No flips for you!
Then, I don't understand why you went on this tangent, given the discussion up until here?I'm sure it does.
I don't find "both" to be coherent. Either you're following the fiction being driven by the PCs or you're not. It's not a good/bad thing, it's an approach thing. There's tons of great games that largely ignore the PCs (there's a current thread on it). In fact, I'd say that doing so is the predominant mode of play for D&D (just look to the published adventures, for example). But, doing "both" is like saying you both drive on the left side of the road and on the right side of the road, whenever the mode takes you -- it's not a coherent approach. Further, the idea that having a principled approach where you, as GM, are giving maximum control over the fiction to the players is somehow described as "dogmatic" is baffling. It shows an utter failure to understand the approach, how it works, and what it does. It's not dogmatic, it's making sure I, as GM, make the game about what the characters are doing, not whatever I think should be happening.I of course do both. The players describing what they're doing is vastly more common than them just asking to roll a skill. So sometimes they have more input in the outcome sometimes less. I just don't see much value in being dogmatic about these things.