I doubt you're missing it, but it seems to be missing from your model:I really don’t understand what is happening in these threads. I seriously do not.
This is so much more simple than it’s being made to be.
1) Are you trying to achieve x? Yes?
* Did this current move made take your closer to your objective? Would an alternative move made have yielded a less effective result (incorporating all possible outcomes up to and including calamity)?
* Did a prior move or a prior sequence of moves set up this current move? Would an alternative move or sequence of moves have put you in a less favorable position to either (a) make this current move or (b) make an alternative current move that is as good or better than this one.
2) Rinse/repeat (forward and backward in time across all possible moves made and their alternatives).
3) Evaluate on all timescales relative to the game at hand (eg, if a game requires you to play skillfully across multiple, integrated loops, then it’s necessary but not sufficient to play skillfully in one of those multiple loops…particularly if the play in one loop doesn’t, but should, synergize with/amplify the play in another loop).
4) Does the system engender thematic coherency or is thematic coherency a fundamentally competing priority across some relevant loops of play (eg if you have 3 concurrent loops of play that all must be managed, is thematically coherent play useful/integrated with skilled play in loop A, irrelevant in loop B, and adverse to in loop C).
That looks like that parameterizes the whole model for me. I don’t know what I’m missing.
Do I lose the game if I don't achieve the objectives at which I was aiming via my moves?
In Classic D&D, and The Green Knight, the answer is yes. In Burning Wheel, most of the time the answer is no.
Those different answers mean that the whole dynamic of the game, and the way we can approach it as players, changes.