The Magic-Walmart myth

[gizmo33]

IMHO, an unwillingness to accept that Magic Walmarts do exist, regardless of what evidence is presented, derailed this thread. Not the use of the term (which would have derailed it from Post One were that the case).

It's hard to tell what the original intent of the OP was - but my feeling when I reread it is that the "magic wallmart myth" was used as a criticism for standard magic level DnD. What he was saying is that standard magic level DnD doesn't have magic wallmarts. The existence of magic wallmarts in someone's campaign is largely irrelevant to this original point. IME making irrelevant statements after other's people's statements can often be construed as a refutation - though reading carefully can dispel that so I understand your decision to be clear about what you're saying. But IMO the bottom line is that this line of reasoning doesn't actually refute (and hardly addresses) the OP.

I think it's likely that by the "magic wallmart myth", the OP meant, not only the central store as you define it - but also that such a store was a standard part of 3E campaigns and that the rules almost mandated it (eg. comments about Greyhawk et. al.). That definition seems implicit in the first post. Otherwise the OP becomes something like "nowhere, anywhere, ever, has there ever been a polka-dotted dragon" - which is pointless and uninteresting (and most likely wrong). I really don't think that's what the OP was getting at.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Either you don't know what reactions these words trigger, and you may be surprised by the reaction the first time you use it, or you know what reaction they trigger, and in this case, you either use it and aren't surprised if what you say is completely misunderstood, or you don't to actually try to convey the meaning of what you're really trying to say, don't you think?

There is a difference between reaction and meaning, which are conflated here.

When I say, for example, "pokemount", it conveys a specific meaning. It conveys a denotation of this edition's paladin's mount, and a strong connotation of my distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.

It might also provoke a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount?" Possibly with an irrational conflating that distaste with a distaste for the game system as a whole, or with those who like the current edition's paladin's mount. However, I don't know of a single example where the term "pokemount" was intended to carry this secondary connotation. Nor, frankly, do you need to use the term "pokemount" to garner the same reaction -- you need merely to imply a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.

The same is true for Magic Walmarts, Magic Marts, and Magic Shops. The problem lies not in the terminology, IMHO, but in the idea that any implication of personal distaste of any game element inherently implies that it is "wrongbadfun".

IMHO, this is a failure to read properly, and should be corrected rather than be catered to. YMMV.

Of course, some of the very same people who are offended by apparent "slaps" against one edition engage in the same sort of behaviour relating to other editions. Myself, I rather enjoy the Byzantine Gygaxian prose of the 1e DMG, but I can certainly understand that others find it distasteful...even, in some cases, where they may otherwise enjoy the system. In this particular case, the adage about folks in glass houses certainly applies.

In short, I think that there are a great many people who know what "pokemount" and "MagicMart" both denote and connote without adding the further connotations that "therefore the game sucks", "therefore if you like the game, you suck" and/or "therefore if you like that (potential) aspect of the game you suck". I would hazard to say that most people don't add those additional connotations to these terms. And, while I cannot guarantee that I am right in so thinking, I certainly hope and believe that I am right in so thinking.


RC

 

[Ourph]

I think you're fooling yourself on this one, RC. These loaded terms nearly always trigger a reaction that is detrimental to the discussion at hand.

But is that detrimental reaction the responsibility of the original poster or the one reacting? You use the phrase "these loaded terms" as if everyone understands what they are. To me, Magic Wal-mart seems like a fairly banal way of describing a common method of approaching magic item purchases. Maybe it's just that I don't seem to have the same knee-jerk Wal-mart hate that some people do, but it just never seemed that significant to me (until this thread). Neither does the term "video game" if used in any sort of reasonable context. Some folks can't seem to prevent themselves from over-reacting when they hear certain buzzwords no matter what the context, but that doesn't mean every use of those buzzwords is incendiary or inappropriate.

In my experience, these loaded terms would be better off the table completely.

For every buzzword you take off the table, the hypersensitive "wrongbadfun" police will find another word to get upset about. The problem isn't the words; it's the reaction.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it's likely that by the "magic wallmart myth", the OP meant, not only the central store as you define it - but also that such a store was a standard part of 3E campaigns and that the rules almost mandated it (eg. comments about Greyhawk et. al.). That definition seems implicit in the first post.

This is similar to the Standard Wealth Per Level Guidelines. Nowhere in the text does it say that you have to follow those guidelines; I have become convinced by the arguments of others that they are provided to help you determine the relative value of CR/EL in the game.

Nonetheless, that is not the only possible interpretation, nor is "The RAW does not mandate MagicMarts" the only possible interpretation of the written word. I agree that it is the best possible interpretation but that doesn't mean that it is what the vast majority or even the majority at all understand when they read the rules.

I think this is very similar to the OP's thread about why we had such different experiences with 1e. We read the rules through a "reader filter" that causes us to interpret them in different ways. When a poster says "This campaign has no Magic Walmarts", I take it to mean that that poster does believe that Magic Walmarts are normative, either through his experience or through his understanding of the RAW. The fact that people argued in this thread that the RAW leads to Magic Walmarts tends to bolster this belief IMHO.

OTOH, my belief that the RAW should not be intended to imply MagicMarts (whether or not I think it does to some readers) shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of MagicMarts for those who like them. As I said earlier, I can easily imagine settings in which MagicMarts (as I define them) make sense and would add to the flavour of the setting.

If the question asked by the OP is, "Does the RAW mandate Magic Walmarts" then the answer is No (or at least, Not Necessarily ).

Frankly, though, I wish that the OP would please rephrase the question so that we clearly know what is being asked.



RC

 

[gizmo33]

You use the phrase "these loaded terms" as if everyone understands what they are.

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think the person who "inadvertently" uses the loaded term should probably recognize that his reader is ascribing all sorts of meaning to it, and spend a little effort to correct those impressions. I certainly think that's more productive than changing the subject to how the reader "reads poorly" or whatever. Such a response is argumentative. It also pretends some sort of ignorance of human nature - if I knew you guys better I could probably find loaded words that everyone would have a hard time not ascribing meaning to. If I'm going to claim to be the smart one who reads carefully and writes carefully, maybe I should just am actually trying to communicate to other people and make an effort to do so on their terms, and rather than criticise their definitions of words, or the connotations, maybe it's just simpler to break out the thesaurus. I'm sure that a possible response is to craft some example out of a ridiculous extreme where someone takes offense to the word "the" - but I think non-Vulcan's can probably get the gist of what I mean. If "magic wallmart" does actually have a meaning, why not use that mean in it's place?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Neither does the term "video game" if used in any sort of reasonable context.

The two terms have similar problems. They are both loaded with negative connotations and both imprecise. The latter is my major issue with both. When one says that D&D is like a video game, the reader has to ask - which one? Pong? Super Mario Bros? World of Warcraft? If the writer merely means that it's easy to return from death in D&D, wouldn't it be better to say so?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.

See, the thing is, I think that non-Vulcans can get the gist of "MagicMart" and "pokemount", too.

I'm not claiming that the use of the terms is "inadvertent" at all. They are the bon mot for what is meant.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

The problem isn't the words; it's the reaction.

I half agree. I think the reaction (from the person who didn't use the term) is only half of it. If the person who used the term doesn't stop using it (for that discussion) then that denotes (to me) a complete disregard for a balanced coversation and the other persons opinions.

One may not understand where negative conotations for Magic WalMart and Pokimount come from. Unless you are discussing the term itself it doesn't matter where those negative feelings come from - they exist and that is the important thing.

If I let someone know that I felt a term was a loaded statement and that it carried an elitest attitude to me and then the other person kept using it, I would feel that person had no regard for me and felt that my opinion was worthless. After all they kept using a term that I had told them I felt wasn't neutral to the conversation. If the other person "obviously" feels that my opinions are irrelavent I'm not going to be very invested in the rest of the conversation and it will go nowhere.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If the writer merely means that it's easy to return from death in D&D, wouldn't it be better to say so?

Except, quite often, that is what the writer says: "I find the ease with which one can return from the dead too video-gamey" and "I find the ease with which one can return from the dead not to my taste, because it reminds me too much of certain video games" are both understood (by most, I think) to mean exactly the same thing, and are both equally likely (I think) to be taken as offensive.

 

[gizmo33]

Nonetheless, that is not the only possible interpretation, nor is "The RAW does not mandate MagicMarts" the only possible interpretation of the written word. I agree that it is the best possible interpretation but that doesn't mean that it is what the vast majority or even the majority at all understand when they read the rules.

In this case my language is a little stronger because there's actually a lack of anything to interpret. Just because people argue a connection between the rules and magic wallmarts doesn't mean that their logic is sound. It's one thing to filter what you're reading, it's another thing to mistakenly ascribe a belief to something that you read - though granted, it's a continuum. Were the RAW to be vague about how governments in a fantasy world are constructed, I might be willing to construe the use of the word "government" to mean "representative democracy" in the same way that I would assume "market price" mean "wallmart". But IMO that's not even a filter of what's written - it is a virtually complete fabrication on the part of the reader.

As I said earlier, I can easily imagine settings in which MagicMarts (as I define them) make sense and would add to the flavour of the setting.

I agree completely. However, I've often used "video game" in not an entirely unkind way but yet got really negative reactions. I think it's a natural part of language that words have certain connotations. My goal generally is to be more precise about what I'm saying and avoid these words if I know they cause problems (because they're not all that well-defined either).

If the question asked by the OP is, "Does the RAW mandate Magic Walmarts" then the answer is No (or at least, Not Necessarily ).

Actually, I think the most literal interpretation is "is it really necessary to claim that lack of magic marts are 'low magic' when it's probably just 'average magic' Here is my evidence for why the absence of magic marts are a campaign norm..." That this issue is a core issue in the edition wars, and that "3E RAW leads to magic marts" is more of a context that exists outside of the OP itself, but is probably the context for many people participating in the thread.