Yes, the primary example of not honoring success is, as
@pemerton deduced, the play example of Marie the Brainer, from the section "Rules of Play: Moves Snowball" which my pdf shows as being page 152 of the MC's Playbook (from the 1E stuff available for free, the file says it's 1E-1up). What I see as "success not being honored" is that the PC managed a full hit--a 10 on the roll--and didn't even get part of the result they were looking for.
I'm really just echoing
@Campbell here, but I don't get this.
Here's the 10+ result foe
go aggro: they have to choose: force your hand and suck it up, or cave and do what you want.
The 10+ result doesn't guarantee that the player's desire is realised. It only lets the player put the other participant (GM if the move is made against a NPC; player if the move is made against another PC) to a choice.
If the player's desire is not
to influence the other character but rather
to remove the other character as an obstacle to his/her PC's actions then the choice made by the other participant may not matter (eg in the example of play Isle is out of the action bleeding through her ears). If the player's desire is
to have the other character do something s/he wants the game simply doesn't give the player that degree of agency via the
go aggro move. The player would have to
seduce/manipulate instead, which has the following 10+ result when used vs NPCs: they ask you to promise something first, and do it if you promise. . . whether you keep the promise is up to you, later.
It's possible for the player of a brainer to gain the psychic ability to seduce someone, but this doesn't remove the need to make the promise in order to get the response:
Unnatural lust transfixion: when you try to seduce someone, roll+weird instead of roll+hot.
But Marie's player chose the following power for his/her brainer:
Direct-brain whisper projection: you can roll+weird to get the effects of going aggro, without going aggro. Your victim has to be able to see you, but you don’t have to interact. If your victim forces your hand, your mind counts as a weapon (1-harm ap close loud-optional).
Notice how it even spells out that the other participant can force your hand?
When it is the MC who is the other participant who gets to make the decision, then as
@Campbell has said s/he is obliged to follow the relevant principles and to stick to his/her agenda. That is to say, the MC's agency is constrained. But the game rules make it clear that, at this point, it is the MC who has agency in respect of the shared fiction. All the player can do is put the other participant to the choice. The game even spells this out (p 109):
The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings. Your job as MC is to say everything else: everything about the world, and what everyone in the whole damned world says and does except the players’ characters.
This is a very clear description of who has what sort of agency in respect of the shared fiction.
There's the description of when the same character sends people out to bring back Joe's Girl and they break her in the bringing back, but there's no action resolution described there, just the GM being a dick. Heck, you could argue it's a principle of the game--Respond with fuckery and intermittent rewards; if success isn't always going to succeed, where's the agency?
Here's the full text from p 113:
Marie makes it super clear to Roark that she doesn’t care who he kills, but he’s to bring Joe’s Girl (an NPC) back to her alive. For “questioning” or “examination” or something — Marie wants access to Joe’s Girl’s living brain. So Roark goes out, murders a batch of people, and comes back with Joe’s Girl alive. Here’s where I f*** around, though: he’s beaten the **** out of her.
Marie has access to her brain (because always give the characters what they work for) but she’s in a coma, her back is broken, her face is smashed in. Joe’s Girl is alive for now, but ruined for good. I gave Marie what she worked for, but not really what she hoped for. See it? Throw curves. Put your bloody fingerprints all over everything you touch.
That's an example that illustrates how the game distributes agency. Marie's player is able to establish a fiction in which Roark brings back Joe's Girl, brain intact. The MC is able to establish that all that's left of Joe's Girl is her brain.
The game has ways to allow Marie's player to produce different outcomes for Joe's Girl - we don't know what action resolution occurred to produce that particular hypothetical episode of play, but obviously both Going Aggro and Seducing/Manipulate create ways for Roark to agree to bring Joe's Girl back alive and unharmed. But the game still tells the MC to put his/her "bloody fingerprints" on whatever happens then - eg maybe when Roark comes back with Joe's Girl the whole of the rival steading's gang is right behind him.
The underlying idea is that the GM is always entitled and indeed oblifged to introduce adversity into the situation. That's what makes the game progress. In the case of Joe's Girl beaten to a pulp - if Marie wants her back and healthy s/he needs to find an angel, or an angel-kit, or a savvyhead with the right sort of workspace, or whatever.
An example of GM move demonstrating planning? "Announce future badness." (I'm looking at "Your Moves" on page 116 of the same pdf.) If it's going to be bad in the future you're kinda saying there's nothing the PCs can do about it.
No. The whole point of
announcing future badness (in Dungeon World this is called
revealing an unwelcome truth) is to enable the players, via their PCs, to do something about it.
Consider, for instance, the example I just posted: Roark turns up with Joe's Girl alive and unharmed, but the rival hardhold's gang is right behind him. That's
annoucning future badness. And the game progresses in virtue of the players responding. In my particular example, there are all sorts of things they might do - from all piling into the Driver's tank and fleeing the scene, to mustering their own gang to go out and fight, to trying to persuade the rival gang leader to back off, to . . . etc etc etc.
I'm not saying there's more Force in it than there is in, say, D&D 5E; I'm saying it's the same.
I see very few accounts of 5e D&D play taking place as transparently as AW. To go back to the OP situation, I also don't see that 5e D&D has anything like
go aggro or
seduce/manipulate that allows a player to put those sorts of constraints on a GM's narration of what a NPC does. I really find the whole comparison a bit odd.
There were several people who remarked that the way Apocalypse World instructed you to run the game was not novel - that they had been doing so all along. In the context of roleplaying game design I think it was fairly novel to see it enumerated in text. The agenda and principles it lays out are almost directly opposed to established wisdom enumerated in games like AD&D Second Edition, Vampire - The Masquerade, Legend of the Five Rings, et al. What little direction Fifth Edition provides does not point to that type of agenda. It is not the agenda of Burning Wheel. It is not the agenda of B/X.
Right.
I can't think of many RPGs text that are contemporaneous with or earlier than AW that are as crystal clear on how-to-play. Moldvay Basic comes close but is not as clear: you have to also read Gygax's AD&D to get the full picture of the "skilled play" idea. But Gygax's AD&D doesn't have the same level as procedural advice for the GM as Moldvay Basic does.
Burning Wheel Revised/Gold is very clear, but to get as clear as AW you have to supplement it with the Adventure Burner/Codex.
Maelstrom Stoyrtelling is pretty clear - close to being as clear as AW - but I think few posters on this board know it. Prince Valiant is clearer than the 5e D&D PDF but not as clear as AW (Ron Edwards notes this about Prince Valiant in
his "story now" essay).
As far as the play experience and agency are concerned, what is striking about AW - to me, at least - is how it reconciles a very traditional allocation of agency to the participants with a player-driven game. One important way it does this is precisely via moves like
go aggro or
read a situation which force the GM to make decisions, here-and-now, about elements of the fiction, like
whether or not the NPC yields to the PCs' threats or
what the best escape route is. The player can lock the GM in, and then act on that subsequent fiction.
Of classic games, I think Classic Traveller comes closest to this sort of structure, though it's rules text is much less clear about it and you have to do some extrapolating (from such varied bits of text as the rules for vacc suit skill, the rules for ship's boat skill which set out an evasion sub-system, the rules for law-level, admin skill and bribery skill which tell you how to get out of a spot with police and other officials, etc). It's utterly absent from classic D&D - which is about skilled play against the background of the GM's prior prep, not about locking the GM in in the moment of play - and it's utterly absent from AD&D 2nd ed and most late-80s/90s games, which don't contemplate at all that the GM might be locked in by the players.
By misdirecting so thoroughly and so often, by breaking the lines of cause and effect, action and result, you lessen the ability of the character to actually control or choose how they affect the story, which reduces their agency. If attempting A to cause B results in theta, how is a character to understand the world and maybe change it?
Why are we talking about the character here?
Causation in AW (the fictional place) is no different from causation in the real world, with the provisos that (i) there is a psychic maelstrom that can affect things in the "real" world, and (ii) the people of the world are rather cynical and harsh.
Characters change that world by acting on it.
But when we're talking about RPGing, and agency, we are talking about
players in the (really) real world - sitting at a table or talking to one another over Zoom or whatever. How do players in AW change the fiction? By declaring moves for their PCs and rolling high. Sometimes high rolls allow them to say what happens next - see eg a good roll on Seduce/Manipulate where the other participant is the MC controlling a NPC. Sometimes high rolls allow them to force another participant to make a binding choice - see eg Go Aggro, or Seduce Manipulate where the other participant is a player controlling a PC, or Read a Situation.
The obvious difference from 5e D&D, and again pointing back to the OP, is that the D&D player has no way to make the GM make a binding choice, and reveal it and stick to it. The player can't oblige the GM to reveal truths about the burgomaster's feelings and intentions (ie there's no analogue to Read a Person). The player can't oblige the GM to make a choce for the burgomaster of either relenting in the fact of the PC's desire or sucking up harm (ie there's no analogue to Go Aggro). In the OP's example the player clearly didn't know what the burgomaster was thinking or feeling and had no way beyond GM discretion of learning that; and the OP clearly was not able to force the GM to a choice in respect of the burgomaster's conduct - the burgomaster got to call the guards without suffering any harm from the attempt to threaten his life.
Completely different procedures of play.