Origem da Teoria

Retrato de Rui

Tenho andado a tentar descobrir mais sobre Teoria, e descubro com alegria que não existe apenas o modelo proposto pelo Ron Edwards, embora este seja o mais discutido - pelo menos aqui e no repositório de todo o conhecimento que é o rpg.net - , e encontrei na wiki uma excelente página de referência a practicamente todos os modelos propostos ao longo dos tempos, que posto aqui. Alguns deles surpreenderam-me pelos seus autores, e tenho certeza que a alguns de vocês também irão surpreender.

--~~--

A role-playing game theory is an academic or critical study of role-playing games (RPGs) as a social or artistic phenomenon. RPG theories often seek to understand what a role-playing game is, and what makes good role-playing games. They are manifestations of critical theory as it applies to role-playing games.

The term "RPG theory" seems to have arisen on rec.game.frp.advocacy around 1997, but Robin Laws called for the creation of something like RPG theory as early as 1994[1], and some theorizing about RPGs have been going on since the founding of RPGs. The yearly Knutepunkt conference which moves among different Scandinavian countries from year to year is a current hotspot of RPG theory.

History
Academic and critical reflection on role-playing was already active by the 1950s and 1960s, as was reflection on game play, even "social simulation games". In the 1970s, after the first modern role-playing games were published, critical reflection on role-playing games was confined to role-playing game products and magazines about role-playing games, like Dragon. Critical reflection on role-playing games and academic research on them in the 80s focused on examining controversies surrounding the hobby at the time. However, Gary Fine wrote a book on the sociology of RPGs called Shared Fantasies: Role Playing Games as Social Worlds and Gary Gygax published two books on his philosophy of role-playing, Role Playing Mastery: Tips, Tactics and Strategies in 1989, and Master of the Game in 1990.

In 1994-95 Inter*Active, (later re-named Interactive Fiction) published a magazine devoted to the study of RPGs. In the first issue Robin Laws called for the creation of a critical theory for role-playing games. By the late 90's discussion on the nature of RPGs on rec.games.frp.advocacy had generated several theories of RPGs which spread to other sites and influenced theorists in France and Scandinavia. The Scandinavian RPG scene saw several opposing ideological camps about the nature and function of RPGs emerge, which began having regular academic conferences on the RPG Theory, called the knutepunkt conferences, which began in 1999 and continue to today.

In the 21st century, self-defined "Indie role-playing" communities such as the Forge grew on the internet, studying roleplaying and developing the GNS Theory of role-playing games, Knutepunkt has continued to grow and publish, and more theories have been popping up on the web.

Notable examples
Some RPG theories include:

Threefold Model - developed at rec,games.frp.advocacy from 1997 to 1998; proposed by Mary Kuhner, and FAQed by John Kim. It hypothesizes that styles of playing role-playing games can be divided into Game-oriented, Drama-oriented and/or Simulation-oriented. It is sometimes called GDS theory.

GEN Theory- developed at Gaming Outpost in 2001 largely by Scarlet Jester. It hypothesizes a top and bottom "tier" of play, with the top tier being dominated by "Intent" which is divided into Gamist, Explorative, and Narrative. It was influenced by threefold and GNS theory.

GNS Theory or Forge Theory - developed at The Forge from 1999-2005 largely by Ron Edwards – It hypothesizes that roleplaying games are modeled by "The Big Model" with 4 levels: the social contract, exploration, techniques and ephemera, with creative agendas governing the link from social contract to technique. In this theory there are 3 kinds of creative agenda, Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist agendas. It is detailed in the articles "GNS and Other Matter of Role Play Theory," "System Does Matter," "Narrativism: Story Now" "Gamism: Step on Up" and "Simulationism: The Right to Dream" by Ron Edwards, at the Forge's article page.

Color Theory by Fabien Ninoles in 2002, was developed on the French createurs-jdr mailing list. It is an inheritor of SCARF theory and SCAR theory, which then interacted with English language theories. In this theory the goals of system design are thought of as the primary colors of TV light - Green for simplicity, Blue for coherence, Red for realism, with notions like adaptability, tenacity, brightness, and visibility being extensions of the metaphor.

Channel Theory by Larry Hols, 2003, hypothesizes that game play is made up of "channels" of various kinds such as "narration," "moral tone" or "fidelity to setting." It developed in part as a criticism of the three style theories.

The Turku School developed in Turku, Finland, especially by Mike Pohjola from 1996 to the present. It advocates immersion ("eläytyminen") as the primary method of role-playing, and artistic exploration as the primary goal. Eläytyjist style is thought to be distinct from dramatist, gamist, and simulationist styles, and dramatism and gamism are thought to be clearly inferior styles of role-play, fit only for other mediums besides roleplaying.

The Meilahti School was formed by Henri Hakarainen and Jaako Stenros in 2002, working with the Scandinavian Knutepunkt scene. It defines role-playing in a way that encompasses many different forms, and shuns normative choices about what the right or best forms are. "A role-playing game is what is created in the interaction between players or between player(s) and gamemaster(s) within a specified diegetic framework."

Process Theory was developed in the Knutepunkt scene in 2005 by 4 Finns. It is more complex than the Meilahti picture and aims at enabling normative disputes to take place in a neutral vocabulary. It has 6 normatively valued categories ("benefits"): Entertainment, Learning, Meaning, Aesthetic Appreciation, Physical Benefits, and Social Benefits.

--~~~--

Como sempre, discutam, se vos aprouver - para os interessados, isto deve abrir o apetite e lançar (ainda) mais confusão a todas as conversas sobre Teoria.

Edit: este é também um excelente recurso para um estudo mais aprofundado da Teoria.

Opções de visualização dos comentários

Seleccione a sua forma preferida de visualização de comentários e clique "Gravar configuração" para activar as suas alterações.

M*rd*a prá Teoria balela!

Mas que mania que a malta tem de separar as teorias! Será que esses filosofos da treta n percebem que as pessoas n são só pretos e brancos?

Vamos chamar hoje as teorias de mousses. (já vão perceber pq)

Vamos falar do X, que só come mousse de chocolate desde puto. Foi o que lhe deram, sabe bem, pq raio há de comer outra mousse? De repente chega a 1 restaurante, e vê que há mais mousses, de manga, baunilha, limão, etc. Mais outras pessoas tão a comer os outros sabores, mas tb 1 de cada, mas essas são poucas. Como é bar aberto, muitos atrevidos comem 2 e 3 sabores no mesmo prato. E sabe bem!

Pra mim essas tais facções de teorias são umas mousses, cada 1 com 1 sabor especifico, mas misturados sabem ainda melhor!

Agora, ao abusar desta conversa de teorias, começo é a ter diarreia, pois já tá a ser mousse a mais!

(perceberam o trocadilho?)

outra coisa, e agora é sobre onde o Rui foi buscar esta info:
http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/45447/The_Colbert_Report_Wikiality.html
(all-mighty poder da internet... pois!)

E Rui, esta agressividade n é toda pra ti, mas sim prós suposto teoricos que andam praí a falar mais do que jogar (e n tou a mandar boca nenhuma pra ninguem daqui... é prós bifes mesmo!)

Hum...

Como alguém muito sábio disse uma vez: eu não tenho que ir trollar sobre teoria para os posts dos outros!, mas!, eu também acho que aqueles que não gostam de teoria não deviam vir mandar bitaites e postas de pescada para os meus posts.

Como já disse uma vez, se não há nada de construtivo a dizer, não digam nada.

Num tom mais sério, o meu propósito com este post é alertar a malta para as várias teorias de rpg que existem, já que um erro comum parece ser que a única que existe é a proposta pelo Ron Edwards, e um outro erro também comum é haver malta que a toma como dogma - é uma teoria, e como tal passível de ser discutida, como qualquer teoria. Quando uma teoria deixar de o ser e passar a ser facto, então mudam as bitolas, até lá, é fair game.

E, já agora, eu estou convencido que a malta que fala sobre teoria (seja ela qual for) é malta que o faz depois de ter muitas e muitas horas de jogo debaixo dos cintos.

A escrever: down*town, tech-noir rpg
Proto Agonístes um rpg de auto-descoberta, de um personagem e vários jogador