While I agree with at least the general premise--"gaming draws on all other forms of media" is kind of a truism, but there's still important wisdom to draw from that--the author draws some conclusions that seem to reflect an inexperience with Apocalypse World and other "Story Now" games. I'm not sure if he
actually lacks experience with them (I can't find anything he's personally said that ever references any PbtA stuff or similar things like DitV, the best I can come up with is him retweeting a thing that mentioned PbtA stuff), or if he's just choosing to ignore them. But this passage stood out to me as making sweeping pronouncements that don't hold true in my experience:
The notion of pastichery extends to the game itself. People love to talk about “the story” of the adventure, the “narrative” of the game, but it’s not that, not really. As much as we want to call role-playing games “storytelling,” what we’re really trying to do when we sit down is give the feeling of storytelling, and if it’s a style of storytelling we all like and agree on (like sword and sorcery, for instance), then everything we say and do in-game ideally should be in support of that. We want our games to have that epic feel of a cool TV show, a movie spectacular, an epic book series.
The whole point of striving toward "Story Now," and of the PbtA system (and similar), is that it
is story, it
is narrative. It's narrative we build together live, yes, but the point of play IS to put values and beliefs and commitments to the test and find out what happens. That's why I call this game-(design-)purpose "Values & Issues." The players articulate a character's Values, the things they care about and which motivate them, the things they are already embarked about or invested into; the things they aspire to do or be (whether or not they fall short in practice). And then those things get put to the test with Issues, that must be resolved one way or another--often by putting something under threat or forcing a choice between things.
These are not
discrete narratives, in the sense that they have a strict beginning, middle, and end, which is what I think the author means by "the story"/"narrative." Instead, they are
ongoing narratives, serialized if you will. And the author brings up things like a cool TV show or a book
series, which shows that he knows that it's the ongoing nature that is particularly gripping here. But he's still applying a standard of one-and-done narratives, which isn't really accurate or relevant to the games that are about being "narrative."