"We don’t want readers to “master” our inklebooks: we want readers to nurture them. The stories they contain are precious, fragile things, that like any good story might turn at any moment." Yeah, this - moving away from "what happens" to "how it happens" as a tenet for interactive fiction.

Jon is smart, and one of the best writers of interactive fiction (in all its forms) that I know. So I am looking forward to this.

"...the insight I had playing Indigo was that map-based games, while non-linear in gameplay, are inflexible in narrative. There’s nothing variable about the story that emerges in the player’s head: it’s authored, split up, and distributed across the game like pennies in a Christmas pudding. All that changes is the pace at which it appears. But in time-based games, everything the player does is story, and so that story is constant flux.

To put this another way:

Map-based games are ludicly non-linear but narratively inflexible.

Time-based games are ludicly linear but narratively flexible.

(Of course, these are spectrums: some games, like Rameses or Photopia are ludicly linear and narratively inflexible, and some, like Mass Effect, at least endeavour to be ludicly non-linear and narratively flexible.)
...
Do readers want to interact, toy and play with fiction, or alter, bend and shape it?" Jon Ingold is smart.

A short story by Jon Ingold. When I first read this, in a Cambridge May Anthology, I thought "this chap must write Interactive Fiction". It turns out he does, and writes very good IF. He's also a maths teacher now, I believe - but he also wrote this several years ago, and it's a lovely little short story about all the things you can only do in writing.