The Magic-Walmart myth

[ThirdWizard]

No, but it still doesn't answer the question. Why is the distinction important to the discussion if the difference between transporters and hand-waved travel only exists in the DM's head? For the players and anyone else viewing the game from the outside the distinction doesn't exist.

It does create a different play experience. It doesn't only exist in the DM's head, it is a world altering thing. If the DM handwaves travel time, then in game time does go by, after all. Seasons may change. PCs will age.

So take two examples, one with teleporters in every city and one with travel handwaving. The PCs have a day to save the princess in a kingdom 1000 miles away. In one they might succeed, in the other they can't.

The world is affected tremendously. In the world with lots of teleportation access, trade will be vastly different as exotic goods won't exist, being that they're a 'port away. Cultural distinctions will be smaller. Warfare will be waged differently. The world is affected in a large way by this innoculous change.

Are Magic Walmarts vs. small shops that different than the above example? Magic Walmart implies that magic is much more widespread, either because magic is a tool for common use among citizens or because of the vast amount of adventurers that can keep such shops active. It means less of a barter trade, which could be sustainable with smaller shops, but is implausable with large magic outlets. It probably means some kind of mass production of magic items because of this. It implies how the common man views magic.

So there is a difference because it influences the world in which the PCs experience the game. You might not see a difference between handwaving travel and teleportation during the actual event, but when every city in the world is like Sigil, with a portal to everywhere you want to go, you might start seeing some dissimilarities.

 

[Ourph]

Are Magic Walmarts vs. small shops that different than the above example? Magic Walmart implies that magic is much more widespread, either because magic is a tool for common use among citizens or because of the vast amount of adventurers that can keep such shops active. It means less of a barter trade, which could be sustainable with smaller shops, but is implausable with large magic outlets. It probably means some kind of mass production of magic items because of this. It implies how the common man views magic.

My experience disagrees with this. The whole idea of a "Magic Wal-mart", from what I have seen of them, is to eliminate the consideration of source and economic impact from the game in order to focus on other things. Campaigns which have "Magic Wal-marts" vs. those that have handwaved magic item purchases don't differ at all in terms of trade, production of items or views of magic in my experience, because trade, production of items and views of magic aren't things that people involved in the game are interested in considering. The campaign is focused elsewhere and that's the reason for adopting the method of treating magic item purchases in the first place.

This entire discussion seems to be about setting up a strawman (the literal "Magic Item Wal-mart") and knocking it down to make a big deal out of something that's really a very miniscule matter for the vast majority of people who play the game.

 

[ThirdWizard]

This entire discussion seems to be about setting up a strawman (the literal "Magic Item Wal-mart") and knocking it down to make a big deal out of something that's really a very miniscule matter for the vast majority of people who play the game.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of gamers don't really consider where their magic items or gold actually come from.

 

[Ourph]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of gamers don't really consider where their magic items or gold actually come from.

If we're saying the distinction between a virtual and a literal Magic Wal-mart is that the literal Magic Wal-mart has certain effects on the economy, magic item production methods and common man's view of magic of the game milieu, but we also admit that the vast majority of gamers don't really factor those things into the way they experience the game, then I would argue the assertion that the term is inaccurate (and therefore shouldn't be used) is false.

If I say of my game it has "no Magic Wal-marts" and (in the minds of the vast majority of gamers) there is no significant difference between the virtual and the literal interpretation of that phrase in terms of how they experience the game, then the phrase is not only accurate, but extremely useful in explaining to potential players what to expect from my game. No?

 

[Quasqueton]

If I say of my game it has "no Magic Wal-marts"

Do you [general use, "you"] have mundane Wal-marts? If not, then shouldn't you also say so? Do you have horse lots or ship lots? If not, then shouldn't you also say so?

If the core/default game does not have "Magic Wal-marts," why do you need to state that your campaign doesn't have them? Making the "no Magic Wal-marts" statement is sort of like saying, "My D&D campaign doesn't have spaceships, canons, and skyscrapers."

If your campaign is different than the norm, I would think you should identify what is different, not what is not different.

Quasqueton

 

[Raven Crowking]

If your campaign is different than the norm, I would think you should identify what is different, not what is not different.

How do you know what is the norm?

 

[Quasqueton]

How do you know what is the norm?

The baseline as presented in the core rules.

Which is more informative about a campaign:

I don't allow storm giant PCs.

I allow storm giant PCs.

The first is the norm, the second is not.

Quasqueton

 

[Doug McCrae]

If I say of my game it has "no Magic Wal-marts" and (in the minds of the vast majority of gamers) there is no significant difference between the virtual and the literal interpretation of that phrase in terms of how they experience the game, then the phrase is not only accurate, but extremely useful in explaining to potential players what to expect from my game. No?

But what does it mean? Does it mean 'no magic item trade exists', 'limited magic item trade exists', 'all magic item trade will be played out in detail', 'some magic item trade will be played out in detail' or what? I wouldn't be sure going into a game what it meant, which means it isn't useful at all.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The baseline as presented in the core rules.

I'm not sure, within the context of this thread, that such a norm exists. That there exist norms for things like PC races and feats doesn't imply that there exist norms for the subjective (DM-and-player-input) qualities of campaign worlds. Or that, if such norms exist, that we know them.

In fact, I would suggest that the content of this thread is indicative that people think they know what the norm is, while other people think that the norm is the opposite of what the first people think.

Go back to your thread about 1e, and how we consistently experienced it in different ways, regardless of how often we moved, regardless of the actual wording. You are ignoring the "Reader Filter" that says "If I wrote this, this is what I would mean, therefore this is what is meant here". It is at least as important as what is actually written.

So, if you play in an area where MagicMarts are more common than standard -- or if you would interpret posts on a messageboard through your Reader Filter that way -- they you are likely to specify "No MagicMarts" or "No God Killing" or whatever.

It is perhaps the "campaign norm" that is mythical, not MagicMarts.

At least, IMHO, and IME.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But what does it mean? Does it mean 'no magic item trade exists', 'limited magic item trade exists', 'all magic item trade will be played out in detail', 'some magic item trade will be played out in detail' or what? I wouldn't be sure going into a game what it meant, which means it isn't useful at all.

You'd know where to start with your questions, though, right?