If you want to tell a good story, you better practice and iterate it a whole ton. In order to iterate a story, you need to nail it down while you tweak certain variables and such. Do you want to argue that something DM pulls out of his ass on the spot can compare to something a writer has been toiling over for years? Maybe, if the DM is a master storyteller who has solved storytelling, and the author is completely incompetent. The same way someone with better tools and more time to prepare and test stuff out is not guaranteed to build a better product, but it's certainly a huge advantage. Whatever story you want to tell, if you want it to have a profound impact on your audience, your best bet is to practice and iterate. 'Best' and 'better' certainly do have a place in this conversation. After all, the argument is - stories and games should be separated is because you can build a better game or tell a better story by keeping them separate. The ability to create or edit the story doesn't change the audience experience of being told a linear list of events, with 0 chance to alter anything at all. The storyteller might adjust the story based on the reaction of the audience, but that's not the same thing as deciding if you're going bio or mech in starcraft. This kind of 'input' you're giving to the storyteller might not even be conscious ("yeah, I'm not gonna laugh at this joke because I want this guy to tell something different" - whoever thinks like that is missing the point of listening to a story. you either laugh at a joke because it managed to get a response out of you, or you don't because it failed). Stories work through a passive audience (being told a sequence of events), and games work through an active audience (interacting with a set of rules). I guess if you really don't like the whole 'linear/non-linear' definition, you could call it 'interactive/non-interactive' and all of my/Keith's points still apply.