D&D 5E Does the Artificer Suck?

[Paul Farquhar]

Experience differs then, I suppose, because most people I know

This is the issue. "most of the people I know" are drawn from a similar background, and hence speak the same jargon. But the people you don't know, who are not associated with science education, have no idea what you are talking about.

It isn't hard to figure it out.

People know what science and technology is. But a stem is a part of a plant. It only takes a couple of seconds to explain what you mean. Not doing so is often deliberate obfuscation.

Why STEM? Why not MEST or METS or TEMS or SMET?

It sounds more like your problem is with people having a cursory understanding compared to a more in-depth knowledge-base.

It's more a problem with people getting promoted because they spout convincing-sounding jargon whilst having no idea what they are talking about.

. shrug


No worries, I was just curious. CRESMET is the Center for Research on Education in Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology at Arizona State University--where I worked about 15 years ago--probably why you never heard of it. It has become part of other research centers now, however.

Given that I have never been within 5000 miles of Arizona, it's very unlikely I would have heard of it.

 

[clearstream]

But I have found that people who name-drop philosophers do so in order to try an make themselves look clever, not because they know anything. So since you mention "image", I am automatically inclined to think that someone who name-drops philosophers in a way that assumes you know what they are talking about is a pretentious prat, not someone worth listening to.

I'll respond to this on the off chance it is aimed at me. I mentioned those specific game theorists because I felt others in this forum might like to look into them. Aarseth, for instance, defined games as falling into a super-category he called ergodic literature: it just means that work must be done to traverse the text. My view is that games are simply the tools for doing that work, and I specifically think that the sort of tool game rules are involves enabling, shaping, defining or limiting acts of leverage over (in order to produce) constructed narratives. We accept them only because of the ability they afford us to construct the narrative we are interested in, in a way that is interesting.

Reiland is significant because he digs into what it might mean for games to be constituted by rules. To say X is constituted by Y is just like saying bricks constitute a wall. There is no deeper mystery to the "jargon" than that. Reiland develops a theme that runs through game studies that I think is first expressly stated by Suits, when he talks about playing games as accepting inefficient means to achieving a goal just so that one can enjoy that experience. What he calls the lusory attitude. It is worth reading Bernard Suits.

If some philosopher in your experience has denigrated science and scientists, and made you feel they think of them as lesser, then in my opinion that philosopher was foolish. The philosophers I know are very conscious of the limits of what can be done and known without the methods of science. They likely think more of philosophy as tackling questions that - at least where we are today - are not approachable by science (questions of culture and language often fall into this category), and understanding how to frame questions that are worth answering (including metaphysical questions, many of which in the past have turned out to be fruitful once they were able to be investigated scientifically), and ensuring rigorous thought generally. What counts as reasonable? Justified? Free from self-contradiction and so on. Philosophy of science is an important area in itself, and can guide scientists to doing science better. It also provides tools for resisting current strains of anti-science.

So far as I know today there is no science that gets at the meaning of game rules. How we know what they are? Why we should accept them? I think in time - with the evolution of AI - that will change. A saying I like is that "a cat can look at a king" - for now, game theory or ludology offers a way of studying and coming to some reasonable and consistent explanations. We can look at something, and think fruitfully about it, even knowing that we can't see - or test - all of it as adequately as we might desire.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'll respond to this on the off chance it is aimed at me. I mentioned those specific game theorists because I felt others in this forum might like to look into them. Aarseth, for instance, defined games as falling into a super-category he called ergodic literature: it just means that work must be done to traverse the text. My view is that games are simply the tools for doing that work, and I specifically think that the sort of tool game rules are involves enabling, shaping, defining or limiting acts of leverage over (in order to produce) constructed narratives. We accept them only because of the ability they afford us to construct the narrative we are interested in, in a way that is interesting.

Reiland is significant because he digs into what it might mean for games to be constituted by rules. To say X is constituted by Y is just like saying bricks constitute a wall. There is no deeper mystery to the "jargon" than that. Reiland develops a theme that runs through game studies that I think is first expressly stated by Suits, when he talks about playing games as accepting inefficient means to achieving a goal just so that one can enjoy that experience. What he calls the lusory attitude. It is worth reading Bernard Suits.

If some philosopher in your experience has denigrated science and scientists, and made you feel they think of them as lesser, then in my opinion that philosopher was foolish. The philosophers I know are very conscious of the limits of what can be done and known without the methods of science. They likely think more of philosophy as tackling questions that - at least where we are today - are not approachable by science (questions of culture and language often fall into this category), and understanding how to frame questions that are worth answering (including metaphysical questions, many of which in the past have turned out to be fruitful once they were able to be investigated scientifically), and ensuring rigorous thought generally. What counts as reasonable? Justified? Free from self-contradiction and so on. Philosophy of science is an important area in itself, and can guide scientists to doing science better. It also provides tools for resisting current strains of anti-science.

So far as I know today there is no science that gets at the meaning of game rules. How we know what they are? Why we should accept them? I think in time - with the evolution of AI - that will change. A saying I like is that "a cat can look at a king" - for now, game theory or ludology offers a way of studying and coming to some reasonable and consistent explanations. We can look at something, and think fruitfully about it, even knowing that we can't see - or test - all of it as adequately as we might desire.

Yup, this is exactly what I mean by pretentious nonsense, invented by people who want a pay-check for spouting useless garbage. This is the sort of thing that gets humanities a bad name. Games are for playing, not for studying.

A case where looking at something too closely spoils the enjoyment of the thing you are looking at.

 

[clearstream]

Yup, this is exactly what I mean by pretentious nonsense, invented by people who want a pay-check for spouting useless garbage. This is the sort of thing that gets humanities a bad name. Games are for playing, not for studying.

I see. Well, the history of people setting limits on what may and may not be studied has not been an attractive one.

A case where looking at something too closely spoils the enjoyment of the thing you are looking at.

I do not find that to be the case, but if you do then you should surely not look too closely at games.

Why should you then feel moved to rail against those that do?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I see. Well, the history of people setting limits on what may and may not be studied has not been an attractive one.

Because studying an entirely imaginary thing that people do for no reason other than fun might save the world?

Funny thing, fun. It has it's own uncertainty principle. The more you try to measure it the more it disappears.

Why should you then feel moved to rail against those that do?

Because, judging by my experience of reading this forum, it leads people to utterly false conclusions.

It can be very dangerous searching for meaning where no meaning exists.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, I know from experience that the vast majority of people who use the term have no idea what it stands for. Obviously people who don't work in education don't know.

I think a great many people with children would know what STEM means, but I agree it is no as universal as laser or NASA.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I think a great many people with children would know what STEM means,

I've been to plenty of parents evenings where teachers attempt to bedazzle parents with jargon, who nod along with blank looks on there faces. Head teachers love this, confused parents don't ask awkward questions.

Do they actually know it? Did someone explain it to them? Or are you just assuming they know it because they nod?

 

[dave2008]

I've been to plenty of parents evenings where teachers attempt to bedazzle parents with jargon, who nod along with blank looks on there faces. Head teachers love this, confused parents don't ask awkward questions.

Do they actually know it? Did someone explain it to them? Or are you just assuming they know it because they nod?

Well, my sons went to a STEM school, So yes they explained it to everyone and every child and parent was aware what it means.

From talking to parents, many chose the school because it was a STEM school and had prior knowledge of the term. I can't speak to others experience, only my own.

EDIT for @Paul Farquhar: some parents also chose it because it was also an early college, accelerated, mastery based middle / high school as well. In an effort to abide by your guidelines I will explain those terms:

1. Early college: You can take college classes as a high school (HS) student. This is common now, but my sons school is still a bit unique. In theory a student can take call their required high school credits by the end of their 2nd year of high school and then take the majority of the remainder of their classes at the local University (most HS students take the classes at their high school), My sons' HS is actually on the University campus, so they took the classes with college students in the same class rooms with the same professors. My youngest is graduating from HS with 2 yrs worth of college credits from a major state University. That was a draw for some people (college credits), but not so much for us. The ability to take high-level math / college courses was the benefit for us.
2. Mastery: The master system is such that you must pass a class, an HS or MS (Middle School) class, with an "A," before you receive credit for the class. If you don't on the first try to remediate your work until it is an "A," or take the class again. This requirement prevented some students from achieve the full potential of the early college as it took them longer than 2 years to complete the HS course work.
3. Accelerated: Each MS and HS class is taught at an accelerated pace. You get a years worth of chemistry (or whatever) in half a year. This was the basis of finishing HS course work in 2 years vs 4 and allowing students to maximize the college coursework.

I hope my explanation of this jargon was satisfactory.

EDIT 2: I just realized middle school and high school mean different things to different people. So in this context:

Elementary School: Sometimes called Primary School / Education. Grades 1-5 or 6. Starting from around age 5 and ending around age 10-12
Middle School: Sometimes, with High School, called Secondary School / Education. grades 6-8 or grades 7 & 8. This varies in the US. ending are about age 13-14.
High School: Sometimes, with Middle School, called Secondary School / Educationgrades 9-12. end at about the age 17-18.

 

[Stoutstien]

Yup, this is exactly what I mean by pretentious nonsense, invented by people who want a pay-check for spouting useless garbage. This is the sort of thing that gets humanities a bad name. Games are for playing, not for studying.

A case where looking at something too closely spoils the enjoyment of the thing you are looking at.

So if someone spends time thinking about something you don't understand it's pretentious and must be shamed? Harris Bergerton much?

Games are one of the largest consumer markets in the world and have been a part of humanity longer than written history and is a something found throughout the world in every society. We have been looking at them closely for a long time without them losing their allure.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

So if someone spends time thinking about something you don't understand it's pretentious and must be shamed? Harris Bergerton much?

Yup. Never heard of him, so it pretty much proves my point about name-droppers.

Games are one of the largest consumer markets in the world and have been a part of humanity longer than written history and is a something found throughout the world in every society. We have been looking at them closely for a long time without them losing their allure.

Sure, as in "how can I win and make a lot of money". At which point, it clearly ceases to be something you do for fun, and becomes something you do for profit.