The Magic-Walmart myth

[Ourph]

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?

In my experience, most campaigns which have virtual Magic Wal-marts also apply the same standards to mundane equipment (i.e. - purchasing of items - magical or otherwise - is simply hand-waved as long as a character has the right amount of cash and is near a population center with the correct GP limit). Even in games where there were no virtual Magic Wal-marts, I've never seen mundane equipment like armor, weapons, alchemical items or horses treated other than as described above. As a result, it seems to me that the default is virtual Mundane Wal-marts. As a result, I wouldn't mention such things unless I was specifically deviating from the norm (i.e. - no Mundane Wal-marts).

If purchasing a ship was as frequent an in-game event as purchasing magic items is, then I would expect such things be covered by these types of descriptors as well. However, in my experience, purchasing ships isn't something that comes up in most games, whereas purchasing magic items is something that has happened in every game of D&D I've played since 2000.

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.

But in my experience, "virtual" Magic Wal-marts are the norm. This isn't exactly surprising, since applying the basic economy rules in the DMG exactly as written is the perfect recipe for running a game that incorporates virtual Magic Wal-marts (Mundane too for that matter). The reason to state "My campaign doesn't include Magic Wal-marts" is the same as the reason to state any other house rule, because it's a deviation from the default. The reason not to state "My campaign doesn't include Mundane Wal-marts" is the same as the reason you don't state "I'm using the Saving Throw rules as-written", because you are not deviating from the default.

The fact that the phrase doesn't include the term "virtual" doesn't make it inaccurate or misleading since, as we established above, the vast majority of players don't experience a significant change in their experience of the game between the virtual and literal versions anyway. If the purpose is to use the phrase as shorthand, then introducing a qualifier that isn't going to add additional meaning for the reader defeats the purpose (i.e. - communicating the idea in as few words as possible).

 

[Slife]

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.

Killing things and taking their stuff.

DUH!

 

[Quasqueton]

Sorry, Raven Crowking, I just can't believe you are seriously confused. I think you are being contrary to be silly. And now you are reduced to copying and pasting your arguments, I guess, because the statements didn't get a rise out of folks like you wanted.

Quasqueton

 

[Ourph]

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.

As I said in response to Quasqueton, "Magic Wal-mart" (to me) means purchasing of items - magical or otherwise - is simply hand-waved as long as a character has the right amount of cash and is near a population center with the correct GP limit.

The phrase "No Magic Wal-marts" means that purchasing an item requires more than having the right amount of gold and being in a city with the correct GP limit.

Personally, I would find that distinction very informative if someone were telling me about their game. Would it answer all the questions about the process for acquiring magic items? No. But we're not talking about this phrase being used in a total vacuum. In every case I've seen the phrase used, that information is followed by specifics (just read back through Raven Crowking's posts in this thread to see examples).

Simply saying "I'm not using the Ranger class in this campaign." can be a very informative statement about your game. The fact that it can be even more informative if you follow it up with "Instead, I'm including the Wilderness Scout core class from 3rd Party Splatbook X to take its place.", doesn't negate the usefulness of the previous sentence.

 

[Felix]

Since the only information we have about Shadowfax is descriptive fiction, how can any similarity Shadowfax shares with something else be anything other than "cosmetic"? :\

By the way he is treated by the other characters, perhaps?

Legolas, an elf prince who has lived centuries if not millenia, was amazed at the horse when he first laid eyes.

Shadowfax is the greatest horse in a culture which lives seemingly in the saddle.

Shadowfax is admired and respected as the Lord of Horses by a Maiar, Gandalf.

Also consider the author: Tolkien greatly admired the pre-Norman British Anglo-Saxon culture, and believed that had the Anglo-Saxons had cavalry, the battle of Hastings would not have been lost, and British culture would have flowered on its own. Horses and the respect for them runs deep in Tolkien's work; it shows itself in the character of Shadowfax. So Shadowfax represents not only the superior legendary horse, but also the strength of the culture that bases itself on the animal.

Comparisons with a children's cartoon with a lightning-bolt for a tail that communicates clearly by repeating its name and lives in a ball can't be anything but cosmetic not because they are both works of fiction, but because of the significance of the character's meaning and purpose in the story.

You claimed that there were significant similarities between Shadowfax and Pokemon that anyone familar with both couldn't ignore. To which similarities do you refer?

 

[Quasqueton]

I'm off, tonight, to play a game of Marvel Super Heroes. And this campaign has no Magical Wal-marts in it, either.

Quasqueton

 

[Ourph]

You claimed that there were significant similarities between Shadowfax and Pokemon that anyone familar with both couldn't ignore. To which similarities do you refer?

The ability to appear when they are needed and remain off-camera when their existence isn't plot important (i.e. the most relevant similarity between them when it comes to discussion of the rules for the Paladin's mount in D&D, which was the context for the coining of the term "pokemount" in the first place).

 

[ThirdWizard]

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.

I'm thinking more along the lines that if people don't put thought into how they get their magic items, then it won't have any impact on the world. It is when they do put thought into it that it will impact the world. So, if they make the conscious choice of using one big shop vs lots of little shops, then there's going to be a reason for that choice.

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?

I'm thinking most people have never given thought to metaphorical D&Disms, so I'd think your average Joe would immediately think of an actual physical Walmart. Since they haven't given thought to how magic is bought and sold before, there's no reason for them to think of the Walmart as metaphorical.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Personally, I would find that distinction very informative if someone were telling me about their game. Would it answer all the questions about the process for acquiring magic items? No. But we're not talking about this phrase being used in a total vacuum. In every case I've seen the phrase used, that information is followed by specifics (just read back through Raven Crowking's posts in this thread to see examples).

Why not just give the specifics then?

For instance if I'm running a game where magic items can't be traded, why don't I just say that instead of 'No Magic Wal-Marts', which is less clear. If there's a sliding scale in terms of how much detail goes into item purchasing (potions are handwaved, 20000gp items must be haggled over if they are available at all) why not just say so?

The main problem with the phrase is that it's not at all clear what it means. If everyone took it to mean 'the core rules on magic item availability will not be followed', without negative connotations, the phrase might be marginally useable but as it is this thread alone makes it clear that not everyone understands it that way.

 

[ThirdWizard]

If you want to know about availability of magic items in a campaign, which is a better question?

"Do you have Magic Walmart in your game?"

or

"Can I buy and sell magic items easily in your game?"