For the record, I'm 100% fine with "illusion of choice" instead of genuine choice, as long as the illusion is impenetrable.
This is an extremely important comment (that really gets to the nub of a lot of issues here) that doesn't seem to have gotten much run. A couple quick comments and a couple of questions for you if you don't mind?
So what you're talking about here is "Illusionism" GMing and "Participationism" playing. It has a history dating back to the late 80s, so it is a long-tenured, very legitimate playstyle.
The GM exerts "Force" over much/most (or at least the seminal ones) of the play outcomes in order to ensure control of the trajectory of the plot. However, through a variety of techniques, s/he does this covertly in order to create the illusion that what emerges at the table is being driven by the players (through their PCs).
The players may be just fine with this (in fact, they may prefer the GM do the heavy lifting in directing play), so long as (a) they get to flex their characterization/acting muscles (and maybe/likely pull out some Fiasco shenanigans now and again), (b) they get to crack some skulls and look cool, (c) the GM does a good job presenting a "living, breathing, world" + interesting metaplot, and (as you mention) (d) the GM does a professional job of keeping the Wizard behind the black curtain. Overall so long as its a fun story and they have a laugh with their mates, its all good.
So my questions are:
1) Do you think this "must not reveal the Wizard behind the curtain"/covert nature of the GM's techniques leads to an inherent aversion to system/technique/play anecdote analysis?
2) Do you think this leads to a "system doesn't matter" perspective on games?
3) Do you think this leads to an aversion of resolution mechanics clarity, transparency, or codificaion?
4) Do you think this leads to an aversion of player authority within PC build mechanics (eg - I have this ability that just says this happen...you get no say GM)?