The Magic-Walmart myth

[Gentlegamer]

Besides reducing transportation cost (easier to transport $10,000 than $10,000 worth of gold), the biggest difference between fiat money and specie is the reliance upon the law to enforce the payment of promissory notes; a significant difference is not in the economic function of the currency.

The biggest difference is in how financial institutions operate. Fiat money allows unlimited borrowing by government which is what fuels modern day money-supply expansion and the resulting inflation.

 

[Slife]

Here's a way to make gold actually have intrinsic worth.

You know those magic items with costs in gold pieces? Half of that cost is actual gold, which is automagically tied into the intrinsic aura of the magical item.

 

[Felix]

The biggest difference is in how financial institutions operate. Fiat money allows unlimited borrowing by government which is what fuels modern day money-supply expansion and the resulting inflation.

The difference is the scale to which it may be done, not the theory. The same can be done with specie, though at a slower and likely smaller rate.

 

[gizmo33]

It would be like thinking that because you move at exactly the same distance/day when travelling over a given terrain type, that all terrain of a given type is identical - another instance of the hazards of viewing the DnD rules as a simulation engine. There's no reason that a market price for an item in the rules should tell you anything about the mechanism for buying the item. The details about how items are purchased and such are not in the rules AFAIK - nor are all the potential variables (same as the situation for overland travel). Such details would be required to make a sensible (IMO) comparison between Wallmart and DnD. Then again, since the "Wallmart" thing is usually a battle in the edition war, then the "sensible" part is optional.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

An interesting point about economies was raised by Jonny Nexus.

IMO the DnD world is halfway between stage 1 and stage 2. Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, coin economy would work for items under 200gp. Items above that line would be in the barter system.

This arbitrary line would change the feel of most games, having heroes seek out master craftsmen and artificers to create legendary items, trading in whatever stuff they looted from the battlefield.

In a way my current game is set up that way, perhaps I will actually formalize it to that level. This would even out the weirdness of massively expensive items and cart loads of GP. Of course treasure listings would have to be downgraded on available coin as most of the riches would be tied up in items instead of coin.

 

[Hussar]

Spelljammer, I think, makes the myth much less of a myth. Since Spelljammer tied together Faerun, Oerth, and Ansalon, you could presumably find Arcane on every official D&D world (except Athlas) in 2e anyway, which means that, from an "official" standpoint, MagicMarts were pretty widespread. I've heard on this thread about Dragonmarked Houses and Red Wizards setting up MagicMarts in Eberron and Faerun.
*snip*

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about 3e.

You might want to reread what was written about the Red Wizards and the House Cannith. I never denied that magic items are for sale, only that the idea that you have a one stop shop for magic items is an internet myth. I never played Spelljammer, so I have no information about that setting, but, there is a large difference between one stop shops and Red Wizard shops.

Admittedly, I prefer "MagicMart" to "Walmart". But I believe that when people say "Magical Walmart" they are trying to denote that the concept reminds them of Walmart, and ruins the sense of immersion for them. Just as, when I say "Pokemount" I mean to imply that the flavour of the 3.X paladin's mount reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon, which ruins the sense of immersion for me.

That doesn't mean that people who feel differently suck because they don't think the same way I do. Different strokes for different folks.

RC

In other words, Walmart carries all sorts of negative baggage and is often used in a derogatory wrongbadfun way. Just like calling a paladin's mount a pokemount is a wrongbadfun post comparing a childish anime to the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about 3e.

I thought we were talking about D&D. I suppose that might be why you see some things as a slap that I don't?

In other words, Walmart carries all sorts of negative baggage and is often used in a derogatory wrongbadfun way. Just like calling a paladin's mount a pokemount is a wrongbadfun post comparing a childish anime to the game.

No, not at all what I was saying.

If I say "X has associations to me that make it not fun for me" that is not the same as saying that "X has associations to me that make it not fun for me, therefore you should not use X either".

It seems to me that you view the first statements as equal to the second statement, and hence as "a derogatory wrongbadfun" usage.

I say that when I say "Pokemount" I mean to imply that the flavour of the 3.X paladin's mount reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon, which ruins the sense of immersion for me. You seem to believe that means that when I say "Pokemount" I mean to imply that the flavour of the 3.X paladin's mount reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon, which ruins the sense of immersion for me therefore you should not use the paladin's mount as written either".

I don't think that way at all.

 

[Hussar]

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable to use a term you know the listener will consider derogatory so long as you don't consider it to be so.

Good luck with that.

See, while I believe you when you say that, I find it pretty difficult to believe that you would not consider the chance that people would see comparing something they agree with to a childish and immature cartoon and get riled up about it. There is just the off chance that people would see such a comparison in a negative light. If it was simply that you don't like the flavour of a paladin's mount, why not say it directly? Why use a term you know will cause people to misunderstand your point. And you know that it will be misunderstood after the first time you used it. The first one might be free, but, why continue to use a term when you know that people will see it as derogatory?

In other words, why use vague, imprecise language that you know will be misinterpreted when precise and neutral terms are available? If "Magic Walmart" was the only way to describe being able to buy and sell magic items in a campaign, then fine, but, there are a number of other ways to describe it, ranging from "magic shop" (which lacks the political connotations) to actually explaining in detail how magic is bought and sold in a campaign. Why use "pokemount" when Paladin's Mount is only 6 characters longer?

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable to use a term you know the listener will consider derogatory so long as you don't consider it to be so.

Not at all, although to get into a close discussion of this particular topic, we would have to drag in words that we actually know the listener will consider derogatory.

What I am saying is that in having a conversation, you ought to be able to assume some level of maturity on the part of the participants, rather than having to skirt and parse each word as its spoken in case some phrase you view as descriptive will instead be considered derogatory. Moreover, I am saying that the listener has some responsibility to try to view what he is listening to in the light it is intended, rather than simply whatever best matches his mood/expectation at the time.

"Pokemount" is not in the class of several dozen terms that I would not use on EN World nor in real life.

If you think it is, good luck with that!

EDIT: For clarification, that last line is meant to be cheeky, not insulting. The main point stands, though. How many posters have been criticized for failing to include a YMMV, IMHO, or AFAIK in their posts, when it was nonetheless clear that they were talking about their opinions? If I say "WallMagics Suck!" (and, in some contexts, let me be clear, I think that WallMagics do not suck), then that is clearly a statement of opinion, not some statement of universal truth that must be adhered to by all lest they engage in wrongbadfun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Some of these phrases have been so integrated with edition wars over the years that it's difficult not to see an implied "edition X sucks" in these statements. Pokemount is one, because when 3.5 came out that was one of the terms that seemed to be invented by 3.5 haters to emphasize how much 3.5 sucked. So then people start to fall onto the defensive as soon as they see some of these, simply because they are so often associated with edition wars.

I think its a geek thing. We love our camps.