In particular, a line he said struck me: "I don't like the shift in narrative authority that happens when you use metacurrencies." (around the 8:50 mark). He goes on to elaborate that he likes the "experiences" that are attached to roles like player and game master, and that's why he doesn't like metacurrency like Hero Points or whatever.
I like a lot of Questing Beast's videos, but this is where I really strong disagree lol, not necessarily with his main argument, but more so with the idea that a shift in narrative control is a bad thing. It's personal taste, of course, but I dislike the assumption that the GM should have ultimate "narrative authority" over a game---I've found that a lot of GMs (including myself, a few years ago) have a pretty...egotistical view on being a GM? There's this very popular type of portrayal of a GM online as this ultra difficult task in which you create and weave a master narrative for your bumbling players, who are always messing things up with their foolish unexpected antics, and I just hate it lol. It's so constant all over the internet, and it not only seems really influential on new GMs getting into the hobby, but through a proactive game lens, it actively encourages players to be Reactive, not Proactive. In that video, the archetypical player he describes is a player who reacts to the environment the GM makes.
Again, this is a matter of taste, but I'm definitely not a fan of how this type of attitude as a GM is the norm, ignoring the style of play itself, especially since TTRPGs are really one of the only (maybe THE only, which I don't say very lightly) type of game where you can truly tell a story collaboratively.
I'm very curious about your thoughts! Do you think GM should have full narrative authority, or players should have a share in that? Should that authority extend into the mechanics of the game? Why or why not?