The Magic-Walmart myth

[Raven Crowking]

Well, considering Walmart didn't hit #1 in America until 1990, it would be pretty unlikely that anyone would use the term "Magic Walmart" before 2e. And, even in 2e days, it would still be pretty unlikely outside of the US.

I think we can feel certain that the phrase was coined in the US.

I think we can reasonably suspect that the phrase was coined well before Walmart hit #1.

Moreover, I think we can feel certain that similar phrases were used before Walmart hit #1.

Of course, 2e at least was weird about the whole concept. They said, point blank, that buying and selling magic items wasn't a good idea. And they included the Arcane in the Core Rules.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

How do you know that? What proof do you have? Other than just "going with your gut".

Experience.

By your arguement, the following statement should be crystal clear:

My campaign has magic walmarts but doesn't have magic walmarts.​

So, what does the above statement mean?

That, in your desperation to avoid admitting that the term is no more vague than "magic item trade" you're creating a straw man.

By your arguement, the following statement should be crystal clear:

My campaign has a magic item trade but doesn't have a magic item trade.​

So, what does the above statement mean?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't know what 'Magic Wal-Mart' means.

Doug, I have to respect your willingness to say that. But, if I were to replace the term with "magic item trade", it might mean a single magic item shop with a large stock. It probably refers to the default 3.5 position on magic item trade. The writer might think that a single shop is the default position. The writer might know that it is not but wish to imply that it is.

The only difference is that "magic item trade" does not, at this time, have a negative connotation.

This is still a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the easy purchase and sale of magic items?" Or also, in this case, "If you're going to express such a distaste, can you do it in a fashion that better entertains me?"

(With the understanding that, thus far, "If you're going to express such a distaste, can you do it in a fashion that better entertains me?" is by far the best argument I've yet heard for MagicMart being replaced with another term. )

 

[Hussar]

Experience.



That, in your desperation to avoid admitting that the term is no more vague than "magic item trade" you're creating a straw man.

By your arguement, the following statement should be crystal clear:

My campaign has a magic item trade but doesn't have a magic item trade.​

So, what does the above statement mean?

But, Magic Item Trade does not carry the same connotative meanings as Magic Walmart, thus, your statement falls apart. Because Magic item trade is not vague, you cannot use it that way.

However, Magic Walmart, as evinced in this thread, can mean "a single location where magic is bought and sold" AND that magic items can be easily bought and sold. Thus the statement, "My campaign has magic walmarts but doesn't have magic walmarts" can easily mean,

My campaign allows for easy trade in magic items but not in a single location for all items.​

See the difference?

As far as your experience goes RC, well, you were very quick to discount Quasqueton's experience earlier in this thread. What makes your experience any more universal?

 

[Imp]

Magic E-Bay.

Die, argument, die.

 

[Hussar]

Magic E-Bay.

Die, argument, die.

The, Arguement, The?

Now that doesn't make any sense.

 

[Numion]

I think it speaks volumes on whether the term "Magic Walmart" is mostly used as insulting, that people are quick to state "My game doesn't have Magic Walmarts", but nobody ever states their games do have them.

If the term was without negative connotations and it was as easily understood as RC says, people would have no problem saying they have them in-game.

Further, the argument that something isn't an insult because the user doesn't think so .. um, my grandpa seems to thinks so also; he uses several racial terms most would consider racist, but aren't in his mind (since that's what schoolbooks said in his day). Doesn't make him right. Not trying to make the things equal, but ..

 

[Shadeydm]

WalMart: a store where you can buy just about anything.
Magic-WalMart: a store where you can buy just about any magic item.

Magic item trade in DnD 3.5 boils down to; in a large enough city with enough gold you can buy just about any magic item.

When I tell the players in my groups "there are no Magic-Walmarts" they know exactly what I mean. There is no assumption by the other two DMs in the group that I have crapped upon thier gaming style or upon thier game. I have instead with two simple terms (no magic-walmarts) conveyed the parameters of my game regarding magic item trade. I cannot say no magic shops because there are in fact magic shops.

This is a very simple concept why a handful of people can't understand this boggles the mind and leads me to believe its mostly about stubborness. Anything can be considered insulting by anyone. As much as you want to imply that Walmart is bad or wrong nothing could be further from the truth. Walmart fills a much needed role for a lot of people in this country. The same role Kmart filled before it and Sears before it and Woolworth before it etc etc. What ever baggage you have against Walmart get over it.

 

[Numion]

This is a very simple concept why a handful of people can't understand this boggles the mind and leads me to believe its mostly about stubborness.

Right back at ya. There's only a handful of active people on either side of the argument.

Anything can be considered insulting by anyone.

Ergo, nothing is really insulting?

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, Magic Item Trade does not carry the same connotative meanings as Magic Walmart, thus, your statement falls apart.

WTF?

Because Magic item trade is not vague, you cannot use it that way.

Obviously, you understand Magic Walmart much better than Magic Iten Trade, because Magic Item Trade can indeed mean "a single location where magic is bought and sold" AND that magic items can be easily bought and sold. Thus the statement, "My campaign has a Magic Item Trade but doesn't have a Magic Item Trade" can easily mean,

My campaign allows for easy trade in magic items but not in a single location for all items.​

See the difference?

It exists only in your mind, my friend.

As far as your experience goes RC, well, you were very quick to discount Quasqueton's experience earlier in this thread. What makes your experience any more universal?

You will note, I hope, that I didn't say my experience was universal. I said "something along the lines of 80-99% of readers are going to know what I mean". Clearly I do not mean those readers I have never dealt with. I am not saying, for example, that people in your home gaming group would know what I mean.

RC