AbdulAlhazred
Legend
Interesting. I don't see anything there which would indicate Steve was thinking in any way beyond stock classic D&D. His definitions are based entirely on a very stock D&D dungeon crawl example, and there's no mention of anything like the possibility of building scenes to address character concerns, or in terms of the kind of snowballing and playing to find out what happens that characterize a more modern notion of Narrativist play. His mental model assumes a group of plunderers who's concerns are political power, riches, and survival. While it certainly doesn't preclude the existence of motives and needs beyond what he defines, I can't say that he's got a notion that this could be a part of, or actual focus of, the RPG. Likewise the nature of the fiction and its relation to the different participants is extremely classic Gygaxian D&D based, with no hint that other arrangements might be possible.It appears very difficult to find a copy of Different Worlds issue 1, where this mini-RPG came from. I did find issue 2 of Different Worlds, though, where Lortz discussion what he means by dramatic focus in RPGs. I was hopeful there was something I was unaware of, because he was using language in a way that the Forge used it much later, but that article makes it very clear that he's talking to a pretty traditional RPG structure, just using "dramatic structure" and "dramatic action" to refer to things like rolled random encounters while a part is resting. I'd still like to review the original text of Cannibals and Castaways, but given the follow-up discussion the next issue, it doesn't look at all like he was talking to the same things as what Apocalypse World is doing (or any other strong narrativist supporting RPG).
You can read that article in issue 2 of Different Worlds by Lortz here.
I don't know how this discussion relates to the Cannibals & Castaways example mini-RPG presented in issue #1, but given that he calls this out as a follow up discussion to the issues raised in that previous article it is hard to understand why he would revert to such a classic structure as an example if he'd just invented Narrativist play! I mean, nothing in the issue #2 article is ANTITHETICAL to potential Narrativist play, it just doesn't hint at any awareness of the possibility at all, beyond the simple observation that the character's dramatic needs can be viewed as motive and a driver of play. Had he just considered the possibility of individualistic needs and the rise of resulting conflicts as a potential focus of play he'd have taken a BIG step, but it seems from just this text that he didn't make that leap.