The dissertation addresses the question "Does good gameplay have to be a conflict between Ludology and Narratology?" To paraphrase,
Ludologists believe that the player should control their adventure;It goes on to delve into intrinic & extrinisic narrative, and uses logic formed from an article about Minecraft to suggest that both elements are equally important.
Narratologists believe that players gain greater enjoyment by playing through an interesting & atmospheric narrative.
Which side of the debate is correct?
The author talks about archetypes for game classification -- taxonomy rears its head again! -- based on whether they mainly use intrinic or extrinsic narrative, and the strength of experience.
Given that strong extrinsic narrative (and minimal gameplay) has its place in developing an emotional experience, this fuels a conclusion that just because the gameplay & story are equally important, the key to interesting game design is not what is combined but how they are combined to create a specific type of experience.
A third category, 'gamification', is created which relates to social & personal gratification. Skylanders is used as an illustration here, where collection of character figures -- an existing hobby, separate to gaming -- forms part of the overall experience and offers an alternative focus. (Compare with marbles or pogs, which also combine gameplay & collection.)
Mechanic-based design is considered, with reference to an article by Kim Charmie of Funstorm Games entitled "Designing around a core mechanic". (Need to check that out for my own research)
The conclusion is that "a game is the sum of its parts".