7th Edition thoughts

[megaplayboy]

I don't think it's a prereq for popularizing the system, but it would certainly improve the granularity of the stat mechanics. One thing I've contemplated is just multiplying the basic heroic stat range by 5, so you get a 0-100 range instead of 0 to 20. Couple it with a switch to a d100 roll rather than 3d6, and add the STR stat to damage(which you'd also have to tweak to fit), and then every single point would actually matter mechanically. You'd also have nicely gaudy stats for superheroes, like a 150 DEX or 300 STR.

[Stacie.Winters]

If we could determine all the break points from all the Characteristics and how those function through the rest of the game system than it'd be easier to simplify them as a whole... I do know that because of the skills system being 9 + (Characteristic/5) than that forces the Characteristics to have those break points of 8, 13, 18, 23, etc because of how the rounding system works and it does force people to make characters with those explicit numbers in mind. 

~ Although on page 55 it does show a sidebar of how that can be changed to a different formula like 7 + (Char/3) and if that was something everybody did it would definitely change the break points so the book does have suggestions for how to change it.

 

Another idea is to take what 6E did with derived characteristics and do that with skills and just make all Skills separate so instead of it being 9 + (Characteristic/5) it's just that all skills could be based on 7 + (Skill Rank) and the Skill Rank can be just whatever points the character spends into the skill like how Acrobatics costs 3/2 where 3 is the Base and +1 for two points. Just keep the points cost as is and sever the link to Characteristics.

 

This idea might do away with the inherent break points of the Characteristics completely (hypothetically).

 

Another is Strength I believe, where every 5 points of Strength is 1d6 Hand to hand damage.

 

I guess we can use those two for examples because I don't want to even try to break down the others but basically what if we just compacted the numbers... use a totally different formula for skill rating calculations and instead of every 5 Strength doing 1d6, we make it ever 2 Strength and instead of everybody starting at 10 Strength everybody starts at 2 and instead of 10 being the human average we make 2 the human average... so if somebody had a 10 Strength that'd be the equivalent of a 25 Strength in the current system.

 

The ripple effect of this is all the powers and stuff would also have to have different points costs and with this idea the entire process of making characters would cost a lot less and everything would be cheaper.

 

What about the idea of putting back some derives stats... and one idea is taking the average of Dexterity and Intelligence and that average being the basic Combat Value the characters start with.

Or the averages of Dexterity + Intelligence for OCV and Dexterity + Constitution for DCV. ??? I don't know if this would be a good idea or not to be honest.

 

And how about a rename of Combat Value to Fighting and Evading (for OCV and DCV)?

[Greywind]

Except that the average human is 8 in stats. PCs start at 10 because being a PC they are already above average.

[Tasha]

Except that the average human is 8 in stats. PCs start at 10 because being a PC they are already above average.

Which is actually a meaningless distinction for all primaries ex Strength and Presence which has Half Dice of damage, and Dex which is used for who goes first.

[shuddemell]

I think that Lucius hits the nail on the head in at least one instance, it is the percerption of complexity rather than actual complexity. From what I have seen though, that is their EXCUSE for not playing, not necessarily a valid REASON. As Hero is a toolkit, any of these changes are possible under the current structure. In fact, in my heroic games, I have tried adjustments to how skills are calculated to 7+STAT/3 or 5+STAT/2 (BTW if you limit stats to the 3-18 range, you can use the stat as a straight roll, making every point significant... but this makes anything over 18 problematic, trading one set of problems for another really), making the stats have more breakpoints in the lower regions. I also have tried getting rid of the killing mechanic by just using the same number of dice as the normal attack and applying defenses appropriately. I also set all my base rolls at 10+ rather than 11+. It can be interesting and fun to try these variations, but aside from the last, the remainder are gimmicky and really don't simplify or make the game significantly better. Any game that divides a stat to arrive at another number will have breakpoints. This too, is an EXCUSE rather than a REASON. I expect that if you got honest answers from current players of other systems, the vast majority would have to admit they WON'T change their system regardless. Most won't admit this, because of course, everyone wants to look reasonable and open, but with most things in life, they prefer what they are used to rather that what is or at least might be better. Changing Hero to suit them is a dog without teeth, because even if changed, it likely won't gain a bigger market share or even better notoriety. The lie that is the "complexity" of Hero compared to other games has already done its damage, and likely cannot be overcome, except by running games that these people want to play in. Settings, competent and fun game masters are the best way to pioneer for Hero. I had hoped the franchise of MHI would help the brand some due to that, but I think the snowball that is D&D/PF is already gargantuan and its momentum unstoppable. Pathfinder was a fluke, primarily because it really is a differently polished D&D clone, and it hit at a time that could exploit the disappointment with 4E. In other words, change Hero to your hearts content if it makes it a better game for YOU but you won't convert the unwashed masses...

[shuddemell]

snipped

Stacie, a large number of the changes you suggest really are just cosmetic or worse. Consider condensing the STR as you suggest, you actually make it less granular, not really improving anything. Changing the names of the OCV/DCV, how is that better in any measurable way? Other than perhaps it makes more sense to you for whatever reason... BTW, there isn't any figuring to be done concerning where the breakpoints occur, it should be obvious, dividing by 5 will give you breakpoints at every 2.5 points (simply because division gives you a rounding point (.5) at that point). If you divide by 3 it is at every 1.5 points. The math is simple, shifting it around or hiding it in ranks it doesn't really change it, it just makes it less obvious to the less mathematically savvy. You also say characters would be cheaper like that matters at all. Really, the amount of points matters little except in comparison to other characters using the same system. So if all characters are cheaper, what have you gained? Nothing really. The character point cost is a subjective metric within the system to maintain a semblance of balance. Larger numbers of points actually allows more fine tuning of the cost than does a lesser number of points. I don't mean to pick on you in particular, but based on all the things about Hero that seem to bother you (and aren't really any better in other major systems) I would almost have to ask why you play Hero at all. It almost seems like change for change sake, rather than a particular improvement. Lest anyone think otherwise, I am not against changing it to make it better, but I think the changes have to be considered on a more global basis, i.e. not just change any particular peeve that someone might have, but rather if it will improve game play in a way that makes it more fun or at least more precise.

 

[IndianaJoe3]

I think one key revamp, which others here have suggested, and which would improve the granularity of stats, is to set the mechanics up so that every point of a stat is meaningful, not just a bridge point to another incremental improvement. Each point of STR should give additional benefits across the board, imo, e.g.(damage, lift, str vs. str rolls, etc.)

 

Except, with the exception of INT. every point of of characteristics already does provide additional benefits. STR provides lift and damage (the book doesn't explicitly list them, but the formula can be derived). DEX provides initiative. CON, EGO, and PRE provide defenses.

 

I agree that INT needs to be fixed. One possibility is to round computed Perception rolls down, rather than to the nearest. This would give a reason to buy INT values ending in 0 or 5.

[shuddemell]

Except, with the exception of INT. every point of of characteristics already does provide additional benefits. STR provides lift and damage (the book doesn't explicitly list them, but the formula can be derived). DEX provides initiative. CON, EGO, and PRE provide defenses.

 

I agree that INT needs to be fixed. One possibility is to round computed Perception rolls down, rather than to the nearest. This would give a reason to buy INT values ending in 0 or 5.

Exactly this, though since I have changed my mechanic to 7+STAT/3, including perception rolls, this helps with this issue as well.

[mhd]

To be bluntly honest, I simply don't think HERO is well-known enough to cause some unwanted preconceptions for the majority of players. It's not on the level of GURPS or RoleMaster there, especially as a generic game (i.e. not Champions).

 

But increasing the market share of a generic game is very hard these days. I mean, you might get a few people away from GURPS, but SJG is living on Munchkin money, so I don't think that's a very juicy target. Another "generic" game would be FATE, which seems like another ballpark entirely.

 

Then there's Chaosium's BRP, which seems to be well-regarded enough, at least if you're in the rpg.net echo tank. But then again, subtract the Cthulhu part from Chaosium's output and all you've got are a few "monographs", and some PDFs and POD products. With apparently not one cent spent on art or layout. HERO already seems to be within throwing distance of that (regarding the market share, layout is infinitely better).

 

So, is all this talk about making the game more popular inherently futile, as it's simply to "out of sync" with the zeitgeist? The sole exception I could name is Savage Worlds, which is generic enough, not inherently tied to a setting and still quite popular, even with third parties.

 

But anyhoo, it's not all about popularity contests. Improving the game for the existing players wouldn't hurt either, although I'd really like to know how large the grognard faction is.

[Stacie.Winters]

I only bring up ideas and suggestions based on spur of the moment that basically come to me in inspirational flashes. I can see the potential of this game being better, more used, and I can feel that potential but that's just me.

 

I have always said that changing how the game is perceived by others, making it appear to be easier to use, and reorganization of the book and rules alone would go a long way to helping the overall image of the game and bring in potential new players without any actual change to the rules whatsoever.

 

The reason to lower the points is a no brainer... the easier the math to make characters... even if it's the perception of easier and simplified math... will attract more people to the game.  I am sure if majority of people saw a game that said you had 150 points to make a super hero and one that said you had 400 points that many will choose the smaller number because of that number difference, even if it's not actually true. In other words... lots of people are lazy. Just like a lot of people hate to see their favorite game system changed to something that is different that could possibly be good for the game because that change might be too different.

 

The argument against changing the core of the system from roll under to roll higher alone is proof of that... many say it's always been roll under so why change it. Well the fact that it's roll under alone is also another excuse/reason that a lot of people will not play this game and roll high has always had the perception of having easier math to work with. Again... perception of ease.

 

The majority of the reasons/excuses people use to not being interested in playing this game is how it's perceived... It's perceived as a heavy, crunchy, time intensive exercise in math and a few people have compared the game, especially 5e and 6e... to doing taxes and that's just bad. That's all because of how it's written, and that's the image a lot of people get when flipping through the books and I am sure many of those are people who really wanted to give the game a try and just had their heads explode due to how much information they have to wade through before making a character.

 

If they changed the image to a more friendly, easier to use appearance and changed the system to a roll high system that alone would attract a few detractors to the game.

 

All of my ideas and suggestions come from a place of actually really liking this game so don't think I don't like it one bit. I actually would love to see more people play the game, and be able to suggest it to people and not get a group of strange looks from others around me looking at me like some glittery vampire. It would actually be nice to get a group of people who'd want to play this game. Right now I can't find that.

[Stacie.Winters]

To be bluntly honest, I simply don't think HERO is well-known enough to cause some unwanted preconceptions for the majority of players. It's not on the level of GURPS or RoleMaster there, especially as a generic game (i.e. not Champions).

 

But increasing the market share of a generic game is very hard these days. I mean, you might get a few people away from GURPS, but SJG is living on Munchkin money, so I don't think that's a very juicy target. Another "generic" game would be FATE, which seems like another ballpark entirely.

 

Then there's Chaosium's BRP, which seems to be well-regarded enough, at least if you're in the rpg.net echo tank. But then again, subtract the Cthulhu part from Chaosium's output and all you've got are a few "monographs", and some PDFs and POD products. With apparently not one cent spent on art or layout. HERO already seems to be within throwing distance of that (regarding the market share, layout is infinitely better).

 

So, is all this talk about making the game more popular inherently futile, as it's simply to "out of sync" with the zeitgeist? The sole exception I could name is Savage Worlds, which is generic enough, not inherently tied to a setting and still quite popular, even with third parties.

 

But anyhoo, it's not all about popularity contests. Improving the game for the existing players wouldn't hurt either, although I'd really like to know how large the grognard faction is.

 

Fate Core has exploded in popularity and to me that game is more complex than Hero System in a couple of ways but it's look and appearance is so sleek and nice that lots of gamers have loved it. I mean, the Aspects system is both very awesome and interesting and also quite a pain to explain to people who are so not used to things like that. It's truly a different paradigm yet it's really become popular and is well up there with Savage Worlds I'd say.

 

As for Hero System grognard faction... I want to think you mean diehard fans that have played this game for years. Not to be rude or mean towards anybody but I'd say that's the reason why this game hasn't seen any major advancements or overhauls in like, well, forever.

[shuddemell]

Stacie,

 

I agree that the presentation could always be better, and perception is 9/10's of the problem at a certain level. Presentation, especially given the idea that you are looking for a redesign based on appearance has the large problem that it requires a lot of money to do that. If you look at what Derek did with Champions Complete, he did an exceptional job removing a lot of the extra examples that added a lot of air to the page count, but it was done on a budget. Everyone would love to be able to reproduce the book with great art, paper, with great authors writing the color text to make it just so. That all takes money, time and lots of both. I work as professional graphic designer and prepress technician, so I know what it takes to get things printed. In the past 3 years paper costs have increased over 70%. Also, if you look at the market share, based on sales numbers, only Pathfinder (and as a result has tons of money behind it) is really doing well at this moment, also it should be noted with D&D and all the rest that NONE of them have really innovated after their initial design, even those that completely redesigned at some point (Runequest comes to mind, and a great system at that) still are essentially the same system, with perhaps the exception of 4E D&D.. and that was received so poorly it almost tanked the brand. All the rest of the systems are essentially niche productions, and unfortunately our niche is tiny. I also get that you were "spitballing" ideas, and from an academic point of view that is useful, but other than that, a lot of what you suggest would require such an overhaul, you might as well start from scratch. Bigger numbers really don't mean harder math, so also a perception issue, and as a no brainer it only applies to those whose viewpoint on the math is uninformed. Heck, with software and calculators, these people don't even need to understand the math, but just push the buttons. I personally, far prefer having the math, rather than book upon book of tables, which is primarily a tactic to increase page count and make more product.

Ultimately, the greatest strength of Hero... its ability to craft anything and everything, make your sandbox just so is also its greatest weakness.. you have to craft it all, and understand how that is done. Very few people are willing to do that. Changing this mechanic here or there won't change that fact. Gurps is also a good example of a good game system, but their mechanic hasn't really changed that much, and Gurps has an image of complexity that is well earned as well. Their main strength is the volume of publishing of source material, of which I have bought a good bit, not because I play GURPS anymore, but because it is typically quite good for general use.

No, I also get that you like Hero, and perhaps my comment was a bit harsh, and I didn't really intend it to be. You obviously wouldn't spend the time you have discussing it if it didn't mean something to you, so I apologize if I offended you in that. I am just saying that only if you remove what makes Hero the game it is will it address a large portion of the criticisms of the system and then spend years upon years of dispelling the off-perceptions will it make a difference, and even then, what have you got? Lowest common denominator... I mean, honestly D&D and Pathfinder are flawed and broken in so many ways, that if people were only going to play the best system, it would be neither of these (keeping in mind that best is highly subjective). They play them because they are the most POPULAR and have the most money behind them. It is quite analogous to the film industries, Hollywood by and large produces tripe, and many independent and foreign films are of much higher quality, and yet the world consumes Hollywood's output at a margin that is hard to rationalize if quality were the issue.

[shuddemell]

One thing about the term grognard (originally meaning old soldier) used to mean something like this... Someone who enjoys playing older war-games or roleplaying games, or older versions of such games, when newer ones are available.

If you mean by that, that we prefer to play the older games just because they are older, it does not apply to me. If you mean by that, that I prefer to play a game that I find better for whatever reason, even if it is an older edition, then yes I am a grognard. But you will note that I am playing 6E, and not FRED, so that alone denies the idea that I will not move on if there is an improvement. With Hero, in particular, I find that our constituency is very accepting of ideas, if they deem them good ones.. though there is often disagreement over what is good or not.

[NuSoardGraphite]

If we could determine all the break points from all the Characteristics and how those function through the rest of the game system than it'd be easier to simplify them as a whole... I do know that because of the skills system being 9 + (Characteristic/5) than that forces the Characteristics to have those break points of 8, 13, 18, 23, etc because of how the rounding system works and it does force people to make characters with those explicit numbers in mind. 

~ Although on page 55 it does show a sidebar of how that can be changed to a different formula like 7 + (Char/3) and if that was something everybody did it would definitely change the break points so the book does have suggestions for how to change it.

 

Another idea is to take what 6E did with derived characteristics and do that with skills and just make all Skills separate so instead of it being 9 + (Characteristic/5) it's just that all skills could be based on 7 + (Skill Rank) and the Skill Rank can be just whatever points the character spends into the skill like how Acrobatics costs 3/2 where 3 is the Base and +1 for two points. Just keep the points cost as is and sever the link to Characteristics.

 

This idea might do away with the inherent break points of the Characteristics completely (hypothetically).

 

Another is Strength I believe, where every 5 points of Strength is 1d6 Hand to hand damage.

 

I guess we can use those two for examples because I don't want to even try to break down the others but basically what if we just compacted the numbers... use a totally different formula for skill rating calculations and instead of every 5 Strength doing 1d6, we make it ever 2 Strength and instead of everybody starting at 10 Strength everybody starts at 2 and instead of 10 being the human average we make 2 the human average... so if somebody had a 10 Strength that'd be the equivalent of a 25 Strength in the current system.

 

The ripple effect of this is all the powers and stuff would also have to have different points costs and with this idea the entire process of making characters would cost a lot less and everything would be cheaper.

 

What about the idea of putting back some derives stats... and one idea is taking the average of Dexterity and Intelligence and that average being the basic Combat Value the characters start with.

Or the averages of Dexterity + Intelligence for OCV and Dexterity + Constitution for DCV. ??? I don't know if this would be a good idea or not to be honest.

 

And how about a rename of Combat Value to Fighting and Evading (for OCV and DCV)?

Aaaaaaaand now we're back to playing FUZION.

 

I already played that game and was unimpressed. leave my HERO SYSTEM be.

[Greywind]

Which is actually a meaningless distinction for all primaries ex Strength and Presence which has Half Dice of damage, and Dex which is used for who goes first.

 

Point taken. Now show me one game system worth playing where every stat increase is meaningful beyond getting to that next point where you get a bonus/break point.

[NuSoardGraphite]

Point taken. Now show me one game system worth playing where every stat increase is meaningful beyond getting to that next point where you get a bonus/break point.

3rd edition gamma world where each stat number corresponds to an action chart where your chances to succed, fail and crit go up with each increase in the relevent characteristic.

 

A highly underrated system. my favorite version of the game by far.

[Tasha]

Interlock, Fuzion, Savage Worlds. GURPS. to name a few.

 

Really what is the difference between 4 strength giving +4 to Strength rolls, 4d6 of damage and 20 strength doing the same thing? IMHO it's Clarity.

Nothing is ever going to change this much because the Grognard faction while small, it's VERY loud in complaining about any change in the system no matter how small. Also, the company never wants to make "The FUZION mistake" again. I wonder how much of FUZION was just bad timing for a newish game system. MtG had destroyed the the RPG market. Most of the RPG companies were desperately trying to put out CCG's of their own (Including Hero BTW) to cash in. I think that only the hardest core fans were even buying games. FUZION wasn't really the game system for the Hardcore Grognard gamer. IMHO a modernized FUZION would probably sell really well and reach a ton of people who are looking for a better Generic RPG.

[shuddemell]

Sadly, it seems to me that the necessity of having every stat correspond to some given increase is often a min/maxer sort of thing anyway. Once again, too, the MOST popular systems don't have this and they get plenty of players. Seems like a non-issue, not an issue of "grognards" holding up progress. I too wonder, really how much influence any of us really have on the final decisions. Plus it would seem to me that those that might complain loudest might also be those with the most invested, so it is understandable... My question is simple, is a complete retool of the game, essentially making it Anti-Hero getting any of us where we want to go? BTW, I agree completely with NuSoard Graphite, was not impressed by Fuzion either... stopped playing Hero until 5th came out.

[Greywind]

3rd edition gamma world where each stat number corresponds to an action chart where your chances to succed, fail and crit go up with each increase in the relevent characteristic.

 

A highly underrated system. my favorite version of the game by far.

 

I never much cared for Gamma World in any incarnation.

 

Interlock, Fuzion, Savage Worlds. GURPS. to name a few.

 

Really what is the difference between 4 strength giving +4 to Strength rolls, 4d6 of damage and 20 strength doing the same thing? IMHO it's Clarity.

 

Nothing is ever going to change this much because the Grognard faction while small, it's VERY loud in complaining about any change in the system no matter how small. Also, the company never wants to make "The FUZION mistake" again. I wonder how much of FUZION was just bad timing for a newish game system. MtG had destroyed the the RPG market. Most of the RPG companies were desperately trying to put out CCG's of their own (Including Hero BTW) to cash in. I think that only the hardest core fans were even buying games. FUZION wasn't really the game system for the Hardcore Grognard gamer. IMHO a modernized FUZION would probably sell really well and reach a ton of people who are looking for a better Generic RPG.

 

Never heard of Interlock. Fuzion sucked. Savage Worlds seems a bit too simple for my tastes. GURPS always struck me as a wanna be. Somewhere between a level-based system and a point system.

 

Sadly, it seems to me that the necessity of having every stat correspond to some given increase is often a min/maxer sort of thing anyway. Once again, too, the MOST popular systems don't have this and they get plenty of players. Seems like a non-issue, not an issue of "grognards" holding up progress. I too wonder, really how much influence any of us really have on the final decisions. Plus it would seem to me that those that might complain loudest might also be those with the most invested, so it is understandable... My question is simple, is a complete retool of the game, essentially making it Anti-Hero getting any of us where we want to go? BTW, I agree completely with NuSoard Graphite, was not impressed by Fuzion either... stopped playing Hero until 5th came out.

 

I glossed over on Fuzion. Stayed with Hero.

[Tasha]

Fuzion had a LOT of Clunky Mechanics esp in Character Gen. The game still played like Hero though. The Core system was just a Roll High version of hero. I ran a CNM campaign for awhile, based on the Arcadian Academy. Lots of fun PC's, childish hyjinks, and good roleplaying. All using FUZION. Just because FUZION wasn't perfect doesn't mean that we can't mine the system for concepts that might make Hero a better game. Same as their borrowing Action points from Savage Worlds (or whatever next gen RPG they borrowed it from).

The Idea is not to make some Strawmanish "Anti-Hero", but a lean, mean, easy to understand Hero.

[Greywind]

I'm not as against Heroic Action Points as Balabanto is, but they strike me as a mechanism for the players that don't want anything negative to befall their characters. Much can be had in the way for the character by a critical failure as a critical success.

 

A lot of the newer game systems (M&M) seem to gloss over power builds. "My character has X ability, so I'm going to use that to Y effect." Whereas in Hero, if you didn't build the ability with that possibility in mind and you don't have the Power skill to attempt it, it isn't going to happen. That is a strength, as I see it, of Hero as it is. You know unequivocally exactly what your character can do and might be able to attempt.

[shuddemell]

snip

Yeah, I understand that is not the intent, but I really don't find Hero hard to understand and am puzzled at those who do. What I do think is that so many of the proposed changes are either sort of "cosmetic" (for example - roll high, roll low) or of such scope that it isn't Hero anymore. Then again, I am overall pretty happy with Hero the way it is. I like a toolbox that allows me to build what I want, if I want it prebuilt to someone else's standards, I would play the more "canned" systems. That is my preference, but taking a system that is intended to be used the way Hero is, and dumbing it down to the point is will appeal to the LCD is another matter entirely, and in this case, I don't think everyone can have their cake and eat too... so to speak.

[Ndreare]

I'm not as against Heroic Action Points as Balabanto is, but they strike me as a mechanism for the players that don't want anything negative to befall their characters. Much can be had in the way for the character by a critical failure as a critical success.

 

A lot of the newer game systems (M&M) seem to gloss over power builds. "My character has X ability, so I'm going to use that to Y effect." Whereas in Hero, if you didn't build the ability with that possibility in mind and you don't have the Power skill to attempt it, it isn't going to happen. That is a strength, as I see it, of Hero as it is. You know unequivocally exactly what your character can do and might be able to attempt.

I'm not as against Heroic Action Points as Balabanto is, but they strike me as a mechanism for the players that don't want anything negative to befall their characters. Much can be had in the way for the character by a critical failure as a critical success.

 

A lot of the newer game systems (M&M) seem to gloss over power builds. "My character has X ability, so I'm going to use that to Y effect." Whereas in Hero, if you didn't build the ability with that possibility in mind and you don't have the Power skill to attempt it, it isn't going to happen. That is a strength, as I see it, of Hero as it is. You know unequivocally exactly what your character can do and might be able to attempt.

Funny because that it's IMHO the biggest weakness in Hero System.

Characters in fiction are never so well designed or have the kind of iterative detail making a Hero Charter requires. It frustrates players to no end when they find out their Fire Lord Prince off flames cannot do the cool stuff they envision when they took the basics. But how were they to know there is 600 pages of hidden junk for them to sift through.

Mean while game masters play the, oh well you should have taken that card.

[Stacie.Winters]

Aaaaaaaand now we're back to playing FUZION.

 

I already played that game and was unimpressed. leave my HERO SYSTEM be.

 

Maybe we need another Fuzion then.

 

I have nothing against it because it was before my time so I don't have that mental block of antagonism towards the game. Now I'm more interested in it.

 

It's possible that Fuzion was a game that came out way before its time and what it was trying to do when it came out the people weren't ready for but now they probably are.

 

Oh Tasha, I never got offended.   I don't get offended by what other people say. I liked that you basically asked me why I like this game without really asking the question.

[Ragitsu]

Because a "few" people compared HERO to doing taxes, does that mean that the system should be dumbed down?