Sorcerer may be the most traditional of Edwards' games but when I read it I found it embodied the the "narrativist" philosophy in several ways. Some of these might not be in the rules/mechanics per se (I don't care to go back and check), but an important part of Edwards' line of analysis (and followed, by and large, by other Forgers) is to treat GMing advice as part of the rules, so I think it's fair to judge the game on those terms.
1. Once a player writes a Kicker, they have a right to expect it will be engaged by the GM.
Did this idea pre-exist as a GMing technique? Probably, but I'm not aware of it being hard-wired into a game previously.
2. "Bangs" are an explicit improv technique that works from exactly the opposite of a simulationist perspective (small-s, big-S, whatever). I.e., the GM is supposed to make stuff happen that challenges the PC's issues, values, etc. It doesn't happen because it preexisted or was extrapolated, or because it appeared randomly.
3. The actual resolution system is pretty gimmicky. Not quite so much as DitV, but probably more than ORE.
4. If I'm not mistaken, the actual game articulates a general premise to be addressed, of "what will you do for power?" So: baked-in story.
5. Allegedly (based on comments by a fan of the game; I don't remember in detail), Sorcerer generally doesn't resolve tasks, only conflicts between characters. E.g., if you're climbing a cliff to infiltrate your enemy's lair, it's a conflict and it can be resolved by rolling some dice. If a conflict can't be defined as such (between characters), there's no dice to roll. Think about what this means for a wilderness expedition.
As for whether it's a good game or not...I couldn't say. Some of the ideas above are worth thinking about and could probably be applied to other systems with less clunky resolution mechanics. I remember reading about a game called Hero's Banner had some similar concepts, and many on the Forge believed that Hero Wars/Heroquest "should" be played using the same concepts. (I'd note, though, the game seems to have become less and less suitable with each edition.)
IMO the trick would be applying them to the degree and manner suitable to the group and the game. Unfortunately the general Forge/Storygamer culture is one that tends to demand a very in-your-face and formalistic application of items 1, 2, and 4, so I couldn't imagine playing or running Sorcerer for anyone who'd actually express interest in it by name.
Other ideas in the game and supplements should be taken as antidotes for the common railroading style of play which dominated in the '90s, as well as the warmed-over-Tolkien approach to fantasy. I.e., if you come from an impoverished gaming background, Edwards' Sorcerer might seem like Moses coming down from the mountain.
(Moving the thread to another forum is just a way to piss off hysterical storygame-zealots. In practical terms, it has no other effect. Just click "New Posts" when you visit the site, and you'll never have to worry about which forum something is in.)