Participationism?

Your point about Pendragon is exactly the point that Ron has made about Cthulhu as well. The call comes into the investigators, and the player has to figure out why his character is taking the GM's lead. To do otherwise is to say that there will be no game tonight. As such, I think there is certainly a Participationist responsibility that is implied, though not often communicated. So, before you play such games, it might behove the players to talk about it such that the dsocial contract includes such good Participationist play where neccessary.

But Pendragon goes one further. It requires the players to "participate" in character decisions through the system. That is, when a player's Bravery trait goes off, they are forced to portray the character as Brave, retroactively assigning the reason why (often already provided). As opposed to deciding to be Brave, or cowardly, as the player thinks the character would act. As such, play of Pendragon requires committed Participationism. A player expecting to get his way, or fighting the system, will not have a good time.

InSpectres makes this all plain, and the responsibility of the players. As such, you get Narrativism from it, as it's the players who are driving things, and the system requires the players to address the channeled format of the game. Again we can see the relationship between Participationism, and Narrativism. In both there is a player commitment to something outside the player's interperetation of the events. In Participationism, it's an external factor leading the players (GM usually, or system in the case of Pendragon), wheras in Narrativism, its the needs of the story.

Only when the GM is using Illusionism or playing "open-ended" can the player likely have fun with nothing but Actor Stance.

Mike