Based on
I bring to C*, it is transparent that what the DM says is informed by what the players say. C* says "
follows"! Why did DM start with a sinking ship in a sea? Because that followed from "
cold-sea cultist". Why is there are ziggurat on the taiga. Because that followed from "
cold-sea cultist". Inspiration for the conversation is shared around the table. DM is adding something - I don't say that they do not - and they are deciding how things turn out, but they are not unmotivated anarchists, and they are not deciding who characters are or what they say or do.
There is no contrast here other than that which lives in a given C* DM. How do I make that clearer?
What has been joined to the conversation? Player fiction and actions. What must DM say? Something that follows the conversation, potentially adding to it from, or in line with, their fiction. One possible source of confusion is that when I say "preestablished" I am thinking generally of foregoing. What is already in place. I think preestablished fiction is more contingent on DM's side, than player's. What DM says is informed by their preestablished fiction, but it is not locked in until it joins the conversation.
Given what DM says is motivated by -
follows - what players say, it is indeed likely the ziggurat will be in the direction their shared fiction has placed it. It could turn out that something else is there, giving source to the rumours. The conversation isn't repetitive or inevitable. The players can be surprised by what they find, or the turn of events.
These doubts arise from assumptions projected onto the examples: principles that guide you to your interpretation of them. You might be wondering if C* players can say something like this:
"
There's a ship - the Kraken - that I sail on. As navigator." That might have been part of prior conversation at the envisioned table. Can DM say "
You lash out with your flail, but can't land a hit on the bear man." They can. When would they say it? That depends on what they have in mind, what has been preestablished, and nuances in their conversation. C* is reliant on principles that live in the group, not the rules. For some groups, it might be okay for player to say "
I lash the bear man with my flail. The chains connect and he goes down." Player could say "
Bear men! They killed my brother. Filled with rage I lash him with my flail." So that is now true. And DM might narrate "
Fueled by your anger, the chains connect and he goes down. He doesn't move... you might have killed him."
I think C* does something to indicate the basic game loop and divide roles. It says something about establishing fiction and following the conversation. It leaves so much unsaid, that in my view we only grasp how to use C* because of what we bring to it. Thus what I might call your misapprehensions, are not "misapprehensions" at all. Based what
you bring to C*, you arrive at a DM monologue. Whereas I do not. This underscores the point made by
@Shardstone.
[NOTE EDITS]