Ran a MYNT game for my kickabout pickup indie RPG club. Everyone at the table enjoyed themselves, but we all agreed it was seemingly more through our own shared ingenuity at setting building (we ran a cyberpunk heist with horror elements involving generative AI) than the game itself.

First, the good: I like the actual MYNT rolls. I was worried that good "standard" spreads wouldn't be easy to remember, but very quickly they started to be. A 4:1:1 for something proficiently attempted but nevertheless risky, a 3:1:2 for something achievable and more likely to go weird than go wrong, etcetera etcetera- these crystallised in my head extremely quickly and came very naturally to me. It's a good idea and it was fun and cool to be able to say three digits in succession and have my players nod understandingly. An efficient way of communicating stakes. I love it.

The bad (technical): The sheet divides Wants and Needs into Implicit and Explicit categories, but the book doesn't explain what these actually mean or indeed mention them at all- instead it talks about Instrinsic and Extrinsic motivations and categorises all wants and needs into Intristic. I know what all four of these words mean in English but I don't understand what the game wants me to do with Extrinsic Motivations or the Implicit/Explicit Wants and Needs split, so we just kind of ignored all that.

The bad (fuzzier): This is a game that offloads a lot a lot of the busywork onto the GM. A big part of that busywork that I did not care for concerns managing your players feelings for them. The Aspects system is good for quickly rolling up characters and I like that it works in a FATElike "stuff affects the rolls it affects" kind of way, but therein lies the problem- since MYNT spreads are decided entirely by GM fiat, but aspects are supposed to affect the balance of the spread, your choice as the GM is either to hope that your players just trust you're doing this and pull three numbers entirely out of your ass every time, which has diminishing returns because eventually they're going to start feeling like their aspects don't actually matter one way or the other; or to carefully walk them through your reasoning for every single spread and what you took into account to get there, which wastes time and is boring. There needs to be a better implementation that either mechanises the inclusion of aspects, or at least makes that inclusion more intrinsically visible to the players outside the GM just thinking out loud.

Additionally, although every aspect is supposed to have both positive and negative effects, in a game with 3+ players the GM more or less has to trust the players to steward their own sheets and be honest about their own aspects. I can definitely imagine an emotionally mature player mentioning a downside to one of their aspects on a roll that currently has stakes so good it bores them, but I would trust them less to mention it when the odds are already stacked against them. I certainly couldn't keep track of my players' aspects- even if I could have seen their sheets I couldn't read the handwriting on two of them, and it seems impractical to keep my own separate record of everybody's aspects when they can gain additional ones and have them disabled through combat.

The twist die was also exhausting. I found myself rolling it less than I probably ought to have done just to avoid having to think of things for it on top of all the other work I was doing, especially given how vague and yet still sometimes inappropriate the tiers of twist were. I think, however, if responsibilities for the GM were reduced elsewhere in the system, this would be less of an issue.

The bad (petty): The entire game could do with an editor pass. It actually reads like it started to have one, but some areas got left out. Every so often an otherwise very articulate paragraph descends into this weird impulsive conversational cadence, which is not difficult to read, but difficult to understand in terms of relating to game mechanics.

MYNT is far from the worst implementation of this rules-light, D6 by default setting-agnostic kind of game, but it's hardly the best either, and all three of my players said that much as they'd had fun, they wouldn't be in a hurry to play it again. Unfortunately I think I agree.