Why collaborative storytelling is a meaningless phrase

[Darth Ultron]

For instance, D&D often does have the assumption the players are just along for the ride. But there have been plenty of moments of collaborative storytelling. In my last session I ended up writing an NPC contact because the GM forgot to fill it in. Now this was ultimately flavour text, I did say this was but a moment, but we got a scene about buying bread at a bakery that we wouldn't have otherwise.

But this just proves my point. The DM does 100 things, you as a player did one.

While the DM may be making quantatively more stuff, since everything that happens in D&D games (or at least everything that happens "On-screen") involves at least one player character, or at least the player characters are present, or using some kind of ability they have to do something. The players are, one hopes, participating as much in the actual doing of stuff as the DM, at the very least between them if not individually.

Sure, there is at least one player there doing their 5% or less of involvement and storytelling or such. But again, that is my point.

1)
GM: "This is the situation"
Player: "I do this."
GM: "This is the new situation."

This is the classic way here, the type you find in games like D&D. The DM is doing just about everything, and each player plays a single character.

3)
Player 1: "This happens."
Player 2: "Then this happens."
Player 3: "Then this happens."

Now this is the other type of RPG, the anti-D&D type. Made to not be like D&D. And if you want to have a game with a group of players that all just tell a story together...this game is for you.

I might argue that your 1 and 3 are essentially the same thing, but on different scales.
"This happens" is another form of "This is the situation"
"I do this" is just a more limited scope of "Then this happens", as the "this" in this case, applies to a singular reference point, rather than a broader one.

The 1 and 3 are vastly different and not the game.

1.The DM is in total control and can say and do what they want. The players agree to this, not that it stops them from whining and crying later if they don't like something. And sure you can say the DM ''has to follow the rules''(they don't) and they ''have to do things that make sense''(they don't) or even the far wacky ''the DM can only do things the players agree with" (whatever). BUT, ok, lets just say all of that is true, the DM is following the rules, doing things that make sense and things the players agree with.....even then, the DM can still do whatever they want.

3.Is the random game of all players. Each player just says whatever and whatever happens and each other player just says whatever and whatever happens and on and on and on. And sure, the players have to follow the game rules....but otherwise they can just randomly do whatever they want.