Apocalypse World uses PC action declarations just like D&D - I look around, I punch them, I put a gun to their head, I offer them a deal, I open my brain to the psychic maelstrom. In what sense are these "narrative mechanics"?Lets use Powered by the Apocalypse vs. D&D. They use narrative mechanics differently and in frequency in my experience. I can certainly be wrong this is my understanding as the OP asked for it.
Not really, in my view.That's a pretty good summary, actually.
"Story now" is a term that was coined by Ron Edwards. In the acknowledgement page for Apocalypse World, Vincent Baker says (somewhat self-effacingly) that the whole of the game flows from Edwards's essay "Story now". But the mechanics in AW are just action resolution mechanics, built around a particular probability pattern.
The reason that Apocalypse World, played by the book, will turn out differently from Gygax's AD&D, played by the book, is mostly because of things the GM does, not things the player's do.
From here:I honestly (still) don't really understand what Story Now means
Story Now requires that at least one engaging issue or problematic feature of human existence be addressed in the process of role-playing.
Generally it is the players who do the addressing; the GM is the one who provides the incitement/provocation. From the same essay,
There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist (=, by definition, "story now") play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s).
It also needs to be added that we are talking here about RPGing. So whereas a novelist might address a premise/theme by writing a story about it, a RPGer addresses a premise/theme by declaring actions for their PC. Thus, from the same essay,
a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character.
(The reason for the inverted commas around "player" is to distinguish the player (cf GM) role from the more general notion of player of/participant in a game.)
There are three main ways I'm aware of for "story now" play to establish opportunities for players to make the sorts of action declarations that address "engaging/problematic issues":
*The issues and opportunities flow from the characters (eg Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel);
*The issues and opportunities flow from the setting (eg HeroWars/Quest played in Glorantha, 4e D&D played in the default setting);
*The issues and opportunities flow from situations that speak to well-known tropes (eg Prince Valiant, where the situations and tropes are those of Arthurian knight errantry; Agon 2e, where the situations and tropes are those of pop Greek heroes; Marvel Heroic RP, where the situations and tropes are those of superhero comics).
*The issues and opportunities flow from the setting (eg HeroWars/Quest played in Glorantha, 4e D&D played in the default setting);
*The issues and opportunities flow from situations that speak to well-known tropes (eg Prince Valiant, where the situations and tropes are those of Arthurian knight errantry; Agon 2e, where the situations and tropes are those of pop Greek heroes; Marvel Heroic RP, where the situations and tropes are those of superhero comics).
Generally the last of those dot points produces the emotionally and thematically lightest sort of play; while the first of them will tend to produce the emotionally and thematically most serious. The RPG form reinforces this, because of the strong identity of player and character which therefore makes character driven premise/theme pretty intense. (At least in my experience.)
The way to tell that play is not "story now" is if there is a "correct" or expedient answer that (i) has its parameters established by the GM's prep and/or adjudicative decision-making, and (ii) that the players are expected, if they are good players, to identify. As a simple example, every time you see a GM say "The players should have worked out that they need to have their PCs retreat" we can tell that the play in question was not "story now".
Notice how "story now" has nothing to do with metagame mechanics, or the players having the ability to affect the fiction otherwise than by declaring actions for their PCs.