Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5079448" data-attributes="member: 19675">I've been playing HERO since it came out in the 1980s.&nbsp; And when it came out, I grasped it instantly.&nbsp; Since that point, it has been my favorite system, bar none.&nbsp; (Well, except for that flirtation with the FUZION system, that is...*shudder*...I'm glad they ditched that experiment!)In that time, I've introduced several people to the game, including a few non-gamers.&nbsp; Never had a problem with someone trying to figure out how do get their desired result.&nbsp; The only issues came with doing that efficiently...and that issue doesn't matter if 1) everyone is about as equally inefficient or 2) the inexperienced players ask for &amp; receive assistance from more experienced ones.M&amp;M, though...I grokked the game fairly easily, as did my players.&nbsp; However, those players- every last one of them at the very least experienced with 3Ed/3.5Ed from the release date of those games, if not other RPGs as well- were constantly peppering me with build questions.&nbsp; The multi-shot thing wasn't the only issue (which arose with the Speedster and the &quot;Über-Marksman&quot;)- they simply didn't find M&amp;M's design choices to be to their liking.&nbsp; M&amp;M's take on autofire didn't feel like autofire to them.Now, while its true that a HERO autofire attack may just bounce off of someone's defense or involve a lot of dice rolling, not everyone will agree that this is a bad thing.As for Disads?&nbsp; I do have to agree that some of them are only as good as the GM who is running the campaign.&nbsp; I, for one, made sure I made those Hunted/Hunter/DNPC rolls or had NPCs grab Foci, but I know that many HERO GMs didn't.But I also have to agree with your later assessment of M&amp;M as being more dependent on GM fiat.&nbsp; To me, at least, HERO simply doesn't seem as easy to &quot;break&quot; as M&amp;M has proven itself to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 5079448, member: 19675"] I've been playing HERO since it came out in the 1980s. And when it came out, I grasped it instantly. Since that point, it has been my favorite system, bar none. (Well, except for that flirtation with the FUZION system, that is...*shudder*...I'm glad they ditched that experiment!) In that time, I've introduced several people to the game, including a few non-gamers. Never had a problem with someone trying to figure out how do get their desired result. The only issues came with doing that [I]efficiently[/I]...and that issue doesn't matter if 1) everyone is about as equally inefficient or 2) the inexperienced players ask for & receive assistance from more experienced ones. M&M, though... I grokked the game fairly easily, as did my players. However, those players- every last one of them at the very least experienced with 3Ed/3.5Ed from the release date of those games, if not other RPGs as well- were constantly peppering me with build questions. The multi-shot thing wasn't the only issue (which arose with the Speedster and the "Über-Marksman")- they simply didn't find M&M's design choices to be to their liking. M&M's take on autofire didn't feel like autofire to them. Now, while its true that a HERO autofire attack may just bounce off of someone's defense or involve a lot of dice rolling, not everyone will agree that this is a bad thing. As for Disads? I do have to agree that some of them are only as good as the GM who is running the campaign. I, for one, made sure I made those Hunted/Hunter/DNPC rolls or had NPCs grab Foci, but I know that many HERO GMs didn't. But I also have to agree with your later assessment of M&M as being more dependent on GM fiat. To me, at least, HERO simply doesn't seem as easy to "break" as M&M has proven itself to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification