From Masks: A New Generation
we can see that your abilities are subject to your discretion as negotiated with via the GM, the limitation is thematic appropriateness-- your toolkit is intentionally fuzzy.
Here we establish that the rules don't really care much about the physical simulation of the action as problem solving, instead it wants players to engage with the game world's emotional push and pull and their arc of personal development, again direct storytelling over the simulation of a reality in which the players just make physical choices.
If we're playing to find out what the character's tools to solve problems are, the nature of what's in that toolbox is pretty open to freeform problem solving, a game that isn't trying to be low power could easily invent convoluted knock-off effects from their powers like the Flash's 'Speed Force' which allow them a fairly unconstrained toolbox with which to solve problems.
If I used my Moment of Truth while we were fighting the Dragon in your example (depending on what the Ranger playbook would suggest that could entail) it wouldn't even be a problem to solve anymore (not that you can do that all the time, but I wanted to show the range.) Again though, the mechanic concerns story structure, not the simulation of the fictional world that the Game takes place in.
The rules simulate the creation of a narrative, not the physical reality of the world. The physical reality of the world is an exercise in creative writing, where problems are prompts for reaction, and the validity of those reactions are governed directly by the needs of the narrative (tone, consistency.) The rules do not care whether your character is a street level, pretty much human, or an earth shatteringly powerful alien from another world. The game's mechanical play space is concerned with how the emotional push and pull of the situations.
Villain Moves are even more narrative, where the Villain just does something without a role designed to complicate the situation for the players respond to. The players invent a solution (or a reaction at any rate) that they and the other players find believable in the fiction of the game. Their toolkit is not limited
In your dragon example, the player must either respond with a believable means of surpassing the obstacle of the winds, or alter their actions to suit the fiction. The GM authored a complication, the Ranger Player is going to author a reaction to that complication. If DW is like Masks, that could be a creative new use of their ranger abilities (which would be a loosely defined idea of they're personal abilities and equipment) a completely different plan, or even a newly established element of the fiction (that the GM would in turn, be obligated to complicate) which would trigger a move to roll if its believable, on a hit it happens according to the move, but on a miss, the GM would decide what happens-- potentially giving the Ranger player what they want but with some further complication they're dealing with.
The Dragon, the Ranger Wanting to Shoot, The Wind being too much, the Potential Miss, each of these is functionally a prompt for straight authorship of the fiction being tossed back and forth in conversation. If these opportunities for authorship are policed to the extent that they begin to represent constrained toolboxes in a world simulated by the GM's sensibilities, we've practically, whether through system or playstyle, stepped away from the subject of the thread. Since players are no longer establishing facts about the world.
This sure seems like players creating complications to me, these only really work well if the players are interested in creating drama and tension themselves, rather than just doing their best to solve problems:
More broadly, I would note that the Games being discussed, DW and Torchbearer are Story-Now emulations of Dungeons and Dragons esque gameplay. They might have more of the 'playstyle' of the game they're emulating than other Story Now games necessarily do. They may also police tone more than masks does to try and keep the tone correct.
Conversely, it would feel awfully like one if you have a GM who polices the fiction in such a way as to enforce constraints and prohibit additions to the fiction during problem solving. You'd be playing a fairly Gygaxian Mother-May-I "I only roll dice for the sound it makes" type experience defined by limiting player addition to the fiction.
