"It is not fun to simultaneously explore the fictional world and create the fictional world (or parts of it)"
That may be true. I don't do much exploration-oriented RPGing.
As I have often pointed out, what "exploration" means in this context is
learning what is in the GM's notes. A result of this is that much of the shared fiction is established by the GM, via said notes.
The amount of player agency over the shared fiction is (I think obviously) going to be less in this sort of RPGing then in RPGing in which the shared fiction is established as the outcome of action resolution.
In D&D the "authorial process" for an Orc dying follows combat rules and for a secret door to be discovered follows the general playloop of the game. I have no issue with the D&D "authorial process" for either of those events.
<snip>
You aren't saying anything in this subquote that I particularly have an issue with but you did earlier when you were comparing the D&D authorship process to your style of games authorship process.
Here is the difference between fighting and exploration in D&D. In the typical D&D process, a player can declare actions which result in
death of an Orc becoming part of a fiction without that need for that to be part of the GM's notes. (There are some exceptions - see eg the discussion upthread of the DL modules as exceptions.)
In the typical D&D process, a player can declare actions which result in
discovery of a secret way through a wall becoming part of a fiction only if the GM has already written that secret way into his/her notes.
This difference of RPGing processes does not map onto anything different in the
authorial process of adding a dead Orc, or a discovered secret way, into a fiction. Both are exercises of "narrative power" that build on the established fiction (of their being an aggressive Orc; of their being a way-blocking wall).
If I'm a player and my in fiction characters action results in a dead orc that's quite a bit different than myself outside the fiction dictating that X is part of the fiction. You do agree there is some kind of a difference there right?
I don't understand what you are saying, or what contrast you are drawing.
Generally, in a RPG the player's character will only do things in the fiction if, in the real world, the player does stuff. So eg you, a player in the real world, declare "I attack the Orc", and then roll some dice, and someone - typically the GM - performs some look-ups and changes hp tallies etc, and then we all agree that the fiction contains a dead Orc where previously it contained a live one.
To me, this seems to be an example of Campbell's point:
I find that players who are exclusively interested primarily in exploration focused play have a hard time with analyzing what's happening at the actual table between the actual players. They tend to give causal powers to things that have no causal powers.