Read on Twitter
Conflicting ideals. Trust affects them in gameplay. In low-trust we more often get Videogame Choices (select an ideal over others). In high-trust we more often get solutions where PCs _satisfy_ conflicting ideals in ways that reveal character. Toast highlights this by design.
One thing I observed in playtest was that when I ran the adventure for low-trust _players,_ there was a moment of visible adjustment where PCs would attempt to simplify the problem into a Videogame Choice before realizing there's no simple toggle available.
This in turn led to triumph. Once the gamers adjusted to everything being in the PCs' hands, they embraced it. They just weren't accustomed to the role-playing being the tactical core. They hadn't been offered that, in some cases, _ever_ before.
When gamers are only exposed to low- and zero-trust styles, they aren't choosing to reject high-trust; they just never got to meet it. When they finally do, at least a third of them love it to bits, and many more like it by milder degrees.
One thing I DON'T know: if a low-trust GM runs Toast, do they "fix it" by adding Solution Buttons and simplifying the problems to choices? It wasn't blindtested for that, since there's no need, but I do wonder.
(I do have a single anecdote about this in the form of an online review, and it's encouraging because this particular GM clearly didn't "fix" it, but also maybe felt someone should have 
)
)
This thread brought to you by "things that I would tweet to the @RisusRpg Twitter if I weren't being very careful about what's tweeted there." 
I actually DID tweet there about it a few weeks ago, but, leaving things unsaid on purpose. Now they're said and can stop nagging me.
I actually DID tweet there about it a few weeks ago, but, leaving things unsaid on purpose. Now they're said and can stop nagging me.
