
Bushido vs Land of the Rising Sun
Looking for a rich, meaty feudal Japan game. I would appreciate any opinions or comparisons on these systems. There’s a good deal right now on one of them.

Looking for a rich, meaty feudal Japan game. I would appreciate any opinions or comparisons on these systems. There’s a good deal right now on one of them.
I don’t have experience with many, but I like RuneQuest’s.
EDIT: not boxed sets. Starter sets that don’t give you the full game.
I've spent much of my day off so far reading Midwest Fantasy Wargame: The Primeval RPG. The author describes it as a "jumble" and "primordial ooze" that pulls from several contemporary games like Chainmail 2e and 3e, Dungeon, First Fantasy Campaign, Tunnels & Trolls, Chipco's Fantasy Rules! Notably, the author does their best to not look forward to OD&D, seeing as this is meant to be a "what if?" game for emulating 1972 playstyles.
The game is interesting and a departure from your typical D&D-adjacent game in its stats, campaign assumptions, combat mechanics, magic system, and bestiary. For example, your main statistics are Brains, Guts, Health, Looks, Sex, and Miscellaneous (everything else). There are two classes — Fighting-Man and Magic-User — and two sub-classes (Cleric and Ranger).
Characters are expected to immerse themselves in the campaign setting that is replete with tithes to be paid to religious faction leaders, taxation, baronies, fiefdoms, magic research procedures, and extensive downtime activities ranging from carnality and festivities to hobbies and piety.
The magic system is based on the "complexity" of spells, ranging from Complexity I to VI, and points associated with casting spells from each of these complexities. It's not Vancian. It seems really cool. There are 60 spells in total, many of which are not necessarily combat-focused.
There are extensive procedures for generating campaigns that take players from the underworld to the wilderness (and beyond?). Loads of oracular tables for inspiration and solo play.
It's worth noting that the game is intentionally left wide open in several places, explicitly telling the referee that they'll need to come up with their own rules more than once. There's ample designer commentary sprinkled throughout that explains how and where various rules came from, which can lead you down quite the rabbit hole as you hunt for sources for clarity or taking things a step further. We're told that this is NOT for inexperienced tabletop RPG'ers, which makes sense now that I'm about halfway through it. You'll need to come up with many rulings on the fly and as you run a campaign, which is part of the fun of returning to the origins of the hobby IMO. There's only so much you can plan for, but it's nice that the author points out some obvious gaps so that you can plan in advance.
The system is modular enough, like many in this space, that you're practically invited to tweak it for whatever setting or style of campaign that you want. Multiple options are given to referees for how to rule in certain scenarios à la Swords & Wizardry Complete Revised.
Ultimately, this seems to be a game for a high-trust table of likeminded mature individuals who are interested in exploring the earliest stages of the hobby. This is not a historical replication/retroclone — more so a "what if?" re-imagining. I think it's super cool so far and I'd recommend it for anyone who likes to study games as much as play them.
Has anyone here read or played?
Well, I have found myself in the OSR camp for years after burning out on trad D&D and all of the prep work that 5e required to keep games going. I also grew tired of the player-centric narratives and opted to play in games where the world was neutral and the referee impartial when it came to character death. That said... I'm interested in maybe giving this game a go. I'm looking for something of a different pace than traditional vanilla medieval Western European-style fantasy.
I started with D&D 4e, played a smattering of 3.5e and 5e, and otherwise have played old-school games.
I remember as a kid that we all had a lot of patience for looking up rules that I could not remember as the DM off the top of my head at the table because we were invested in the inner trappings of the game and world being simulated. This was D&D 4e. We wanted to play honest-to-God D&D and dammit we were going to play it as close to RAW as possible.
Those friends and I have long since parted ways as we grew up and moved to different states. However, I'm curious about your tolerance for looking up rules at a table when you're trying out a new game. Do you prefer that the referee do a "rulings over rules" approach and get on with it, only to double-check and clarify later, or do you prefer the game to move forward by virtue of looking up the rule and proceeding accordingly? I've experienced both over the years. Probably important discussion for a "session zero."
For me, if I'm playing a meaty tome of a game, I assume that players who are also digging it would be happy to ensure that every rule possible is being followed, for why else play with that rule set? Might as well use a much lighter chassis with more room for GM fiat if that's what you're after, I figure.
What are your experiences or preferences?