Well, I think we've spoken before about Jeff Harper's diagrams. And I think I would find 5e's action resolution rules to be too close to his "GM fiat" diagram than his "conflict resolution" diagram.Our preferences on this are, best I can tell, wildly different, but I've found D&D 5e's rules to be as good for my needs as any others I've used. The PCs do things, and the situation evolves. I do not think you'd find the rules satisfactory.
But if we set aside idiosyncratic preferences, I think there is a point to be made that is directly relevant to this thread: action resolution can invite, and indeed depend, upon the GM making up stuff about the fiction in real time (so as to evolve the situation) without that stuff having to itself be prepped or sketched by the GM in advance.
Where does the "stuff" come from, then? Some answers I give, that probably reflect my own preferences but hopefully are a bit more ecumenical than just those:
*From what the PCs bring with them (backstory, established relationships, known aspirations, etc);
*From what the GM has used to establish the scene (enemies with declared goals; friends with declared hopes; chests with poison spring dart traps; the weather; cosmological forces; etc);
*From what the players, in play, say about and do with the framed scene (this may overlap with the PC-ish stuff, or not; it may overlap with ideas of "stakes", or ideas of "neotrad/OC"; etc).
*From what the GM has used to establish the scene (enemies with declared goals; friends with declared hopes; chests with poison spring dart traps; the weather; cosmological forces; etc);
*From what the players, in play, say about and do with the framed scene (this may overlap with the PC-ish stuff, or not; it may overlap with ideas of "stakes", or ideas of "neotrad/OC"; etc).
I'm sure there's more that could be added to the list(s).
I think there's scope to talk more systematically about these techniques - again, in at least a moderately ecumenical way - than we often see in RPG rules and advice discussions.