I agree this needs to be clarified and the mechanics updated. Right now if a player in my game wins control, they don't necessarily write a move that does something for the story. They only move for their character. Then I as the narrator need to take that as canon and end the scene based on their move.

Either way, I think we need more information on how this is supposed to work. I don't have a good answer for my players.

Why *require* players to take narrative control of the outcome? What your observing may be a lack of clarity, but it's also possible that this feature simply isn't popular among a subset of players, and making it mandatory would only interfere with their style of play (I would also echo Mr. Cat's concerns about the flow of the text).

Taking too much narrative control of an NPC, for example, risks canceling subplots or back stories that the narrator may have been (invisibly) developing. Maybe the NPC's blood was supposed to come out green, but you described it as red, and so a would-be plot twist vanishes. A player may instead prefer to make the direction of his/her action obvious from the text, but allow the narrator to write the actual NPC response (e.g., "Deciding at last to finish him, she brought down the knife...")

The more that Storium *requires* you to do, the less freedom you have to tailor it to your group's preferences.

I have noticed the same problem.

I see this as detrimental if the action and result are somewhat simultaneous. For example if the "action" requires multiple steps, by necessity the narration should have results amidst the steps. To force "results" later will just make for awkward flow.

Methods of player education definitely seems to be the best solution to this rather than a mechanical method.

This is pretty good, although the follow-up text could be a narrator/player field. Sort of like Revision except prompting the narrator to add to the move then the Player finishes up.