnect. Does anyone know problem? I'm just interested if I'm the only one out here who totally gets 80% of these games and is totally stumped by that 20% equipment focus.

I hear what you're saying. And to be honest, as I get older with less ability to game, I want to spend less time on inventory management, even if it is a huge part of old school gaming (exploration pillar).

This past summer when I released Bugbears & Borderlands 2e, this is how I did equipment. I simplified it into supplies. If you have enough supplies, you are assumed to have the equipment you need.

 

[overgeeked]

I've always seen it less about refereeing than about

A) spells doing increasingly world-altering things which open up completely new tactical options and strategies at higher levels, while Fighters are often stuck just swinging their sword more times and having more HP,

and B) Systems which let wizards advance in power in multiple dimensions at once. Like when in addition to more and more powerful spells, the DCs of your spell saves get higher, your Caster Level makes your spells do increasingly more damage, the Feats you gain let you mitigate your weaknesses, etc.

Yes, that’s true. However, the core of the problem is that the referee controls what spells the wizard has access to in those older games where the problem originates (TSR-era D&D). So without the referee handing out spells like candy, there is no LFQW.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Yes, that’s true. However, the core of the problem is that the referee controls what spells the wizard has access to in those older games where the problem originates (TSR-era D&D). So without the referee handing out spells like candy, there is no LFQW.

There are also a lot of mitigating rules that keep casters in check. Even high level casters. The way the initiative rules work, and spell interruptions, spell failure chances? It's not insignificant. Then when you stack that with how many magic items were in AD&D, and fighters can use the most, it really keeps LFQW to a minimum.

 

[Mannahnin]

Yes, that’s true. However, the core of the problem is that the referee controls what spells the wizard has access to in those older games where the problem originates (TSR-era D&D). So without the referee handing out spells like candy, there is no LFQW.

Arguably there's no LFQW in old school D&D in the first place, given the fragility of M-Us and the ease of interrupting their spells. And the way saving throws progress, and how Magic Resistance works. M-Us get absurdly powerful spells at high level, but they don't have all the other factors in their favor which I listed.

Most of the LFQW phenomenon is from 3.x and arguably 5E. Where you get to pick your spells when you advance (arguably you did in AD&D too, but that's more ambiguous).

 

[CreamCloud0]

The weakness of slot-based encumbrance is dealing with small items - items where there is a desire and powerful intuition for allowing a slot to hold more than one of them. Implementing this causes complexity to creep into the initially simple system.

i would say slot based encumbrance systems would typically benefit some sort of basic two-tier system rule between 'big' and 'small' object/slots with the ability to equate a big slot into X worth of small slots.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The weakness of slot-based encumbrance is dealing with small items - items where there is a desire and powerful intuition for allowing a slot to hold more than one of them. Implementing this causes complexity to creep into the initially simple system.

If tracking the exact number of keys or something is important -- and it's not a one off for an important quest item -- yeah, it's probably not for you.

But IMO, just rolling a die each time a small item is used and then saying "you just used the next to last one" when you roll a 1, handles most small items just fine.

 

[Piperken]

...So it feels weird to me, when, in Liminal Horror, a wound takes up an inventory slot, because who the hell needed that inventory slot anyway? (I thought that it was the same way in Mausritter, but I don't remember for sure.) So I need to find something else for wounds to do, or live with the fact that they are meaningless at my table.

I understand the sentiment of weirdness you describe in terms of this as a mechanic; however, Liminal Horror has an entirely different intent in design (and context, it's explicitly horror) than some of the fantasy systems that do the same, like Cairn or Mausritter.

As an example, take the horror game Public Access; while its game roots are different than above, it still places inventory (Your Corner of the House) in a prominent way. Items (e.g. a Walkman cassette player, a Care Bear) enable you to experience nostalgia in the game to relieve its version of conditions/harm your Latchkey has experienced, in addition to being a fiction means to gain advantage for a particular task or undertaking.

 

[Piperken]

FWIW, I lean towards slot systems and I like Mausritter's inventory system; it's among the best developments that came out of that game, and practically a foundation in the OSR space from what I gather.