Just want to pop in and say PbtA games do not step all over player agency. In fact, I feel like my character decisions matter a lot, scarily so! There's been a ton of discussions and explanations about these games but there is still so much misunderstanding. They are great games that do work. They aren't going to be loved by all. No system is. They are worth trying or at least understanding because the vast majority of criticism about PbtA games comes from lack of understanding how they actually play out at the table.
When coming from the Wargame tradition, the mechanics of wargames are a list of allowed actions; if there's a referee, they get to pick which of the allowed fits the action if one goes "off the list"... anything that has no fit. doesn't happen.
Meanwhile, AWE's list is 1+moves entries: the moves list, and "Anything else that makes sense - Autosuccess"
Most RPG GMs I've seen run run things somewhere closer to wargame tradition than AWE's "Anything but the moves is say-yes"
There also is a subset of the OSR that runs D&D as if it's AWE...
But it's a wide spectrum.
I know it's fairly common to compare MHRP to Fate, but personally I don't really see it. It doesn't have compels (Limits can sometimes resemble compels, but they're much more targetted and "fine-tuned") and you don't earn Fate points for having your aspects invoked.
The similarity is in play process. Crerate assets to use, then use them.
The plot point economy works very differently, but the basic cycle of "If you can't gank them yourself, build some assets, and then try again."
While it has no compels, it does have tagging complications for use in your pool. Compels aren't entirely needed; Distinctions as disads is equivalent and voluntary...
Both are built around building assets from existing ones, & using those, and flexing the expendable meta-point pool to pull off a number of related stunts, to go beyond the stated distinctions.
It's also worth noting that MHRP is NOT the archetypical Cortex Plus; the prototypical is Smallville; MHRP is the breakout, but Firefly was, while just as good, seriously different in the details, but nearly identical in process... MHRP is closer due to
If I'd not played Fate first, I'd not have found MHR nor Firefly nearly as intuitive. They're different, but in the details, not in the mindset.
If I'd not fought to understand AW itself, I'd have had a hard time with Sentinel Comics, since it's related (distantly - the quickstart set includes the thank-yous.)
Huh? The rules of AW are clear: if the table looks at the GM to see what happens next, the GM makes a soft move unless (i) it's a failed throw or (ii) the GM has been handed a golden opportunity to follow through with a hard move.
Not to everyone. In order to grasp what was being meant, I had to ask for help. That help came from Luke Crane and Thor Olavsruud. On their forums.
There is no "his game". It doesn't exist. There is only "their game". A GM with no players has no game.
False on several levels, the simplest of which is that prep is a form of play, usually unique to the GM.
Then, there's the function of solo-play, where one runs the game as both player and GM. Very common in the PBTA space.
There's also the solitare modules (esp. TFT, T&T, LAW) - but that's play sans GM, really.
There also is the tangible element: those books still constitute a game even if unused.
There is literally no way the game grants any authority not granted by the player. There is no mechanism to make a player accept something if they do not wish to enough to leave the game.
I'm not really sure where you are going with this, because it's a pointless distinction. Regardless if it's because a DM is abusing their power, are just a bad DM, are a great DM but not a good match for how the player wants to play, if the DM claims the rules give them authority but also claim they can change the rules as they want, all of it doesn't matter. If a GM is net decreasing fun the players can take away the power they have granted the DM over themselves by walking.
There is the implied social contract as an aspect of selection of a ruleset. Which is a powerful lever. Not quite Archimedies' level of lever, but still a psychological lever of much utility.
WHile I agree that it's bad GMing to abuse it, especially with Gygax's rule 0,