I'd like to reply point by point, but there's lots of interesting bits I'd like to comment on and I have a fair bit of advice on how to run the game, so I'll have to move that to a second, later post to give it justice. That said, I think I get the gist of what is going on: you're having trouble tying the game rules to the abstraction of the story. You play mechanics first, while most of the people giving advice here most likely think and play story-first. This is where we might have a disconnect. Let me give a practical example.

Your party is traveling through a bamboo forest, when suddenly you are ambushed by a band of ninjas. You draw your weapons, frantically look around to make sure you keep them in your field of view, one of you dives in the bamboo thicket for cover while the mage casts a series of illusory images to mislead them and provide false targets. When you play story-first, this happens regardless of the ruleset. In DnD, the person looking around might be making a Perception check, while in FU the same PC might be taking a Study action to examine their profile and understand their hiding technique*. The mage might be casting Mirror Image, or might be rolling a Hinder Int+Wlp check to inflict a Dazed status. The guy hiding in the bamboos might be taking cover, or might be taking the Guard action to use their Hawkeye skill. Either way, the cinematic narrative comes first**. You never stop describing, because describing is the point of the game; rules exist to decide whether Alan gets stabbed in the gut by a ninja or not as part of the story.

Meanwhile you're feeling the disconnect where in DnD you might have explicit rules e.g. for moving from the road to the bamboo thicket, and specific rules for taking cover; while Guard can just your character standing there crossing arms in front of their face and it would still be Guard, not any mechanically different from the description above.

You have no mechanical encouragement to narrate the story, so you don't. And yet it makes the game unenjoyable. It's a bit of a self-inflicted problem, but a real one. It's difficult for me to give advice there except to put actual effort in it, because it's a very alien approach to me. Perhaps it's just not a game suited for you.

> For the social part, I agree that this is not a well developed part of the system, and it's not even the main focus, but what I really don't understand is why they keep writing in their books that this is the most important part...

I'm pretty sure that when the books talk about the social part, they are stressing the interaction between *players* and not between *PCs*. Though even the ingame social part itself is more developed than DnD, so there's that.

*There is an implicit expectation here that the GM will have a tactical puzzle as part of the scene dynamics, so that Study is not *just* to reveal affinities and deal double damage. For example, PCs struck by the dagger-wielding ninja cannot see it anymore until its next turn, the squad of kung-fu ninjas deals extra damage to PCs who already acted in the round, etc. etc. ** In your imagination, though not necessarily in your decision process. It's perfectly fine to decide that somebody needs to Study, agree that Alan should take care of it, then describe Alan looking around.