I am not necessarily disagreeing with you, but the last paragraph is what JA sees as a scenario while the one before it is a plot, and that is the distinction he wants to make here.
The difference between the two is that the plot contains things the characters (have to) do, while the ‘no plot’ paragraph only mentions what everyone else is doing, assuming the events unfold that way / no one interferes.
The player actions are no longer prescribed, they are free to do whatever and if their actions intersect with those of the villains, then how that gets resolved and what happens after is open ended.
The only difference really is that the player actions are no longer railroaded for the plot to happen, which also means what is described might not happen at all, depending on what the players do. It does still say what the villains plan and unless they are being opposed that also is what they will be doing.
So the real difference is that the players are not being railroaded, not that there is no plot.
The issue of
railroading seems like a further matter.
If the GM writes down, as part of their prep, stuff that the players will have their PCs will do, is that railroading or simply prediction?
If the GM
doesn't write down, as part of their prep, stuff that the players will have their PCs do, are they nevertheless anticipating certain action declarations by the players?
As an example of the latter, the GM might write down:
*At evening on the outskirts of the village, a portal opens up.
*Raider come through the portal.
*On the other side of the portal is visible a fortress, with a golden roof and the sun high in the sky reflecting off it.
*The portal closes as the raiders retreat back through, two hours later.
<The GM then writes down stats for the raiders, a map and key of the fortress on the other side of the portal, and some notes about the relationship between the magic realm of the golden-roofed fortress and the mundane world, including a ritual that will re-open the portal from the other side.>
There is no mention, in those notes, of the players having their PCs do stuff. Yet those notes suggest that the GM is anticipating the players having their PCs perhaps confront the raiders, and definitely having their PCs go through the portal to assault the fortress. Otherwise there will be no game to play.
Anyway, from my perspective, and as I've often posted before, the "three clue rule" and "node based design" are techniques for railroading, not alternatives to it. And this is for precisely the reasons that
@kenada has been carefully setting out in this thread.