Sandbox style games typically have the story follow the PCs wherever they go as well. Obviously not in the same way as story now but that following the PCs is still present.
At least in Dungeon World (and I'm pretty sure AW etc.) the principles and agenda statements exist to BIND THE GM. They tell us what the GM is principally allowed to say, when they are supposed to say it, and how. They also require the GM to request and accept input from the players (in a somewhat informal manner). This is all intended to insure that everyone is playing the same game, and that it is DW and not some other sort of game pretending to be DW. If you follow those statements religiously, a game of Dungeon World emerges! Some of the principles are more 'core' than others of course. Of the DW ones on p162 I'd say 1 (maps with blanks), 4 (make a move that follows), 8 (ask questions, use the answers), and 9 (be a fan of the characters) are the ones which MOST shape the structure of play. Violating any one of those will definitely tend to move you in some direction away from the intended play structure.
Sure, the performance measures can be subjective. I mean, figure skating has points for artistic merit and such, but nobody thinks that makes it less a competition (I won't touch the argument about whether it is a 'game proper' or not, it doesn't matter). I'd note though that there are pretty strict standards for judging subjective things and strong social constraints, etc. in any situation where subjectivity is highly important. RPGs are more informal/relaxed and thus perhaps you can say a game is gamist where the objectives are things like "tell the best joke in play" or whatever. The structure however does need to CENTER ON that. Again, classic D&D is the perfect example, the whole game REVOLVES AROUND getting loot (magic and GP) and leveling up. EVERY player is oriented towards those things, and anyone who isn't is not really playing. I mean, nothing is more of a dud in D&D than a group of players who just shrug their shoulders and say "Oh, we'll just keep drinking at the inn." when someone hands them a treasure map! lol. Maybe that shades into a form of HCS as the subjective measures become less defined and less central to play. I mean, you can acquire more power in a CoC game, but nobody would ever propose that getting big weapons, money, and high skill values is the POINT of that game!
I agree that the 1981 Streetwise can be interpreted in the same way as the 1977 version. I'm not sure about other parts of the rules that might reflect on exactly how much authority this text is giving to the Referee, as I have only ever played with the 1977 rules. I don't see anything in either write up however which permits or advises the Referee to turn a SUCCESSFUL Streetwise check into a type of failure by making the information bad. In fact I would assume that when @pemerton mentions a hard move, the most logical one would be something like directing the PCs into a police sting instead of an actual weapons dealership! I would consider this to be pretty similar in scope to the flexibility of scene framing and move making in, say, Dungeon World, where such a move would be a pretty standard outcome of a bad Supply move.
I quoted up-thread the Traveller game text that permits and advises the Referee to make information bad. My post #2062. (The second spoiler.)
I think this is a reasonable interpretation. The ONLY REASON the characters are framed as being in the vicinity of a safe they wish to open is that the players have already, as a group, established that the safe is a goal and what its dramatic function is. So, you won't really care who opens it, everyone is on the same page. If there's another character who wants some OTHER thing to be in the safe, well they might have ALSO established that! (I mean, safes are known to hold multiple items). It may also have been established that ONLY objective B is going to be fulfilled here, though the other characters may not be fully cognizant of that.
I think it is just different assumptions. So, in a D&D game there is a pretty hard assumption that the party is a group of PCs who act together and are loyal to the group. Even in EARLY D&D play there was a "don't screw the party" rule of conduct (which certain problematic types of characters were often ganked for violating). If you WANT to incorporate this sort of ethos into your AW PCs, you are certainly free to do so! I mean, Dungeon World certainly mildly encourages that, and in actual play it seems to be the norm. As in I have not really seen DW play where the PCs were seriously at odds. They might be less than compatible and be portrayed as 'not liking each other' now and then, but the game definitely seems to encourage cooperation (I don't know if AW does too, or not, but it seems like it would be POSSIBLE at least).
Honestly, isn't that the first diagram? (the Story Now one). I mean, frankly, there are very few instances in SN games where players have FIAT. BW wises checks seem to be one of the most obvious examples, but PbtA games, for instance, have NOTHING equivalent. The GM in a PbtA game introduces ALL content. The players can dictate, indirectly, what that content needs to address, maybe even semi-directly by some of their moves (IE if a player in DW declares a Supply move to find a certain item, the GM's options are to either run it, just give them the item, or ask the table to decide if the request is out of genre/fiction bounds).
Is there no glue holding characters more or less near the same location? If there isnt what stops the game from becoming 4 separate games where each player takes turn with the DM resolving their game?
For me it’s less about how much of an issue that May or may not be and more about noting that it’s something that always arises in story now play. I’m fine letting people determine whether that’s a deal breaker for them.
