Well let's turn it around. Why is it so important to you that you have played narrativsit? Are you making a judgement?getting judgmental about not just systems, but people.
I don't play many boardgames other than backgammon (which I love). But modern boardgames, with their need for clever and calculated play, are things I'm not very good at. My personal discount curve is too steep (probably in all areas of my life, and certainly in these games). So I don't play them much. For similar reasons, as I already posted in this thread, gamist RPGing - at least in the classic dungeoneering mode - is not my thing. Wargaming, or older boardgames like Titan, are not my thing.
If narrativism isn't your thing, that's no big deal for anyone but your biographer. Conversely if narrativsim is your thing then (whether here or in some other thread) tell us about it! Whereas at the moment you seem to be arguing, completely in the abstract, that there's no such thing as narrativist play because the GM can always control everything that matter in any system provided s/he is skilled enouogh.
Convinced is too strong. But where is the actual account? How did it work? How did a player make an action declaration, have that resolved using the open resolution system typical of narrativst-oriented systems, have their intention for their action realised in play, and yet this all have been pre-authored by the GM?So why are you convinced I haven't experienced Narrativist play, and will only accept pulling a little illusionism in /certain systems/ as evidence one could pull some narrtivist wool over the players eyes?
What games are you talking about? V:tM doesn't intend collective storytelling; nor do the DL modules. They present a pre-authored story and give the GM the job of curating it and conducting the players through it.The definition of narrativism seems arbitrarily narrow, as if to exclude games that clearly intend collective storytelling as their thing.
Narrativism is characterised so as to describe a play experience that The Forge people were especially interested in. It's a real thing - I can report from play experience - and the contrast with play experiences in V:tM, CoC, post-DL AP-style D&D, etc is real.
If you or anyone else finds the distinction uninteresting, well that's your prerogative - some people might find the difference between (say) dadaism, cubism and surrealism uninteresting and lump it all together as early 20th century modern art. That's fine, but obviously the fact that they don't find those differences inteesting isn't going to sway those who are senstivie to them.