Opal

Our hobby's been around a while, and over the decades, it's changed, and all the individual games that make it up have changed.

If a game rolls a new rev, you very often get two kinds of people becoming very vocal about it. There are those who don't like the new version, and figure anyone who does is just captivated by it's newness. And, there are those who like the new version, and figure that anyone who criticizes it must just hate change. I thnk both sorts might be right - about eachother, that is.

D&D went to it's 4th edition recently. I quite liked it. I endure accusation being an MMO-zombie with no concept of what an RPG should be because I do. I'm told I'll just jump to whatever tune WotC plays next, because I'm a brainless fanboy.

The Hero goes and rolls rev. I've loved it, from the earliest printing of Champions! on through 5th edition (though, to be honest, revised started to lose me, just a bit). I'm not so stoked about 6th. While 4th, 5th, and revised were all solid, they all missed some minor opportunities to make the game a little better. 6th mostly missed all those same opportunities, while changing things that had always worked well. I don't hate it - I simply don't get to play Hero much anymore, because all my current gaming friends prefer simpler systems, so it's hard to have a strong opinions - but I'm mildy disapointed. Ergo, I'm a stick in the mud who reflexively hates anything new.

I'm pretty sure I'm not really both. I'm pretty sure that 4e D&D was a radical departure in a good direction, that took an old (the oldest) RPG franchise and made a better, albeit startlingly different game of it. And, I'm pretty sure that 6th didn't do the same for Hero. I'm not a hippie or a luddite, I just have my preferences.