Splitting sides

[AaronLehmann]

How do splitting sides work?  What if a player controls characters on two sides?  Can he give story tokens to himself?

Example:

Alice is playing OneUpMan for free, and has paid a ST to bring in Plugger Joe.  Bob is playing Corporal Punishment.  Alice throws down the conflict, "Corporal Punishment humiliates Plugger Joe in public."  Corporal Punishment gets in on it, and then Plugger Joe.  The conflict goes back and forth for a little bit, and then the OneUpMan (who has lots of Debt in Pride, and can't stand to see anyone humiliate Plugger Joe but him) jumps in, splits off of Corporal Punishment's die, and stakes a bunch of Debt to use his "Anything you can do, I can do better" power, and wins the conflict. 

As the winner, Alice distributes STs.  As one of the losers and the creator of the conflict, she gets one of them.  As a loser in general, she is eligable to receive the rest.

This example must be wonky.  If it is wonky, is there ever a reason to bring two characters into the same conflict?

Aaron Lehmann

[R. Jason Boss]

You can't ever award yourself STs.  The would-be STs go to waste and are awarded to no one if you are the only person eligible to receive STs from your own staked Debt.

You could Claim on both sides of a conflict for Inspiration purposes or to resolve a Goal or Event quickly in the right circumstances for story reasons.

I'm sure there's more.

Jason

[Hans]

Hi Aaron:

Some hopefully helpful answers.  First, note that page 30 of the rules clearly states you can NEVER give story tokens to yourself from your own debt, period.  It is a blanket prohibition.  This means that even though Alice created the conflict she cannot get a story token from herself. 

Now, from the FAQ:

How many free claims do I get at the beginning of a page if I have more than one character?
One per player, not one per character. Pg 22
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=16239.msg172914#msg172914

This means that just because you have more characters, you don't get extra claims.  You will still have to spend a story token to claim more than one side of one conflict.

Which sides of a conflict can I claim?
If you have characters allied with one or more sides of a conflict, you can only claim those sides. If you have no characters allied with the conflict (because you have never rolled on it), you can claim either side.
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14857.msg157369#msg157369
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18082.msg191262#msg191262
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19134.msg203784#msg203784

This means that the only time you will be able to claim both sides of a conflict is if a) you have NEVER rolled on either side (and are not allied with a side) or have had characters roll on BOTH sides, and b) you spend a story token to claim the other side.  It could happen, but I've never seen it happen. 

Who gets the story tokens when a conflict resolves with debt staked on the winning side?
The basic rule is as follows:
    * If the player who created the conflict has no characters allied to the winning side, that player must get the "first" story token.
    * All other debt tokens are given to players who have claimed or have characters allied with any of the losing sides at the whim of the person who staked the debt. The general guideline on how these distributed has been stated by Tony as giving the most ST's to those "who provided the most effective opposition".
    * If there is no one allied with or claiming any of the losing sides, then the debt tokens simply dissappear, and no one gets story tokens.
      http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14538.msg154333#msg154333
      http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17293.msg183053#msg183053
      http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18080.msg191249#msg191249
      http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18082.msg191275#msg191275
      http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19067.msg200102#msg200102
      http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19520.msg204844#msg204844
      http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19605.msg205565#msg205565
      (it is not clear if more than one person staked debt on the winning side, if EACH staked player must give that player a ST, or if only one must do so, and if so, which one. Here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17293.msg183053#msg183053 it seems to indicate they get the "first" one, but since there are no clear rules regarding what order multiple debt stakers award story tokens, the question still seems in the air)
      (Tony noted here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=14538.msg154333#msg154333 that sometime people on the winning side should get ST's, if they provided the most effective opposition, but then switched sides. Here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17293.msg183053#msg183053 he seems to say this is a house rule)
      (NOTE, here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17293.msg183053#msg183053 Tony momentarily states that if the player who created the conflict is completely unallied with the conflict, he or she must still get a story token. He then retracts this a bit further down. However, he then clearly states this is errata here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=18080.msg191253#msg191253. He then states something a bit different here http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19520.msg204844#msg204844. I'm not trying to make Tony look bad here, since this is the ONLY thing I have found that he has been somewhat self contradictory on.) 

This is the longest entry in the FAQ, BTW.  I reprint it here simply because it is relevant to your question, and because it is one of the few areas where there seems to actually be REAL confusion, as opposed to apparent confusion, regarding how the rules work.  My hope is that Tony will say something authoritative. :)

[AaronLehmann]

It seems like, since it costs extra to have more than one claim, and it's never going to garner you STs, the only reason you'd do it is for inspirations.  I'm not sure why you'd do that, though, since you could just as easily stake on the side you're on.  Maybe, if you have a one (and thus your die is unsplittable)?  This would gaurantee you a one-point inspiration, but at the cost of a story point.  It doesn't seem even to me.

Basically, it seems to me that it's never going to be worth my while mechanically to split my resources accross two sides.  True?

Aaron Lehmann

[Hans]

Basically, it seems to me that it's never going to be worth my while mechanically to split my resources accross two sides.  True?

Not only is it a bad idea mechanically, but I'm having a hard time thinking of situations where other motivations (for example, revenge on someone who scalped a claim from you) would make it worth while, either.  If someone claims your side out from under you, you simply schism to a new side.  If you schism to a new side, you are going to take all your debt with you (leaving the free die); there is no reason I can think of to leave it behind on the old side.

[AaronLehmann]

OK. Thanks all for the clarification.