When I talk about 4e supporting narrativist play and "story now", I'm not talking about funky "narrative control" techniques like the SotC mechanic you and Neonchameleon have referenced. Those sorts of tecniques aren't essential to narrativist play (HeroWars/Quest doesn't have them, and nor does Burning Wheel) and they aren't a guarantee of it either - they could equally suit a certain sort of high-concept simulationism.
I'm not talking about Forge narrative play, either. I dislike its definition (I much prefer the G/D/S definitions to G/N/S). I'm talking about player control over the story in a "here, use this meta mechanic, and make the story happen this way" sort of thing.
I'm talking about player agency, so that the choices made by players actually shape the plot and the thematic content of the game - the "standard narrativistic model", to borrow a phrase from Eero Tuovinen. 4e has a number of features that support this sort of play. One of them is the express incorporation of the thematcially-laden mythical and historical content of the default setting into the PC build options - so, for example, when a player choose to play a dwarf, they're also choosing to play a PC whose people freed themselves from slavery at the hands of the giants, who were in turn agents of creation and recreation. And this is compelemented by the comparable incorporation of the same content into many (not all) monster and NPC descritions.
This, to me, goes back to the average person picking an elf and wanting to be involved with "elf things". What you're describing is exploring some sort of theme based on setting flavor, and while 4e doesn't fight against it, I don't see it
forcing itself into play mechanically (except in combat, where
some mechanical implements are used to express certain features of races).
Another such feature is the way in which its action resolution mechanics push towards rather than away from this stuff, and support rather than hinder player agency, in part by supporting rather than hindering GM adjudication that builds on and develops from the players' choices, rather than locking them down and constraining them. Skill challengs are an obvious example of this, but my own experience with the combat mechanics has shown me that they have the same character.
I've already covered my thoughts on skill challenges. If you disagree with it, can you explain which parts you disagree with?
Not everyone sees 4e in this sort of way. And even for some who like this sort of play an can see how 4e might help deliver it, 4e's mechanics might seem pretty clunky (I can remember a comment to a RPG.net review of HeroQuest revised favourably comparing HQ's past/fail cycle to the far more convoluted sysmtem of DC setting and encounter pacing in 4e). And that's all fair enough.
Yes, I was commenting that 4e doesn't particularly fight against player control (which can be expressed via skill challenges, if one plays the game that way), but it doesn't support player control of making a story "interesting" inherently. In 4e, there are instances of "here, use this meta mechanic, and make the story happen this way", but they're almost universally expressed via combat. And, while combat is highly important to progressing the story, an "interesting story" needs to be built
outside of combat to give any individual combat meaning (by developing NPCs, having a plot, evolving the setting, etc.).
So, 4e inherently
has some player control over an "interesting story", but mostly within the confines of combat. You
can use mechanics like skill challenges to grant more control, but it's not inherent to 4e (see my previous post on this for more of my thoughts on it), like, say, the disguise ability from Spirit of the Century does. Thus, my comment that 4e doesn't fight
against it, but that it doesn't inherently support it. As always, play what you like
