Creative Mountain Games
The GM accepted that "The Balrog Times" was a plausible business within the game world. Because the expectation was that if the player came up with a sufficiently entertaining idea that they would do so.
The idea that the world is hardcoded rather than something that exists at the table between the group? That came later. All of you making things up you consider fun.
You've quoted me, not someone else in this thread whose posts you might also take exception to, so please understand that I have in no way said that a world is "hardcoded." A GM can, IMO, improvise whole swaths of a setting on the spot and I do not think that goes against any rules nor changes the fact that a GM is also under no obligation at any time to accept something a player has determined is his right to add to the setting. If, in your example, the GM decided that there was no newspaper in his setting and the player, through his character, had to carry on the bluff and, further, had to also explain how a newspaper worked, then that is the GM's prerogative. A player affects the setting through their character within the restrictions of that character (a 1st level fighter generally can't cast fireball spells, for instance).
What are rules? It was certainly part of the unwritten rules. Or do you think that only that which is in the text counts (in which case oD&D needs Chainmail for starters).
Okay, despite this odd "unwritten rules" approach to a discussion that is essentially about rules, here is where you actually agree with me. I've said time and again that I am discussing how the game rules were written by design and that any given GM can certainly add to those rules or bend them but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the rules. You even quoted me where I said as much. However, you've jumped into this discussion late and seemingly haven't read some of my previous posts, so it's understandable.
Indeed. But story elements are sugar. A story is "an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment." (first definition on google).
Which of that doesn't hold? There's no account, or you don't roleplay for entertainment?
I'm not sure how this poetic tack is actually counter to my point that two things are not the same just because they share common elements.
And this has absolutely nothing to do with story.
I'd say you're talking about what I'd call "Entitled GM Games" (. . .)
I'm going to step away from this portion of your post.
And in Spirit of the Century the GM has explicit veto over Fate Points being spent to make declarations. The same applies in Fate Core. In fact the only RPGs I'm aware of where the GM doesn't have a veto over such things are GMless. The difference is on expectation. Whether the players are expected to contribute and it is expected that the world and setting are shared or whether it's purely owned by the GM. Indeed that's a big part of why games that have GMs have them.
I do not disagree, as I have said in previous posts in this thread, that various storytelling games have different parameters for play and players have different expectations when playing them. I play them myself from time to time, as I have previously posted. I even add some storytelling elements in some RPGs that I run. It feels like you have read a few of my posts in this thread and made some leaps regarding how you think I (and maybe others) play. But this discussion is about the rules and the development of storytelling elements and the eventual advent of storytelling games in earnest. Certainly our own experiences can form some of our opinions about how we feel about those elements emerging but we're really discussing the actuality of what the rules say and how we've come to know them.