A group I play with sometimes ran up against a severe player shortage last night, so I offered to run In A Wicked Age. (I can think of many games that claim to be designed to run with no prep, but for me, IAWA is the only one I can think of where this is literally true).
The game went well, everyone enjoyed it, but we ran across a situation I didn't quite handle well.
In addition to myself, there were three players, two of whom are down with story/hippie games (I play in a Burning Wheel campaign with them), and one of whom, Colin, is definitely more of a tradiational, D&D, let's-just-kill-orcs kind of player.
He enjoyed the game too, but at one point, when his character had come off the worse in a conflict, I suggested they could negotiate an alternate outcome, rather than have him lose dice. He was into that, and offered to have his character give up the location of the noble house signatory ring [read: MacGuffin], which John, the other player, agreed to, since that's what the conflict was about anyway.
However, John's next move was to move the scene to the location Colin had given him for the ring, only to have Colin announce that he'd been lying, and his character had the ring all along. Ha za!
So, not a big game-ending deal .. everyone is friends, there was some joking about Colin "cheating", and we moved on.
I was at a loss as to how to resolve this at the time, though. I knew Colin wasn't totally on board with the "It's cool if the players know what's up, even if the characters don't" way of thinking, and some context clues led me to believe that the negotiated outcome might not be "true".
The rules-as-written, as lovely as they are, do not offer any guidance for using in-fiction trades in exchange for mechanical damage when negotiating fallout (ie - "Okay, keep your 'Directly' dice, but your guy has to let my guy escape with the magic hat"), at least in the sense of those fictional offers being binding.