No. Priorities don’t imply conflict. In fact they imply the absence of conflict because where priorities exist, it is established that they have the right of way, if you will.
No matter how late I may be for work, speeding down the road, the ambulance with the sirens on has the priority. I yield, understanding they have the right of way. Even though I want to get to work timely, I recognize the need of the ambulance to go somewhere unhindered is always presumptively greater.
Conflict may occur if I IGNORED the priority. Say if I refused to get out of the way of the siren-blaring-ambulance. But that’s only after I contravene the established order.
Wait, what? You say that priorities are, well, priorities because they have right of way, so to speak, but then say that two priorities cannot conflict because they both would have right of way? That's rather interesting logic, and I'm afraid it doesn't work.
Skilled play is absolutely at odd with GM curation of story. In the latter, the GM is altering the fiction to improve or channel play to meet specific story beats. Pacing is important, rising action, hitting the climax. These are part and parcel of GM curation of story. Watch an episode of Critical Role and this is what you see -- the GM curating the action so that the story is tight and engaging.
On the other hand, skilled play is antithetical to this manipulation by the GM. Here the GM is to be a neutral arbiter of the world, presenting it without making changes. Any reaction is a direct and clear result of specific party actions. This way, the players are always leveraging the rules and their resources to succeed. Any story that arises is incidental to play -- it's a second order result, not the primary reason for play. Instead the primary reason for play is to, well, win -- survive the dungeon, improve the PCs, and do it again.
These two things directly conflict. If the GM makes any changes for purposes of curating the story, those directly conflict with the player's ability to manage the fiction through skilled play -- because that change by the GM is not a direct result of the PCs actions, but is, instead, to counter them to create a specific result, usually one of pacing or to create a memorable climax.
There's a common refrain that the point of playing D&D is to create an exciting, memorable story. I believe
@iserith often says this. However, there's a difference between finding that story though how the players decide to engage a prepared situation -- ie, the story is more of a war story -- and when the GM is actively curating that story during play by making changes to facilitate what the GM thinks makes for a better story.
