Yes, you are right. This is at the heart of what I wanted to explore.
After reading some rulebooks from PbtA-Games (Dungeon World, The Veil, Uncharted Worlds) and listening to several podcasts, reading interviews etc. I got the impression, that - though not explicitely written or intended - these kind of games would at least allow this kind of play.
My socialization - so to say - with TTRPGs was way back with what would be now perhaps be called OSR (e.g. ADnD 2e). And what was common to these types of games was the narrative control / authority of the game master.
Having taken a 20 years pause, I come back to the hobby, there are games like Dungeon World which in comparison to the games I ran seem to be more democratic(?)
Part of the narrative control seems to have shifted from the GM to the players.
I got the impression that at the core the mechanics of the various PbtA games provide (at least to a certain degree) a framework for “co-authoring” a story - which would be what you “found out”. Not that these games are written under this premise, but effectively work that way. The PCs could be wholly immersed - but aren’t bound to that perspective.
In Ironsworn - not a direct PbtA but I think related- are mechanics provided for solo-play. So the Player takes both roles (MC and PC) and the story unfolds along the interpretation of the oracle-mechanics. That led me to the question:
When in Ironsworn (solo-play) the story works out via “interpreting the dice” with the “MC-role” and playing with the “interpretation”, wouldn’t that work too in games like Dungeon World? No plot is preplanned and the story depends solely on the interpretation of the dice rolls? And I thought, that would be totally possible.
In consequence, PbtA like games provide a vehicle to share narrative control over the story by setting the rules for the dialog partners (who speaks when) and incorporating a dice-oracle.
That is my interpretation of these games.
And I wanted to know if that’s too far fetched.