The main frameworks we use to discuss roleplaying games all came from designers trying to solve particular design problems
GM as Storyteller or Traditional : The folks at White Wolf Magazine, Mark Rein-Hagen, and John Wick were all trying to solve how do we use these war games to like tell stories man? Much of the theoretical foundations a lot of our community relies on came mostly from this crew. They also presented their case pretty damn proactively. Playing Dirty, Whitewolf Magazine, and Vampire weren't always the most gentle to the gamist inclinations of many D&D gamers.
The Forge : We like what Vampire is trying to be, but we feel it fails at it. How do we make games that tell stories and are about things? Also pretentious, but like doggedly focused on laying out the ground work for Story Now play.
The OSR : We like lost something man. Let's rediscover what was lost. Get back to playing games with referees. Also pretty damn pretentious. Sandboxes uber alles.
Nordic LARP : We like lost the plot man by focusing too much on plot. Let's focus on characters and experience. Also let's throw away progression and the idea that LARPs are games. We want to feel like our characters, immerse in them.
Basically all these frameworks are provocative, and have communities that sometimes fail prey to pretentiousness. Because we're dealing more with artistic movements. It's not a body of criticism. It's not scientific theory, even if sometimes taxonomies are made. It's people trying to make frameworks to guide creative decision making. Game designers, GMs, and players alike.