Maybe it's "Authored" vs. "Emergent"

[Olffandad]

I think both of these ideas are useful tools in a GM or storyteller's toolbox and should be viewed as a useful scale, not an absolute.

A new GM may need an "authored" pre-written scenario to learn GM skills, or new players may need simpler, controlled adventure content for example.

My group is somewhat passive, so they have struggled to find footing when the plot or missions aren't laid out clearly. Sometimes they aren't so engaged or don't have time or creative energy free to engage in a collaborative process, also.

Of course, a GM may want to prepare maps, lore, and encounters so they don't have to be totally pulling content out of thin air. Not every GM is a perfect improvisation machine.

On the other hand, too much preparation can be a straitjacket - for instance, my DM ran battles with complex mixes of enemies, height and distance where the negotiations of distance/spell effects took much time. I would have used a more narrative mode, but she was more comfortable with the content and method she had planned.

She enjoyed creating detailed maps and setting up encounters very exactly, so we were probably going to ride the bus to all of the planned encounters.

My own personal interpretation is a mix of these concepts - I would tend to think out the main points of an encounter and the participants, then think through the most likely scenarios of things, and use that to inform any deviations from my main plan while trying to honor the players' interpretation of what I presented.

The exact balance of authorship to emergent content will vary with the players and DMs strengths and interests.