it is in the results part of play that it gets writer's room-y. Deciding what that die result means in the fiction, since everyone has input and interest in how those things turn out.
but maybe that was just the way the person who introduced me to it played the game, and it isn't supposed to work that way.
I'm looking at
this and
this from the SRD:
The Players
Each player creates a character and works with the other players to create the crew to which their characters belong. Each player strives to bring their character to life as an interesting, daring character who reaches boldly beyond their current safety and means
The players work together with the Game Master to establish the tone and style of the game by making judgment calls about the mechanics, dice, and consequences of actions. The players take responsibility as co-authors of the game with the GM. . . .
The Game Master
The GM establishes the dynamic world around the characters. The GM plays all the non-player characters in the world by giving each one a concrete desire and preferred method of action
The GM helps organize the conversation of the game so it’s pointed toward the interesting elements of play. The GM isn’t in charge of the story and doesn’t have to plan events ahead of time. They present interesting opportunities to the players, then follow the chain of action and consequences wherever they lead. . . .
Judge the Result
. . .
Each 4/5 and 1-3 outcome lists suggested consequences for the character. The worse your position, the worse the consequences are. The GM can inflict one or more of these consequences, depending on the circumstances of the action roll. PCs have the ability to avoid or reduce the severity of consequences that they suffer by resisting them. . . .
When you narrate the action after the roll, the GM and player collaborate together to say what happens on-screen. Tell us how you vault across to the other rooftop. Tell us what you say to the Inspector to convince her. The GM will tell us how she reacts. When you face the Red Sash duelist, what’s your fighting style like? Etc.
It's clear that the players and GM work together. I also think it's clear that this is similar to how a carpenter and a plumber work together in renovating a bathroom: they collaborate, but they perform different jobs. The players bring their PCs to life; and that's why they narrate things like
vaulting across the rooftops and
how they fight and
what they say. The GM brings the world and NPCs to life, and that's why the GM
inflicts consequences and decides how the NPC reacts to what the PC says. All of this having to be done, of course, within the parameters set by the outcomes of rolls.
If the GM is trying to get the players to do the GM's job; or is trying to take control of the players' job; then I can see how it might feel like a "writers' room". But I'm not sure why the GM would do that. As per the Eero Tuovinen blog that I posted a bit from a little way upthread, the whole point of RPGing, on the player side, is that (if the rules and procedures are properly designed) then all you have to do is play your character!
EDITing to respond to this:
So when you say "writer's room-y", do you mean it was the collaborative nature of the resolution that was problematic, as opposed to leaving the result of the narration up to just the impacted player and the GM?
I think that people who are collaborating in a way that
ignores the division of responsibilities among the collaborators are creating their own problem!
The players should do their job - including answering the GM's questions about what their PC is doing, thinking, feeling, saying, etc. And the GM should do their job - saying how the world and the NPCs respond to what the PCs do. All of this, of course, within the constraints that the rolls generate.
