Sniggering aside, any ideas how this might work?

'Goal - Capture Harrier' White 3, Red 2

Spear, a hero has claimed white. Harrier, unsurprisingly has claimed red.

Player A (first on page): Spear uses his 'Hurl spear' 4 to roll, and gets a 4, which he keeps. Players B and C choose not to react.

Player B, Harrier, uses 'Hover just out of reach' style 2, on his side and has some luck, getting a 5. Players C and A decide not to react.

Player C's turn comes around. He's playing a Govern Spook and while he wants Harrier in cuffs, he doesn't want Spear getting the credit. What can he do in this situation? He can use a Story Token to start 'Goal - Sppoks capture Harrier, then try to roll up the the first Goal to stop Spear capturing Harrier, and maybe use another token to roll on his newly created Conflict. Does that sound right?

Would it be feasable for Player C to have the Spook start a new side on the first conflict? I can't see any of the rules that overtly break in that circumstance, any thoughts?

The standard method to make a new side is to split it off by investing a Debt token to make a third side (see page 37).

This is not an option in the case of the government spook, since he has no super-powers to create Debt.

The somewhat clunkier tactics that you discussed, of having the Spook work first with Harrier, then against him, are also an option. I enjoy the kind of story that creates, vis-a-vis the relationship between Spook and Spear.

But you said that the Spook "wants Harrier in cuffs, but doesn't want Spear getting the credit." It might be simpler, in that case, to simply add "Goal: Get the credit for capturing Harrier".

Spear could, naturally enough, roll over his Inspiration for having actually captured Harrier into a bonus for winning the credit. But the sad fact of the matter is that an Inspiration doesn't guarantee him the victory. He can do everything right, and still end up having someone else get all the credit.

Thanks Tony, I spotted that rule last night on another read through and thought it probably answered my question.

Something occured to me though. I remember seeing a reference to undifferentiated debt I think (maybe for bit part supervillains?). Debt seems to represent both a powerful infulence on overall story as well as a pyschological condition of the character in question. Did you ever think of allowing important non-powered characters to have a small debt pool (probably 2 or maybe 3), allowing them to utilise the staking mechanics? Obviously this wouldn't be appropriate for every non powered character, but say for a police chief or mayor who crops up a lot? I guess the other way would be to make them a 'super' but replace powers with skills and keep the drives .. hmm.

I think your second idea, of using the freeform mechanic to designate perhaps one or two skills as powers, is more in line with the rest of the game's design.

There was some discussion of this question toward the end of design, with Thomas Robertson (LordSmerf) advocating a compelling vision that if some things earning Debt is good, all things earning Debt is better. I don't remember exactly where it is, but if you start at the end of the Thread Index in Indie Design, and work your way back you'd probably find it.

My eventual conclusion was that while you could make a game where debt wasn't directly linked to super-powers, it wasn't exactly the game I was aiming for. This particular issue (important, morally deep, non-supers) is the complication that drove much of that discussion.

So it's good territory, with a lot of opportunity in any direction. A house rule has the potential to really improve the game by customizing it to your group.

In a setting like Wild Cards, where supers ("Aces" in that universe) can have WILDLY differing levels of power, creating a mundane that has just one heroic ability would be a perfect way to handle a really low powered ace.