Doug McCrae
Legend
'Magic Wal-Mart' is the term under discussion.Raven Crowking said:
The Magic-Walmart myth
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
Doug McCrae said:
Semantics. And still, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "Magic Wal-Mart" valuable as a descriptive term, either. Wonder why?
Doug McCrae
Legend
I'm not a wrongbadfunist, some of my best friends ride pokemounts!Shadeydm said:
Raven Crowking
First Post
Going back to the original post for a moment, if I might.
It is interesting to note that on one hand, the OP opines that the phrase is widely used, and presumably understands what is meant by the phrase, yet on the other hand that it also makes no sense.
Examination of the core rules and various settings has shown that the "best reading" says they do not mandate Magic-Walmarts. However, it is nonetheless quite easy to read the core rules (and some settings) and conclude that they do have Magic-Walmarts. How these sections read depend very much upon the "filter" applies by the reader. The Magic Item Compendium suggests that, if a player asks you if he can buy any particular magic item, that you say Yes. No gp limit is mentioned. It is very easy to read these rules differently than they were, perhaps, intended.
Those who believe that Magic-Walmarts are a 3e phenomenon, please take note. In 1984, 1e was the norm. In 1991, the game du jour was 2e.
This doesn't follow. Quasqueton offers scant (if any) evidence of what the norm is, and has another thread devoted to the question of why what seemed like the norm in 1e for various people is so widely diverse. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that, merely because Quasqueton's experience includes few Magic-Walmarts, that the average experience is the same. Moreover, we have commentary from several people on this thread that contradict Quasqueton's experience. Even Quasqueton's experience, unless he has played with over 100 DMs, precludes his conclusion that 99% of everyone's preference and setting qualifies as low magic if the definition is "no Magic-Walmarts."
Therefore, we must conclude that this premise is false.
While the inclusion of object X might make a setting high magic, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X is mandatory to make a setting high magic. While the inclusion of object X might be a component of a high magic setting, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X automatically makes a setting high magic.
We can safely say that "high magic" is not defined by the existence of Magic-Walmarts.
Moreover, this is reinforced by the observation that whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (which must be taken as a bit of hyperbole). If someone equated high magic to the inclusion of Magic-Walmarts, they would not need additional clarification
Clearly, this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick because there is not a strict correlation between low magic and no Magic-Walmarts. One can have high magic without Magic-Walmarts, and one can arguably have low magic with Magic-Walmarts.
RC
Quasqueton said:
It is interesting to note that on one hand, the OP opines that the phrase is widely used, and presumably understands what is meant by the phrase, yet on the other hand that it also makes no sense.
Examination of the core rules and various settings has shown that the "best reading" says they do not mandate Magic-Walmarts. However, it is nonetheless quite easy to read the core rules (and some settings) and conclude that they do have Magic-Walmarts. How these sections read depend very much upon the "filter" applies by the reader. The Magic Item Compendium suggests that, if a player asks you if he can buy any particular magic item, that you say Yes. No gp limit is mentioned. It is very easy to read these rules differently than they were, perhaps, intended.
Those who believe that Magic-Walmarts are a 3e phenomenon, please take note. In 1984, 1e was the norm. In 1991, the game du jour was 2e.
This doesn't follow. Quasqueton offers scant (if any) evidence of what the norm is, and has another thread devoted to the question of why what seemed like the norm in 1e for various people is so widely diverse. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that, merely because Quasqueton's experience includes few Magic-Walmarts, that the average experience is the same. Moreover, we have commentary from several people on this thread that contradict Quasqueton's experience. Even Quasqueton's experience, unless he has played with over 100 DMs, precludes his conclusion that 99% of everyone's preference and setting qualifies as low magic if the definition is "no Magic-Walmarts."
Therefore, we must conclude that this premise is false.
While the inclusion of object X might make a setting high magic, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X is mandatory to make a setting high magic. While the inclusion of object X might be a component of a high magic setting, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X automatically makes a setting high magic.
We can safely say that "high magic" is not defined by the existence of Magic-Walmarts.
Moreover, this is reinforced by the observation that whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (which must be taken as a bit of hyperbole). If someone equated high magic to the inclusion of Magic-Walmarts, they would not need additional clarification
Clearly, this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick because there is not a strict correlation between low magic and no Magic-Walmarts. One can have high magic without Magic-Walmarts, and one can arguably have low magic with Magic-Walmarts.
RC
Hussar
Legend
Raven Crowking said:
I did answer this. None. There is no criteria which would make magic walmart valuable as a descriptive term. Why is that hard to believe? That a politically loaded word with negative connotations is a bad phrase to use when describing something seems pretty self evident.
Of course, reading what is written would help as well.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Thank you for making that crystal clear. I didn't want to assume an answer earlier, as you've already accused me of misquoting you when I wasn't quoting you.
I myself would argue that the criteria which would make X valuable as a descriptive terms would be the same as the criteria which would make Y valuable as a descriptive term, regardless of what X and Y are. Of course, I think a thing is a descriptive term or not regardless about how one actually feels about it. I also tend to think that the value of a descriptive term is inherently based upon how well understood that term is. I certainly wouldn't argue that a descriptive term has no value based on connotations (political, derogatory, or otherwise). Connotative meanings add value to descriptive terms.
"Bonehead" may be derogatory, but has value as a descrptive term, for instance, because it is easily understood by almost everyone. Conversely, a term like "liberal" (which has both political and sometimes derogatory denotation/connotation) has lost some descriptive value not because of these denotations/connotations, but because the widely disparate modern useage has prevented it from being as easily understood by society as a whole.
Claiming that you understand what is meant by a term, while at the same time claiming that the term has no descriptive value, is exactly equivilent to claiming that you don't know what huzzuwits are, but you know that you don't like them. It is a rational contradiction.
You say the term has no value as a descriptive term, and could have no value under any criteria. You then say "That a politically loaded word with negative connotations is a bad phrase to use when describing something seems pretty self evident."
This makes it clear that the criteria for Magic Walmart being a valuable descriptive term, far from being none, is that it somehow loses all "political" and "negative connotations". In other words, it is not the term you are objecting to per se, it is instead the meaning of the term you are objecting to. One should not say what "Magic Walmart" or "Pokemount" mean. And that, my friend, is an attempt to control the content of conversation.
As Gentlegamer said, "It would seem there's a certain Ministry of Truth mindset at work here that would like to do that very thing . . ."
RC
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It's also possible that the terms come to mean different things for different speakers, and the loss of value is not in the usage per se, but in different interpretations of the word in different cultural milieu. If I say "fag," as an American, I'll be meaning something quite a bit apart from if I say it as a Brit, after all. And if I'm a Brit speaking to an American, I'll have two choices once I realize the terms have different (both legitimate) meanings: continue to use the term, be often misunderstood, and insist that I have every right to use the term, that it is accurate, and that others should make the effort to understand me. OR, speak in such a way that my language will be understood -- often by using a different term. Perhaps I will loose some of the zingy punch of calling my smokestick a fag, but I will gain an understanding of the content of my message. And if that's not my goal, maybe I'm only talking to hear my own voice after all, and not to actually convey some meaning to those who listen.
Raven Crowking
First Post
KM,
You again conflate a term that is derogatory to a person with a term derogatory to an idea.
This has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum.
In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone. The only thing in large dispute at this point is whether or not a term derogatory to an idea is automatically derogatory toward anyone who might like that idea.
RC
You again conflate a term that is derogatory to a person with a term derogatory to an idea.
This has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum.
In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone. The only thing in large dispute at this point is whether or not a term derogatory to an idea is automatically derogatory toward anyone who might like that idea.
RC
Similar Threads
