Sometimes the GM just needs to be a twat: you need to enforce consequences no matter whether your players like it or not. Those of us who play and love traditional games understand this.
It needs to be stated more openly in the story game community. (Maybe it is; it's not really a community I'm connected to.) We spent this evening playing two games, The Sundered Land and Vast & Starlit, and they were a lot of fun (although once Patrick and I had turned a carefully constructed weird SF setting about a space ship made of coral into a game about angry, smelly hippos crossed with flying snakes the moment we were left alone, it's fair to say it lost a little focus) but I was constantly aware while we were playing them that none of us wanted to make tough decisions when we were 'in control' of the narrative. We kept offering easy-way-outs. And when we didn't, it was very easy for somebody in a tough spot to weasel out of it through narrative control rather than actually using their brain.
This is a problem with story games, I've found. Without the dice TELLING you there are severe negative consequences and also what they are, you feel like an arse if you try to impose severe negative consequences when you are in the driving seat. And this makes the games lose tension and conflict and thus real meaning. It's almost as if in a traditional game the dice are a kind of pressure valve which allows the GM to get away with being a twat, and without that you avoid generating any real pressure in the first place.