The Magic-Walmart myth

[I'm A Banana]

You again conflate a term that is derogatory to a person with a term derogatory to an idea.

The derogatory doesn't matter. What matters is that it's not nearly as well understood as you think it is. Derogatory toward a person or an idea merely exacerbates the situation, and in that case, it doesn't matter whether it's a person or an idea, it is derogatory and that will make individuals defensive and close off much meaningful conversation. If I call someone's ideas idiotic tripe, if I imply that smart, relevant people don't have those ideas, so the speaker must not be one of those.

The same thing occurs if someone in Atlanta asks me "What kind of Coke do you want?" Everyone in Atlanta may know what that means, heck, maybe everyone in a 100-mile radius around the entire state of Georgia knows what that means, but ask someone from North Dakota that, and you won't get your point across very well. That's not derogatory, but it isn't the most effective means of communication, especially if I keep insisting that I get to use Coke as catch-all reference for carbonated beverages while I'm on vacation in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. If it *was* derogatory, or even just perceived as such, that would just create MORE barriers to conversation.

Turns out, more than a handful of people consider Magic Wal-Mart to be derogatory, so insisting you need to use the phrase in the face of people who are going to get offended is basically saying "I don't care about communicating effectively, I care about using the language I want to use." It's well within your rights, but a spade's a spade: you're not talking with someone at that point, you're just talking at them.

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.

Hahahahaha. That you can assume, with how long this thread has gone on, that Magic Walmart and Pokemount have definitions that are anywhere close to accepted, and that it can actually be decided by sane discussion whether or not the reader should or should not take them as derogatory makes me think that you are bafflingly Quixotic about this thread, and perhaps about language in general.

But good luck with this exercise in herding cats. I'm sure whatever conclusion you reach, nothing will change, people will still be offended by these terms, and you will continue to tell them they should not be, because you didn't mean it like that. C'est le vive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But good luck with this exercise in herding cats. I'm sure whatever conclusion you reach, nothing will change, people will still be offended by these terms, and you will continue to tell them they should not be, because you didn't mean it like that. C'est le vive.

As you well know, I am capable of changing my mind in the light of a good argument.

However, it is also clear that you failed to understand my argument. There is no "I didn't mean it like that". I grant that the phrase is derogatory toward the idea. What I do not grant, and do not accept, is that a phrase which is derogatory toward an idea should be considered derogatory toward people.

Moreover, since it is clear that it is the idea conveyed which is objected to, altering terminology in this case wouldn't serve to further conversation. It would serve to shut it down.

Answer the points I've made, and I'll respond. Continue to repeat points that have been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum, and you'll need somebody else to fill your dance card. I will note that the two times you did convince me to change my mind it was because you eventually answered the points raised.

I wish you luck.

RC

 

[Hussar]

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.

*snip for blah blah blah*

RC

Isn't it funny. I'm arguing in favour of using clear language free of connotative meaning that only serves to confuse the issue, but, I'm being accused of censorship. Wow, now that's a leap.

Given that a certain side of this conversation seems to have a vested interest in controlling the terminology of others, or preventing them from expressing different views (i.e., "pokemounts are childish" if they hold that view), I'd say that the purpose of a conversation very much depends upon who you ask.

Are you claiming that this wasn't directed at me? If you are, then who was this directed at? If it was, then it is a deliberate attempt to twist my words to make a point. Thus the misquote comment. Since this apparently wasn't directed at me, who are you talking about? Please be clear in your statements. I ask this because you are arguing that obfuscation is the same as adding meaning and I would prefer not to have to read your mind in order to determine your meaning, since, it's apparently the reader's job to parse out what the author means and author's are now freed from having to clearly explain their points.

Back to the magic walmart thing. I see your point RC about "descriptive value" although, I would point out that just because something describes something, doesn't give it any real value in a conversation. If what you are describing is being completely misunderstood by your audience, then the descriptive value is zero. Of course, since apparently you think that the reader's job is to be able to read the author's mind, then it wouldn't be a problem for you I suppose.

For the rest of us mere mortals who lack telepathic abilities, here is why using loaded language is bad;

RC is correct in one thing, RAW does not preclude the existence of a Magic Walmart. All RAW states is that an item of a given value may be available in a population center wealthy enough to have one for sale. The how and who are generally left entirely up to the DM. Note, there is no assumption that a Magic Walmart exists, it's just that it is also not assumed that it doesn't.

So, let's define Magic Walmart as a process by which the players can easily (for a given value of easy) purchase whatever magic item they can afford in a population center large enought to have the item for sale. By itself, that's a fairly neutral idea. Some people like that, some don't. That's fine. However, language rarely exists in a vacuum and the idea that the players can open the DMG or the MIC and go shopping leads some to cry "player entitlement" and link it to a loss of authority from the DM.

After all, if the players can buy whatever they want, who needs a DM to reward good play?

So, now Magic Walmart gets used by some to decry player entitlement and frequently crops up in Edition War threads as an example of how 3e strips power from the DM and gives it to the players. A look through any edition war thread you feel like will bear this out. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.

Of course, this ignores the fact that RAW never actually assumes the existence of Magic Walmarts in the first place - just that a given item may be available for sale.

So, now we have our new DM who posts about his campaign and emphatically states that there are "No Magic Marts (or Walmarts) in my world!" How do people react to this? Some see this as simply a statement of not having easily purchasable magic items. Some, whose perceptions are colored by other people's usage of the term, see it as an elitist statement saying "I am such a great DM that I keep all that authority that all those stupid other DM's give to their players." Others see it as a proxy for another edition war. I'm sure there are other interpretations as well.

The point is, EVERY one of those interpretations is correct. It is correct for the reader. What the author originally intended is irrelavent. We cannot know his intent, we can only know what he said. If he later adds more information, we can act on that, but, that changes the original statement.

Using loaded language to try to make a point is fine. I've done it, and I'm sure everyone reading this has done it as well. But, don't try to pretend wide eyed innocence when different people interpret your words differently and react, not only to the words you have used, but the contextual meanings embedded in those words as well.

Here's another example. Tolkien, until the day he died, emphatically stated that the Lord of the Rings was not an allegory for WWII. He repeatedly stated this quite publicly. Yet, there is a rather large and well supported body of criticism of the LOTR which states that LOTR is an allegory for WWII. What Tolkien intended is completely irrelevant. Literary criticism is based on the text, not on what the author wanted the text to mean.

Now, conversation is obviously a bit different, because we can ask for clarification. But, when you start waving red flag terms around, don't be shocked when people get hostile to your point of view.

 

[Storm Raven]

I think that this thread pretty much demonstrates that "Magic Walmart" is a useless term, because debating the offensiveness or non-offensiveness of the term has entirely taken over the thread. Which is pretty much also what happens when someone says "pokemount" or any of the other, loaded terms that get bandied about. The discussion screeches to a halt while everyone goes off on a seven page tangent about what the terms means, whether it is offensive or not, and how, even if it might be offensive, they were just using it in a non-offending way and so on.

Which pretty much occludes the actual nature of the issue which is this: what level of commodification of magic is appropriate, and has anyone actually gamed in a campaign in which magic was treated as being available in a similar way to the goods in a discount department store?

But instead everyone is arguing over whether dismissive and (as originally conceived) derisive terms are or are not dismissive and derisive.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm arguing in favour of using clear language free of connotative meaning that only serves to confuse the issue, but, I'm being accused of censorship.

Hussar, are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word? Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear. If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.

If you are arguing any of these things, then how can you also argue that a term you do not understand is offensive?

If you are arguing that a term is offensive, then how can you also argue that you do not understand it.

It is clear that you understand the terms, and that you feel they are offensive. If you are not arguing against clarity of language, then it is obvious that you are arguing because you feel the terms are offensive. In fact, you said as much when you claimed that there was no way such offensive terms could be considered of descriptive value. To wit:

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.

So, either I must accept that you do not understand the words "value as a descriptive term" or that you are being disingenious. In either event, it is clearly the "politically loaded word with negative connotations" you are objecting to, which is censorious.

Are you claiming that this wasn't directed at me? If you are, then who was this directed at?

The bit you quoted is a specific response to the reasoning Jedi Solo supplied as for why he felt the terms Magic Walmart and Pokemount were offensive. You can find his post about two pages back.

And, regardless of whether or not you feel your words were twisted, Jedi Solo's point (nearly identical to the one you make in the post I am now responding to) has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum pages back. In fact, I foresaw the point and answered it before it had been made.

Back to the magic walmart thing. I see your point RC about "descriptive value" although, I would point out that just because something describes something, doesn't give it any real value in a conversation.

"Descriptive value" is based solely on how well something is described. Social value may be something else....

Again, are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means? Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word? Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear. If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.

If you are arguing any of these things, then how can you also argue that a term you do not understand is offensive?

If you are arguing that a term is offensive, then how can you also argue that you do not understand it.

So, let's define Magic Walmart as a process by which the players can easily (for a given value of easy) purchase whatever magic item they can afford in a population center large enought to have the item for sale. By itself, that's a fairly neutral idea.

So far, rational. But what is it about the term that you are therefore objecting to? Let's see:

the idea that the players can open the DMG or the MIC and go shopping leads some to cry "player entitlement" and link it to a loss of authority from the DM.

After all, if the players can buy whatever they want, who needs a DM to reward good play?

So, now Magic Walmart gets used by some to decry player entitlement and frequently crops up in Edition War threads as an example of how 3e strips power from the DM and gives it to the players. A look through any edition war thread you feel like will bear this out. If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.

Once more, it is not the term that you object to, it is people crying "player entitlement" or arguing that "3e strips power from the DM and gives it to the players". Rather than targetting the actual culprit in terms of poor wording -- the DMG text that leads some readers (and a large amount of readers, if the threads you are talking about are any indication) to conclude that 3e does assume Magic Walmarts. After all, if they read the Magic Item Compendium, they are told outright that if a player asks if any magic item is purchasable, the DM should say Yes.

In other words, it may be true that some terminology is used more frequently in 3e than it was in 2e (where, as I said before, I believe the first derivative of "Magic Walmart" arose), but this is due to the wording of the RAW. If there is anything, therefore, that we should point at and cry "Lack of descriptive value!" it is the RAW, and not the terminology some use to adequately describe their experience of the RAW.

(That the books should be written for the lowest common denominator is one of the things that KM was able to convince me of.)

Hopefully, this will be corrected in 4e.

 

[NilesB]

In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone.

It is understood to mean a level of magic item availability upon which the speaker heaps bile and contempt. It in no way communicates how available magic items must be before the speaker expresses this contempt.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that this thread pretty much demonstrates that "Magic Walmart" is a useless term, because debating the offensiveness or non-offensiveness of the term has entirely taken over the thread. Which is pretty much also what happens when someone says "pokemount" or any of the other, loaded terms that get bandied about.

I think it says more about the nature of the Interweb than about the terms themselves. And, of course, it says something about people's unwillingness to examine (or even have people post) ideas that are contrary to their own.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is understood to mean a level of magic item availability upon which the speaker heaps bile and contempt. It in no way communicates how available magic items must be before the speaker expresses this contempt.

In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone. You seem to discern heaps of bile and contempt that are, IMHO, largely fictional (IME, it is more generally basic distaste)...but you certainly get the gist of what is being said.

It is equally clear that the text in the 3.X DMGs is not so well understood.

So, which is the problem in terms of clarity of language?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I think the 3.x DMG is very well written. The tone is often of the form 'You can do things this way or that way. If you do things this way, consider the ramifications X,Y and Z.' In other words it doesn't say this is how things are, it makes it clear that different options are available but choosing any one of those options has certain consequences, commits one to certain other options, and so forth. Perfect for a game that can be played in different ways - for example high magic or low magic.

A GM describing a campaign otoh has already decided how things are. He needs to communicate that state of affairs to his players, or potential players, as clearly and succinctly as possible. This requires a different, more precise, form of language.

Which brings us back to post #1. Quasqueton's point is that saying 'My game has no magic Wal-Marts' communicates very little, as one wouldn't normally expect literal magic Wal-Marts. It's like saying 'My game has no atomic weaponry' - true but pretty uninformative.

It's become apparent from this thread though that the above description is even more useless than Quasqueton thought as the writer might be referring to metaphorical magic Wal-Marts. Or literal. The reader has no way of knowing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the 3.x DMG is very well written.

The number of posters in various threads who interpret various bits in different ways notwithstanding. The fact that these interpretations are often, though at odds, viable interpretations of what is written notwithstanding.

It isn't a mess, but neither is it as clear as it could be.

Which brings us back to post #1. Quasqueton's point is that saying 'My game has no magic Wal-Marts' communicates very little, as one wouldn't normally expect literal magic Wal-Marts. It's like saying 'My game has no atomic weaponry' - true but pretty uninformative.

Answered ad infinitum ad nauseum upthread.


RC