I really wasn't sure if I wanted to broach this, and even now I'm not.
I will say this much, though: the schism between the communal–storytellers and the game–mechanoids is ridiculously silly. Kaerli wouldn't need to complain about unsupported playstyles if both sides embraced the other's perspectives on RP and designed PS accordingly. They aren't as oppositional as it seems to be thought by most of the people I see posting on this message board.
I won't say how it can be done, but it can, and quite simply, really.
Oh, and that's why I role-play: story-playing within a gameworld. Most of the time I don't get it to a satisfying intent, but that's the dream.
Cheers.
How do we feel about reacting in unexpected manners?
That's what GMs should be ready–for. If there isn't one, then either the game is or each player must contribute to that office.
Do you mean my personal opinion? Well, it depends on how thoroughly designed the scenario is. If it's done well, it can be either open or close, expandable or regulated. If not, i.e. something happens which can't be managed in the scenario, then if you
deus ex machina a response you'd better be able to explain why the eagles came.
Not all unexpected events need be something which gives a player some advantage. They could be disasters that threaten everyone. If you sweep those types of problems away, the players might be relieved but you run the risk of kindergartening, which gets dull.
But we're talking about games that have no GM. In that case, it is very possible to have conflicting interests that must be resolved, and if you can't settle for an arbitrator then you exclude an entire class of players from your RP. Is that what you want?
Completely collaborative play isn't really play as I see it.