> The classic example is: Bob is holding his own against his opponent,
but his buddy Larry is going down fast.
> Knowing that he can't take on two opponents at once, Bob switches
opponents to help Larry.
>
> This is risky, because Bob has to defend against his own opponent
while attacking Larry's, but if it keeps
> Larry in the fight it is worth it.
Yup. So what about Hero Wars doesn't handle this? Bob uses his current AP total to bet against Larry's opponent (Larry does the same).
> So... Bob is going to stop betting against his opponent, while
lending APs to Larry? Certainly Bob's opponent
> is going to bet hugely at this point, but that makes a certain amount
of sense.
Well, Bob could lend APs to Larry (or augment him with magic), though he's probably better off simply taking on Larry's opponent.
> My players are probably going to feel cheated if they can't roll for
their own characters, though.
> Particularly if "Larry" from the example above is a novice warrior
and "Bob" is highly skilled. Bob is going
> to lend tons of APs to Larry, but Larry is going to be failing the
contests...
Where is the not rolling coming from? Bob helping Larry doesn't keep either player from rolling.
In any game system I can think of, the more powerful character is going to be more effective, and usually end up helping the weaker one.
Powered by hypermail