Question on inspiration awards (and splitting, again)

[Sindyr]

This happened last night at my weekly Capes game:

Started with 1 / 1 (a die reading 1 on both sides.)
PlayerA rolled up one side to a six. 1 / 6
PlayerB claimed the six side on the next page.
PlayerA staked two debt on that side, splitting the six into two 2's that he controlled and a 2 that he did not.  He immeditately schismed off his two 2's into a third side.1 / 2 / 2,2
PlayerA claimed the 2,2 side.  PlayerC claimed the 2 side.  Player B claimed the 1 side.
PlayerC rolled up the 2 two a six leaving 1 / 6 / 2,2
PlayerA spent some inspirations, and rolled, making 1 / 6 / 5,6
PlayerB staked swapped the 1 for a 3, staked 3 debt and split, and with *his* inspirations (and a roll) would up making the lowly 1 into a 3,5,5, making it 3,5,5 / 6 / 5,6
PlayerA Spent another debt, more insprations (and a roll) to turn the 5,6 into a 4,5,6.
PlayerC wanting to dump some debt decided to allign himself with PlayerC's side, trying to roll playerB's 3 down (failure), staked 2 debt, and split playerA's 6 into a 2,2,2.

As you may guess, a lot of story tokens got spent for extra turns.

At the resolutions phase, Player A won his claim.  The sides were:
The third side that player A made by schisming: a 4,5,and 2 controlled by PlayerA (on his debt tokens) and two 2's controlled by PlayerC (on *his* two debt tokens).  Both Player A and C are allied to this side.
The first side with a single 6, no one is allied to this side at this time.
The second side that PlayerB is allied to, with a 3, a 5, and another 5.

Questions:

1) As the winner, PlayerA distributes any an all inspirations, right? He decides how to match up the dice.

2) Does PlayerC get any inspirations?  He has two dice of value 2 each sitting on his two debt - but they are on the side that PlayerA claimed and won.  If PlayerA left those dice unmatched, who get;s the two 2 point inspirations? PlayerA or PlayerC?  The player who is claimed and won the side, or the player whose debt token they are sitting on?

3) What happens to the 6 on the first side?  No one is allied to it.  Does it get get matched against? Is it ignored and discarded as if it doesn't exist? If it does get matched against, (against, say a 3) and a 3 Insp is yielded, who gets it?

4) Another splitting question. (and I thought I had these all sussed out.) In the above example, PlayerA had a third side with 3 debt, with a 4,5,6.  PlayerC becomes allied with that side, and wants to stake 2 debt and split the 6 (for whatever reason).  Is the way he did it correct?  4,5,6, all on PlayerA's debt becomes 4,5,2 on PlayerA's debt and 2,2 on PlayerC's debt.

The reason I ask is because normally, as I understand it, the only way you can split one dice into two using one debt, or one dice into three using two debt, is to commit to an immediate schism.  But PlayerC does not want to schism.

I guess one of the following two things must be true:

1) If PlayerA has 4,5,6 with each die on a debt token of his, and PlayerC wants to stake two debt and split the 6, but *not* be forced to schism this turn, then he must spend two debt and split the 6 into two 3's.  He must further either place both debt tokens under *one* of the 3's -or- he must place one of his debt tokens under each 3, meaning that one of the 3's has one of his debt tokens *and* one of PlayerA's.  The latter option cannot be accepted as Control cannot be shared, and I don't like the former much more.

Option 1 sucks. (a technical term)

This leaves option two:

2) When a player wishes to split a die that is Controlled - ie, has someone's debt token underneath it, they spend one fewer debt token then normally required.  In addition, they do not *have* to schism this turn if they choose not to.  The only time same-turn schisming is forced is when splitting a die that has *no* debt debt token underneath it *and* using one fewer debt than resulting dice after the split.

The above rule would basically say that if you split in such a way that leaves a die uncontrolled, you must schism by the end of your turn.

Since sides 3, 4, etc cannot have uncontrolled dice (since they are created sides) anyone staking and splitting on those sides would never be forced to schism same turn if they did not want to.

Sound acceptable?  If so, I will rewrite the Staking, Splitting, and Schisming blurb to encompass this.

[TonyLB]

Let me pull this out... we have winning (4, 5, 2, 2, 2) vs. (6) and (3, 5, 5)?  Rock!

1) Player A distributes the inspirations, within the allowed assignments, yes.

2)  Well, player C is likely to receive the benefit of the side he briefly championed, but then abandoned.  So at least a one point inspiration looks to be in the offing.

3)  Nobody's allied with it now.  Player C was allied with it way back when.  It goes to player C.  Just 'cuz you jump ship doesn't mean you can't get rewarded for the good oppositional work you did before that.

4)  Yes.  Strategically, it's smarter to go 4, 5, 6 -> 1, 5, 6 + 2, 1 ... unless you're trying to threaten a schism, for whatever reason.  But if you're splitting the six then it was done correctly.

Your option #2 is correct ... once there's already some debt under dice, splitting becomes more powerful.  Viva teamwork!

I think that this is the plain-english reading of the staking rules, actually.  "A side may split to as many dice as it has Stakes" ... not "A player may split to as many dice as they have Stakes."  What do you think?

Additionally, let me point out that it is completely kosher to pair up the opposing sides against each other.

The way I'd balance W(4, 5, 2, 2, 2) vs. (6) + (3, 5, 5) is as follows:
6 - 5 = 1 point Inspiration for player C
2 - 5 = 3 point Inspiration for player B
2 - 3 = 1 point Inspiration for pllayer B
Unmatched 4, 5, 2 = 4, 5 and 2 Inspirations for player A.

It's good to win a three way conflict.

[Sindyr]

OK, then, I think that all hangs together - just have a couple of further thoughts on what happens to the "6" when inspiration matching happens...

Let me pull this out... we have winning (4, 5, 2, 2, 2) vs. (6) and (3, 5, 5)?  Rock!

1) Player A distributes the inspirations, within the allowed assignments, yes.

2)  Well, player C is likely to receive the benefit of the side he briefly championed, but then abandoned.  So at least a one point inspiration looks to be in the offing.

3)  Nobody's allied with it now.  Player C was allied with it way back when.  It goes to player C.  Just 'cuz you jump ship doesn't mean you can't get rewarded for the good oppositional work you did before that.
<...>
Additionally, let me point out that it is completely kosher to pair up the opposing sides against each other.

The way I'd balance W(4, 5, 2, 2, 2) vs. (6) + (3, 5, 5) is as follows:
6 - 5 = 1 point Inspiration for player C
2 - 5 = 3 point Inspiration for player B
2 - 3 = 1 point Inspiration for pllayer B
Unmatched 4, 5, 2 = 4, 5 and 2 Inspirations for player A.

It's good to win a three way conflict.

OK, if that's the way it works three more questions pop up for me.

First, tracking issues.  We are tracking who is claiming what side with a colored marker on the notecard.  We are tracking what side people are allied with by using another colored marker *near* the notecard.  Now we have to track past allied sides as well?  Because if we don't, we may not all remember who that 6 belonged to at the start - we did *this* time, but with games going as they do, that's not a guarantee. So this rule basically makes us have to track not only current claims and alliances, but all past ones as well?  Seems like a lot of work - and it seems to me that this game already has a lot of management work associated with it.

Second - what if this side that no one is allied with right now had two players that *had* been allied with it?  What if both PlayerB and PlayerC had been allied with Side One - but no one is currently allied with it.  Who gets the inspiration resulting from it?

Third - as far as I understand, the following applies to awarding debt tokens. 
-The person who's debt it is decides who to award it to.
-At least one debt token must go to the writer of the conflict, although the conflict winner (including those allied with the winning side?) cannot receive any STs and no player may award STs to themselves.
-Any other debt tokens must be awarded to someone currently allied with an opposing side. (Is this a rule?)

In this case, PlayerA and PlayerC are both currently allied with the winning side (which PlayerA had claimed).  Player A had 3 debt tokens staked, PlayerC had 2.

Now, (more) questions:

3a) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerB, does he get one story token from PlayerA *and* one story token from PlayerC? If not, if he only gets one story for creating the conflict, then which player A or C must give that token? Why?

3b) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerA (the winning claimant), does PlayerC have to award PlayerA a story token for writing it?

3c) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerC(not the winning claimant, but allied to the winning side), does PlayerA have to award PlayerC a story token for writing it?

3d) According to what you say about Inspirations - that past alliances still matter, even if not currently in effect - is PlayerC eligible to receive all of PlayerA's 3 Story Tokens, if PlayerA wishes to reward PlayerC for his previous opposition - *even though* right now he is currently allied with the side that won, and possibly may have helped that side win?

For the record, in the moment, we decided that past non-current alliances were not relative, that the lone 6 die with no one allied to that side was simply discarded, and that PlayerB, the only one currently allied to a side that didn't win, was the only eligible recipient for PlayerA's and PlayerC's 5 combined Story Tokens.

It felt like the right decision.

I must say, I find the idea of needing to track all past alliances as well as claims and current alliances profoundly distressing. Ah well. I will of course bring this back to the group - along with my concerns.

4)  Yes.  Strategically, it's smarter to go 4, 5, 6 -> 1, 5, 6 + 2, 1 ... unless you're trying to threaten a schism, for whatever reason.  But if you're splitting the six then it was done correctly.

Your option #2 is correct ... once there's already some debt under dice, splitting becomes more powerful.  Viva teamwork!

I think that this is the plain-english reading of the staking rules, actually.  "A side may split to as many dice as it has Stakes" ... not "A player may split to as many dice as they have Stakes."  What do you think?

I see what you mean.  As a player reading the rules, however, I think it would be more easily digested if it talked more directly about what a player can do.  "A player can do A under conditions B and C" or whatnot.  Ultimately, I think readers of rulebooks are looking for one of two things:
1) What can I (or another player) do?
2) How do I (or another player) resolve this situation?

Language that speaks in those terms can be clearer, I think.

-Sindyr

[Matthew Glover]

This leaves option two:

2) When a player wishes to split a die that is Controlled - ie, has someone's debt token underneath it, they spend one fewer debt token then normally required.  In addition, they do not *have* to schism this turn if they choose not to.  The only time same-turn schisming is forced is when splitting a die that has *no* debt debt token underneath it *and* using one fewer debt than resulting dice after the split.

The above rule would basically say that if you split in such a way that leaves a die uncontrolled, you must schism by the end of your turn.

I really dislike phrasing this in a "you may do this, but you must then schism" way.  I know it works out the same way, but that's not at all how I think of this action in play.  It's never "I want to do this, but I'll have to schism because of it."   It's always "I want to schism, so this is how I do it."

I think my group probably have done the resolution of your conflict slightly differently than either you or Tony.  This is how we'd probably do it.  This is just our interpretation.  If you're curious as to why, I'm happy to discuss it. 

We wouldn't track past associations.  Your currently allied side determines what you are eligible to recieve.  Inspirations going to PlayerB's side could go to only PlayerB.  PlayerA and PlayerC can only recieve Inspirations from the winning side.  Inspirations from the side with no allied players would just disappear.

All story tokens would have to go to somebody currently allied with either of the two losing sides (with one Story Token going to the conflict's creator if he is not allied with the winning side).  As Player B is the only person not allied with the winning side, he'd get all five resulting Story Tokens, plus his doubled Debt.

PlayerA would be well within his rights as the winning Claimant to just keep all of the winning side's resultant Inspirations, leaving PlayerC with nothing.  He could, if he wanted, reward PlayerC's assistance with something.  I'd probably give him the 4, especially if I want to keep him happy.

For example's sake, if there were a PlayerD who was allied with the third side (the "6", I mean), he'd be the only one who would be eligible to recieve the Inspiration on that side, even if C was allied in the past, even if D never did anything worthwhile.  D would also be eligible to recieve Story Tokens.  We'd probably handle handing out Story Tokens thusly:  A picks up his three, C picks up his two.  If the conflict creator is not on the winning side, A gives him a token*.  The other four tokens can be awarded to only B or D, as there are no others allied with losing sides.  A and C probably take turns handing out tokens, or maybe they discuss it amongst themselves.  As the winner, A has the authority to determine who hands out tokens when.  If he wants, he can tell C to hand out his tokens first, or last, or whatever.  He can't tell C who to give his tokens to, but the rules say it must be B or D.

*  We've never had a dispute about which token is the "first" for the purposes of awarding to the conflict creator.  I think if there's ever been confusion, whichever player has the most debt staked volunteered to award one to the creator. 

[Sindyr]

Very interesting and functional.  I will chew on that as I hope Tony and other give their takes on these questions.

[Hans]

We wouldn't track past associations.  Your currently allied side determines what you are eligible to recieve.  Inspirations going to PlayerB's side could go to only PlayerB.  PlayerA and PlayerC can only recieve Inspirations from the winning side.  Inspirations from the side with no allied players would just disappear.

All story tokens would have to go to somebody currently allied with either of the two losing sides (with one Story Token going to the conflict's creator if he is not allied with the winning side).  As Player B is the only person not allied with the winning side, he'd get all five resulting Story Tokens, plus his doubled Debt.

For what its worth, this is how I have always taught the game, and how we have always played it.  Past associations are never tracked, and I'm not certain I really see the point in doing so.  If you change a character's alliance, you are obviously doing so because you see some benefit to it; missing out on potential story tokens/inspirations is simply the potential cost of shifting.

And Benn, we also use colored tokens, in exactly the same manner you do, with addition that we also put a token of the same color on each debt token to mark whose is whose, and write a little note on the index card indicated which character's debt and what drive.  It gets a bit confusing when a player has more than one character and ends up being allied to two different sides of a conflict, but those situations are very rare, in my experience; I'm not sure if I have ever seen it happen.

PlayerA would be well within his rights as the winning Claimant to just keep all of the winning side's resultant Inspirations, leaving PlayerC with nothing.  He could, if he wanted, reward PlayerC's assistance with something.  I'd probably give him the 4, especially if I want to keep him happy.

Also, for what its worth, my reading of page 30 of the rules tells me that ONLY the claimant can receive inspirations for winning.  The only people it mentions getting inspirations other than the resolver/claimant are people on the opposing/losing side.  That is, even if Player A WANTS to give Player C an inspiration for the win, he or she can't.  This is the current answer in the FAQ, based on this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17321.msg183318#msg183318   (reply #2 from Tony)

I think Tony is suggesting that Player C can get an inspiration from the side Player C used to be associated with (a losing side), not an inspiration for being on the winning side, but I could be dead wrong.


In addition, it seems pretty clear from

[Sindyr]

I think Tony is suggesting that Player C can get an inspiration from the side Player C used to be associated with (a losing side), not an inspiration for being on the winning side, but I could be dead wrong.


In addition, it seems pretty clear from

If Tony is saying that (and I think he is), then Tony wants us to know without disagreement (ie track) which sides a player has been allied with in the past.

Also, what seems pretty clear?

[Hans]

Also, what seems pretty clear?

Ummm...uhhhh....what's that over there!!!  *sound of Hans running off in the other direction*

[Sindyr]

A lot of people type "lol" when the in fact have done no such thing.

I just did.  ;p

[Sindyr]

For what its worth, this is how I have always taught the game, and how we have always played it.  Past associations are never tracked, and I'm not certain I really see the point in doing so.  If you change a character's alliance, you are obviously doing so because you see some benefit to it; missing out on potential story tokens/inspirations is simply the potential cost of shifting.

For what it's worth, I have the same take on it - if someone want's to be considered for receiving tokens or inspirations, they need to keep allied with a losing side.  If on the other hand they choose to ally with the winning side, they are giving up the possibility of receiving new resources in order to achieve some other goal.

[TonyLB]

Okay, here's the way I actually play ... I don't know if it's a way people should play, but here you go.

If you can't remember what somebody's done without tracking it then they don't get rewarded for it.

In order to deserve a reward, you should have done something that people don't have trouble remembering.  So make it memorable!

Given that, it seems incredibly natural to me that (for instance) player C should get an inspiration if people remember the opposition he provided before switching sides.  If you can butter your story-bread with awesome on both sides then you deserve doubly-buttered-bread.

How's that for a metaphor?

[Sindyr]

OK, so in your group. if PlayerA wants to award PlayerC an inspiration, but playerB is not at all certain that PlayerC was ever allied with the other side, what happens?

I ask because I can imagine an ugly scene (small s) developing as A and C tell B that they have clear memories and B shold just go with it, while B (who may be forgetful in his nature anyways) says that he's sorry, but he has no clear memory of that, so he does not feel confortable with the award.

Either A and C will be pissed, and will demand tracking in the future since the feel betrayed by B's lack of memory, or B will be overuled and B will feel pissed because things will be happening that he cannot be certain are actually right.

To me sounds like the kind of potential pitfall that could be fixed before it happens...

But I think I have my answer on that question.  No one has cited any rule text, so the rules probably do not comment on this question, and know I know how different people choose to deal with this in their own games, including the author.  Thanks.

Now apart from orphaned inspirations I asked some other questions above that I still do not know the answers to:

Third - as far as I understand, the following applies to awarding debt tokens.
-The person who's debt it is decides who to award it to.
-At least one debt token must go to the writer of the conflict, although the conflict winner (including those allied with the winning side?) cannot receive any STs and no player may award STs to themselves.
-Any other debt tokens must be awarded to someone currently allied with an opposing side. (Is this a rule?)

In this case, PlayerA and PlayerC are both currently allied with the winning side (which PlayerA had claimed).  Player A had 3 debt tokens staked, PlayerC had 2.

Now, (more) questions:

3a) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerB, does he get one story token from PlayerA *and* one story token from PlayerC? If not, if he only gets one story for creating the conflict, then which player A or C must give that token? Why?

3b) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerA (the winning claimant), does PlayerC have to award PlayerA a story token for writing it?

3c) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerC(not the winning claimant, but allied to the winning side), does PlayerA have to award PlayerC a story token for writing it?

3d) According to what you say about Inspirations - that past alliances still matter, even if not currently in effect - is PlayerC eligible to receive all of PlayerA's 3 Story Tokens, if PlayerA wishes to reward PlayerC for his previous opposition - *even though* right now he is currently allied with the side that won, and possibly may have helped that side win?

For the record, in the moment, we decided that past non-current alliances were not relative, that the lone 6 die with no one allied to that side was simply discarded, and that PlayerB, the only one currently allied to a side that didn't win, was the only eligible recipient for PlayerA's and PlayerC's 5 combined Story Tokens.

It felt like the right decision.

I would be interested in answers in two different contexts:
a) what the ruletext says about this, if it does
b) how do people adjudicate this in their own games?

Thanks

[Matthew Glover]

Also, for what its worth, my reading of page 30 of the rules tells me that ONLY the claimant can receive inspirations for winning.  The only people it mentions getting inspirations other than the resolver/claimant are people on the opposing/losing side.  That is, even if Player A WANTS to give Player C an inspiration for the win, he or she can't.  This is the current answer in the FAQ, based on this thread:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=17321.msg183318#msg183318   (reply #2 from Tony)

Upon re-reading page 30, I agree with this assessment.  Unless it's contradicted somewhere else in the text, the RAW says that only the claimant recieves inspirations for the winning side.  Thanks for pointing that out, Hans. 

Tony, can you tell me why you did it this way, rather than allowing the claimant to distribute inspirations among the winning group just the same as in the losing group(s)?  That's how we've been doing it.

Here's my take on these, broken out one at a time for convenience.

-The person who's debt it is decides who to award it to.

Yes.  Page 30, "Winners give away their Stakes as Story Tokens to the [players of] losing characters."  I added that [players of] just to be pedantic.  I read that as "Each Winner gives away his own debt to whichever Loser he wants."

-At least one debt token must go to the writer of the conflict

Yes.  Page 30, "If the character who created the Conflict is on the losing side, and they are being played by someone other than the Resolver then the first Story Token must go to that player."  I read this as "first Story Token awarded" not as "first Story Token staked" just to cut down on more tracking.  We frequently alternate awarding tokens if multiple players are involved, with the player with the most tokens to award going first.  Note that it says "the character who created the Conflict."  A very strict reading could require that you track not only which player created the conflict, but with which character's action they did so.  I don't think that's what Tony meant, so we read this rule this way: "If the player who created the Conflict has no characters on the winning side, one Story Token must be awarded to that player.  In a dispute, the Resolver decides which Story Token is awarded to the conflict creator."

although the conflict winner (including those allied with the winning side?) cannot receive any STs and no player may award STs to themselves.

It says "Note that players may never keep Debt Tokens from one of their own characters as Story Tokens, even if they also played a different character on the losing side of the Conflict."  Again, a very strict reading could interpret this so that any player, including all on the winning side can recieve tokens if they have characters also on the losing side and so long as they do not award tokens to themselves.  I can provide a far-fetched example if you aren't following me, but I can tell you that's not how my group does it.  We interpret this rule thusly:  "No player with a character on the winning side of a Conflict may recieve Story Tokens during resolution."  We're mean like that.

-Any other debt tokens must be awarded to someone currently allied with an opposing side. (Is this a rule?)

30, "Winners give away their Stakes as Story Tokens to the losing characters."  This is obviously modified by the "one token to the writer" rule a few lines below it, but I otherwise think this is fairly airtight.

3a) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerB, does he get one story token from PlayerA *and* one story token from PlayerC? If not, if he only gets one story for creating the conflict, then which player A or C must give that token? Why?

RAW says "first" not "first from each," so I'm inclined to say only one token for creating the conflict.  The RAW doesn't ever specify in what order tokens are awarded, but you could infer a lot of different ways to go about it.  A sensible way, if you really found it necessary to have to carve it in stone, would be to start with the Resolver and go around the table in the usual order with each winner giving out one token at a time.  First to the writer.  In this specific case, though, it doesn't matter, because ALL of the tokens go to PlayerB.

3b) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerA (the winning claimant), does PlayerC have to award PlayerA a story token for writing it?
3c) If the conflict was originally written by PlayerC(not the winning claimant, but allied to the winning side), does PlayerA have to award PlayerC a story token for writing it?

To both of these, I'd say yes, by the book, for reasons specified above.  I'll revisit them if you like.  At my table, no.  No winner gets tokens.

3d) According to what you say about Inspirations - that past alliances still matter, even if not currently in effect - is PlayerC eligible to receive all of PlayerA's 3 Story Tokens, if PlayerA wishes to reward PlayerC for his previous opposition - *even though* right now he is currently allied with the side that won, and possibly may have helped that side win?

This is obviously directed specifically at Tony, so I'll just leave it alone.

[TonyLB]

I ask because I can imagine an ugly scene (small s) developing as A and C tell B that they have clear memories and B shold just go with it, while B (who may be forgetful in his nature anyways) says that he's sorry, but he has no clear memory of that, so he does not feel confortable with the award.

Wow.  How long do your conflicts last anyway?  You're saying that when Player A says "Of course C was on the opposing side.  He hit me with that man-hole cover, remember?" you expect Player B to say "Well, I don't remember that, it was a long time ago"?

I have never seen that level of at-the-table amnesia.  Have you?

But I've carefully checked the rules, and you're absolutely right.  The rules as written have no loophole for people who used to be on a side, but now aren't.  Apparently I have, on the rare occasions when this came up, cheated on my own rules.  That's a little embarrassing! :-)

So, to everyone who looked at me funny and said "Tony?  Are you sure that's the rules?"  You're right.  I'm wrong.  I stand corrected.

Anyway, on your #3 questions, which are much simpler now that I'm actually going by the rules, as opposed to my wooly-headed meanderings:

3a:  Player B is guaranteed one story token.  There are no rules for who should award it.  It's an oversight.  Figure it out amongst yourselves :-)

3b: No.  They're not on the losing side.

3c: No.  They're not on the losing side.

3d: No.  They're not on the losing side.

[Matthew Glover]

Tony, don't be too sheepish.  I can easily imagine playing in a setting with the house rule "If you ever provided opposition, you are eligible for Story Tokens or Opposition Inspirations."  That seems pretty reasonable for a casual game.