Why have conflicts at all?

[TonyLB]

I'm not saying that making people fight for a conflict is the only thing Inspirations do.  But they do it (along with many other things) as described in this post.  Are you still having trouble understanding that post?

[Vaxalon]

Yes, I disagree with the post you link to, and I think I found the core of that disagreement.

...if Player B really wants to be narrating exactly that Conflict, he doesn't want to do it in unrestricted narration. He wants to be able to enforce his own Final Word on what is happening.

The reason is that Final Words in a conflict aren't final; they carry no more weight than free narration.

[TonyLB]

So, this item (the justification for the point you cite, in the same post) doesn't sway you, eh...

If Player A resolves a Conflict, narrates her Final Word, and Player B immediately narrates a post-script that undercuts what she was trying to achieve then they are back to needing a Conflict again.  That Conflict is an obvious candidate for the Inspirations Player A won on the previous Conflict.  If they are spent then Player B ends up in as bad a position as he was before the conflict was resolved.

Why is that?  It seemed pretty compelling to me.

[Vaxalon]

It doesn't sway me because player B has no interest in starting another conflict, or even in participating in it.

[TonyLB]

So you didn't understand this post, earlier, where I laid out why it's useful to participate in Conflicts?  Or do you disagree with it?

Fred, you really need to speak up earlier if you're confused, because I hate have to back-track through the points and re-explain them.

[Vaxalon]

No, I believe I understand and agree with that one.  It explains why it's useful to control an existing conflict.

What it doesn't explain is why it's useful to win a conflict.  "Final Word" narration in a conflict has no more authority in the game than any other kind.

[Vaxalon]

It's not in player B's interest to start a new conflict, because as you say, player A has a very applicable inspiration to play, and will likely control the new conflict.

[TonyLB]

We agree, then, that it is in Player A's interest to start a new Conflict?

[Vaxalon]

Yes; as long as it's on the table, he can control any narration that is related to that topic.

[TonyLB]

So, apart from costing Player A a move (about which, more later), Player B losing a Conflict and then re-engaging is very nearly a tactical non-action.  It neither gains nor loses him anything in terms of controlling a Conflict on that topic.  Are we agreed there?

[Vaxalon]

That's correct.  Player B, upon losing a conflict, won't create the same one over again.  It can be, however, paradoxically, in player A's interest to re-create the same conflict over again.

[TonyLB]

Okay, cool.  We understand that (at the minimum) Inspirations remove any local strategy of winning Conflicts by losing them and redeclaring.  Winning Story Tokens by losing, that's another thing.

Now, before I move on to Story Tokens... is anyone other than Fred and myself still following this thread?  Because, if not, we should probably just finish up in private messages.

[John Harper]

I'm following along. This is good stuff so far.

[Valamir]

I'm following it...except that the line of reasoning seems to assume that Player A will save those Inspirations to smack B with if B dares to restart the same conflict A previously won.  That threat is what gives A's final word a degree of weight.

But what if A spends the Inspiration on something else...doesn't that immediatly open things back up to B restarting the same conflict because its back to being even steven...all of the weight behind A's statement is now gone.

Am I missing something there?

[TonyLB]

I don't think you're missing anything, no.  If Player A spends the Inspiration somewhere else then they have spent the extra authority they got by winning the Conflict.  A and B are now on level ground again, in terms of authority on that topic.  Now that isn't likely to happen instantly, so the Inspirations still have the local effect I've described (preventing instant rebuffing of the Final Word).  But you're quite right about the long-term pattern.

Inspirations aren't meant to grant permanent authority:  they aren't "you've won this, therefore it should stay forever, or untill greatly challenged."  I recognize that some folks want such a permanent authority, and I think I recognize why (having discussed it, heh... a little... in the past few days).  Inspirations are meant to do something else.

Inspirations are asking the player (roughly) "What one specific causal outcome do you want this achievement to lead to?"  In very many ways, they are asking the player to carefully consider what the meaning of their achievement is.  Example:

Adam is playing Action Jack.  Bobby is playing Skreeve and Master.  Action Jack has been beaten, stripped of his utility belt and bound in chains.  Poor, oppressed minion Skreeve is assigned to bind Jack's wounds, so he'll be healthy for later torture.  Action Jack wins "Goal:  Convince Skreeve to stand up to his Master."  Adam resolves it with Skreeve insisting that he will stand up for himself, and gains an Inspiration.

Once Conflict is resolved, Bobby narrates that Master comes into the room and Skreeve immediately folds like a house of cards.  Adam chooses not to spend the Inspiration, or indeed even to contest that narration in any way.  Minions are weak like that.  It's no big surprise.

Later, when Action Jack has escaped and is trying to disable the Phlogiston Macro-Nano-Bomb, Master is on the verge of triumph in a "Subjugate the World" Conflict.  Adam pulls out his "Skreeve will stand up for himself" Inspiration at this point, as Skreeve finally gets the nerve to defy the Master openly (thanks to Action Jack's kind words and virtuous example).  

It's just the opening Action Jack needs!  The Master is defeated!  "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"

Does that make the long-term pattern clearer and/or more palatable?