I used to think Inspirations below 3 were utterly useless. Then I had way too much debt, a conflict I was likely to win that I wanted a lot of opposition on, and a bunch of Level 2 Inspirations.

The conflict dice were 1+1+1+1 on my side. I took two Level 2 Inspirations and increased that to 1+1+2+2. Then I staked two more debt on the conflict to get it up to 1+1+(1+1)+(1+1). Now I'm dangling 6 Story Tokens out there, I increased my side from 4 to 6, and I still get to roll one of the dice. All in one action! (the die ended up being Reacted to a 3, so I ended up with 8 on my side.)

That strikes me as a good use for low level Inspirations...a quick way to split dice before you roll.

You had six debt staked on the conflict?

He still does, actually -- 4 from one character and 2 from another. And I'm going to be rolling up the other side against you as my action, I promise! Just need a 4 to be able to gloat it...

:)

Vaxalon wrote:
You had six debt staked on the conflict?

Yep, 4 debt. I'm trying to get people to focus on that conflict. (it seems to be working)

I was confused by the "I'm dangling six debt..." phrase.

More "my guy" preconceptions coming to the fore.

My earlier post should say "Yep, 6 debt..."

I had 4 characters in the scene. I had taken a HUGE lead in Story Tokens earlier (the first two scenes went: "I chose a hero, everyone else chose villains" and "I chose a villain, everyone else chose heroes.") We just resolved the conflict.

It was kind of hard. I was definitely tempted to give 2 Story Tokens to each of the three other players in order to be "fair" and not "show favorites." Of course, that would violate the spirit of Capes and would not condition the other players to act the way I want them to act, so I didn't. But I was wondering, do other people have that reaction when Resolving? Wanting to spread the Story Tokens evenly, instead of apportioning them by merit?

Be careful staking so much debt - some player apparently instead of trying to (sensibly in my opinion) take that debt off you rhands by letting you win instead fight even harder to win themselves forcing you to take back twice as much debt and be even more in need of finding it a home.

I *think* I remember Tony promoting this tactic.

Sindyr wrote:
I *think* I remember Tony promoting this tactic.

It's also context-sensitive.  dunlaing has almost all of the story tokens (which makes it not a coincidence that he also has a huge pile of debt burning a hole in several of his characters) and the rest of us are strapped.  That makes it much more tempting for us to cash in on an immediate payout, in order to get some seed-money than it does to dump into long-term investments like rebuking him.

So if you have no tokens to speak of, you may be more tempted to take his debt off his hands now instead of feeding it back to him double?

That makes sense. 

You are, however, going to hate what I say next - I don't myself like the idea of forcing someone to take back double debt when they were trying to give me story tokens unless I find his winning that conflict odious.

Of course, that opinion was before I found out that you really can't stake more than 2 or 3 debt per conflict usually (maybe 4), so doubling that would not be the end of the world.  I mean, beofre I undertood that rule I had one conflict I had staked like 7 or 8 debt on - and got it back doubled.  Yoikes. I retired the character immediately.

Plus, the penalty for being overdrawn is also not the worst thing either, though it's not good.  Still, I would hate to be "that guy" who sends the player's debt back into his face doubled if I could live with him winning that conflict.  Most of you do not have that problem, I understand. ;)