The Magic-Walmart myth

[Doug McCrae]

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.​

It's true that all the senses of 'magic Wal-Mart' (apart from the negative connotation) are contained within the single sense of 'magic item trade'. The latter is a more precise term though as it would have fewer senses of meaning if it had a dictionary definition.

Magic Wal-Mart:
1) Magic items can be bought and sold.
2) Single big store.

Magic item trade:
1) Magic items can be bought and sold.

The meaning of sense (2) is contained within sense (1), but I see 'magic item trade' as being the more precise of the two terms as it has fewer senses of meaning.

For example if I say my game has Magic Wal-Marts, intending sense 1, a reader may interpret that as sense 2 and then criticise my game for being implausible. But that would be a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if I instead said my game had magic item trade. The reader still wouldn't know if there were literal magic shops. But they wouldn't *assume* there were.

Also the phrase is almost always used in negation. That was Quasqueton's example in post 1. 'My game doesn't contain Magic Wal-Marts' versus 'My game doesn't have trade in magic items.' The meaning of the latter sentence is clearer in every way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

From my perspective RC has "won"(if such a thing is actually possible) this thread at least 5 different times (a conservative estimate).

There's a joke about arguing on the internet being like competing in the Special Olympics, with a punchline I can't deliver on these boards. Suffice to say, we're all losers.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's true that all the senses of 'magic Wal-Mart' (apart from the negative connotation) are contained within the single sense of 'magic item trade'. The latter is a more precise term though as it would have fewer senses of meaning if it had a dictionary definition.

Magic Wal-Mart:
1) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
2) Single big store.

EDIT: The meaning of sense (2) is contained within sense (1), so a better definition might be "Magic items can be easily bought and sold, possibly within a single establishment, or within an area that acts as a single establishment for game purposes". Clear enough, says I, and far more precise than Magic Item Trade:

Magic Item Trade:
1) Magic items can be bought and sold with difficulty.
2) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
3) Magic items can be found in big stores.
4) Magic items can be bought from individual artisans.
5) Etc.

For example if I say my game has a Magic Item Trade, intending sense 2, a reader may interpret that as sense 1 and then criticise my game for being difficult and elitist. But that would be a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if I instead said my game had Magic Walmarts. The reader still wouldn't know there were literal magic shops. If I said there was a Magic Item Trade he might *assume* there were, or might *assume* there were not.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There's a joke about arguing on the internet being like competing in the Special Olympics, with a punchline I can't deliver on these boards. Suffice to say, we're all losers.

Amen.

 

[Shadeydm]

Yes, meanwhile that RFP im supposed to be working on is collecting dust because like a moth to the flame I find this stuff irresistable lol.

 

[gizmo33]

1) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.

For purposes of the definition - easy for who? The character or the player? I think sometimes there is some confusion here between a mechanic that removes some potentially annoying complexity from the game, and what that means (or doesn't mean) in terms of what's happening within the fantasy world. It would be like drawing conclusions about what travel/weather in Greyhawk is like based on the fact that the DM says "ok, you walk for 2 weeks and then you arrive at the destination".

 

[Raven Crowking]

For purposes of the definition - easy for who? The character or the player? I think sometimes there is some confusion here between a mechanic that removes some potentially annoying complexity from the game, and what that means (or doesn't mean) in terms of what's happening within the fantasy world. It would be like drawing conclusions about what travel/weather in Greyhawk is like based on the fact that the DM says "ok, you walk for 2 weeks and then you arrive at the destination".

Honestly, I think that this is a bit of a straw man.

If something is difficult, then for the most part it is played out in game time. You wouldn't, for example, handwave a fight with a difficult opponent, though you might for mooks that have no chance of affecting the PCs.

What you call "some potentially annoying complexity" I call "playing the game".

I would be hard pressed not to draw conclusions about what travel was like in a world where the DM routinely says "ok, you walk for 2 weeks and then you arrive at the destination" just as I would be hard pressed not to draw conclusions about what weather is like in a world where it is never mentioned, and never causes me any inconvenience.

For the purposes of the definition, though, I would say "easy for the players" as, IMHO & IME, no matter what the DM says, what is easy for the players automatically "feels" easy for the characters as well.

(Good question though.)

 

[Hussar]

Magic Wal-Mart:
1) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
2) Single big store.

EDIT: The meaning of sense (2) is contained within sense (1), so a better definition might be "Magic items can be easily bought and sold, possibly within a single establishment, or within an area that acts as a single establishment for game purposes". Clear enough, says I, and far more precise than Magic Item Trade:

Magic Item Trade:
1) Magic items can be bought and sold with difficulty.
2) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
3) Magic items can be found in big stores.
4) Magic items can be bought from individual artisans.
5) Etc.

For example if I say my game has a Magic Item Trade, intending sense 2, a reader may interpret that as sense 1 and then criticise my game for being difficult and elitist. But that would be a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if I instead said my game had Magic Walmarts. The reader still wouldn't know there were literal magic shops. If I said there was a Magic Item Trade he might *assume* there were, or might *assume* there were not.

However, the problem is, the reader has to assume based on nothing. No previous preconception about what "Magic item Trade" means, since the term does not carry any connotative meanings.

Magic Walmart, OTOH, can easily be assumed to have various meanings since it carries all that extra baggage.

ShadyDM, just because your group of gamers understands you, does not make that experience universal. Yes, there is some onus on the reader to attempt to understand what the writer is trying to say, but, there is a far greater onus on the author to use language which properly conveys his meaning. Knowing that "magic Walmart" carries negative baggage and is almost never used in a positive sense, means that using the term is likely going to be read as a negative. Despite the fact that others have posted to say that they have a single location that acts like a Magic Walmart, they've also been quick to point out how this differs from a Magic Walmart. Post 47 being a prime candidate.

Why would he so vehemently denounce calling his creation a Magic Walmart if Magic Walmart was the completely neutral term that some claim?

 

[Raven Crowking]

However, the problem is, the reader has to assume based on nothing. No previous preconception about what "Magic item Trade" means, since the term does not carry any connotative meanings.

Magic Walmart, OTOH, can easily be assumed to have various meanings since it carries all that extra baggage.

So, Magic Walmart is less clear because it has more meaning?

If we started, for example, with some criteria by which we can determine that a term is clear enough for use, we could then apply that criteria and see whether or not "Magic Walmart" is clear. Unfortunately, my request for such clarification has, thus far, fallen on deaf ears.

(Or, perhaps, clarifying how a term can be clear -- apart from claiming that a derogatory term cannot be clear -- includes with it a chance that, when examined, a term might be shown to be clear, making some perhaps reluctant to walk down that road.)

Despite the fact that others have posted to say that they have a single location that acts like a Magic Walmart, they've also been quick to point out how this differs from a Magic Walmart. Post 47 being a prime candidate.

Of course, others, such as myself, have posted to say that they have had a single location that acts like a Magic Walmart. Period.

Why would he so vehemently denounce calling his creation a Magic Walmart if Magic Walmart was the completely neutral term that some claim?

"Quick to point out" and "vehemently" must have little descriptive value, btw, if you mean Post 47 to demonstrate either.

 

[Hussar]

So, Magic Walmart is less clear because it has more meanings?

FIFY.

(Or, perhaps, clarifying how a term can be clear -- apart from claiming that a derogatory term cannot be clear -- includes with it a chance that, when examined, a term might be shown to be clear, making some perhaps reluctant to walk down that road.)

Sorry, never said that. Perhaps I'm not the only one in need of remedial reading classes. I never said that a derogatory term cannot be clear. I can think of all sorts of derogatory terms that would be crystal clear. Particularly after reading this thread.

What I said that if a term carries negative connotative baggage, then your meaning may not be clear if you don't intend that negative meaning. That's all I've been claiming since the very beginning. Unless, of course, you intend the negative meanings, then the term is simply derogatory and its meaning is clear.

This to me is far from a Magic Walmart and I can safely say my campaign would not be the same without it.

He's flat out stated, in no uncertain terms, that his central magic selling location is NOT a magic walmart. Why would he do so if Magic Walmart was such a neutral term?