The Magic-Walmart myth

[Shadeydm]

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.

Walmart: A store where you can buy just about anything.
Magic-Walmart: A store where you can buy just about any magic item (see v3.5 DMG guidelines for parameters).

Seems quite clear to me, I find it hard to believe that the majority of readers have a comprehension problem here. I also think it would be a very small minority of people who think that Walmart is bad/negative since they are the #1 retail chain in the USA last time I checked.
But, I seem to recall having said most of this in a prior post which you might have missed.

 

[Hussar]

Walmart: A store where you can buy just about anything.
Magic-Walmart: A store where you can buy just about any magic item (see v3.5 DMG guidelines for parameters).

Seems quite clear to me, I find it hard to believe that the majority of readers have a comprehension problem here. I also think it would be a very small minority of people who think that Walmart is bad/negative since they are the #1 retail chain in the USA last time I checked.
But, I seem to recall having said most of this in a prior post which you might have missed.

So we're back to the assumption that RAW presumes large single locations where magic items can be bought and sold? Despite the fact that RAW has no assumptions whatsoever about that? It could be true, but, by RAW, that is certainly not the default assumption.

If you think that being #1=positive PR, I would point to Microsoft. Heck, Pokemon is the best selling game around. Does that mean that Pokemount is intended as a compliment?

Again, let me ask, why would people be so quick to distance themselves from the term Magic Walmart if it had no negative connotations?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I never said that a derogatory term cannot be clear.

Oh, you asked when magic Walmarts would have descriptive value. IMO, never. It's simply too loaded a term to use with any value.

Perhaps you don't know what descriptive value means? That might be a term without sufficient descriptive value. I.e., unclear.

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.

That would be a different answer than "when magic Walmarts would have descriptive value. IMO, never. It's simply too loaded a term to use with any value."

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?

I didn't say that you were wrong about The Green Adam feeling that it was a mildly negative term. I said you were wrong in using hyperbolic language to describe his reaction.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

So we're back to the assumption that RAW presumes large single locations where magic items can be bought and sold?

That is a perfectly valid reading of the RAW, as has often been pointed out upthread. It is just not, IMHO, the best reading.

If you can supply some criteria by which we can determine that a term is clear enough for use, I'll be happy to discuss the clarity of the term with you. If not, I hope you understand why I'll be ignoring your already-answered-many-times points on that topic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, let me ask, why would people be so quick to distance themselves from the term Magic Walmart if it had no negative connotations?

There is no evidence whatsoever of people being "so quick" to distance themselves from the term. That is sheer hyperbole.

In fact, saying that The Green Adam felt his magic shop wasn't a Magic Walmart isn't "people" either. It is one example of one person whose post includes his statement that the shop isn't a Magic Walmart, but otherwise seems ambivilent toward the term.

Heck, I can see that, and I agree with you that the term is generally used in a negative sense.

RC

 

[NilesB]

Why are you guys arguing in favour of ambiguity? So vehemently that you are now calling me a caveman and comparing me to the Thought Police? Why does being ambiguous in your language mean so much to you?

Until another reasonable explanation arises, we must presume it is to violate the board's rules against name calling and personal attacks without being reprimanded by a moderator.

 

[Shadeydm]

So we're back to the assumption that RAW presumes large single locations where magic items can be bought and sold? Despite the fact that RAW has no assumptions whatsoever about that? It could be true, but, by RAW, that is certainly not the default assumption.

If you think that being #1=positive PR, I would point to Microsoft. Heck, Pokemon is the best selling game around. Does that mean that Pokemount is intended as a compliment?

Again, let me ask, why would people be so quick to distance themselves from the term Magic Walmart if it had no negative connotations?

NO, it does however say that you should be able to find most magic items in a large enough city which certainly allows for them to be sold out of a single establishment if the DM finds this to his advantage. I did not say that Walmart had great PR nor would I say that Microsoft does either (they also carry the same evil empire stigma that some would heap upon Walmart). But it would seem to be a difficult sell for you to say that Walmart isn't a store where you can buy almost anything to most folks. Yes there are some folks who think that Walmart is an evil empire but they are a vocal minority and many of them probably still shop there despite the rhetoric. Just as I am sure many DMs have a Magic-Walmart in thier campaign it doesn't mean that is what they need to call it, but it means that they would know what you meant by the term given the correct context.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Until another reasonable explanation arises, we must presume it is to violate the board's rules against name calling and personal attacks without being reprimanded by a moderator.

Or, perhaps, as has been said time and time again, the term is no more ambiguous, and carries a good deal more specific meaning, than any term that is proposed to replace it.

In effect, we are arguing against ambiguity.

Moreover, I make the specific claim that the poster(s) calling the term "ambiguous" or "unclear" specifically refuse to state what criteria constitute "clarity" or "descriptive value" because they know quite well that the term is clear.

 

[Hussar]

Perhaps you don't know what descriptive value means? That might be a term without sufficient descriptive value. I.e., unclear.

A term is without descriptive value when the term can be interpreted in various, and mutually exclusive, ways. Saying that you have or don't have Magic Walmarts doesn't actually tell me anything. Does it mean that you have/don't have large central locations? Does it mean that you allow/don't allow free trade in magic items? And that's just taking the most benign versions.

Yes, a word which is ambiguous lacks descriptive value. Perhaps you would like to define ambiguous?

That is a perfectly valid reading of the RAW, as has often been pointed out upthread. It is just not, IMHO, the best reading.

No, actually it isn't. RAW neither states, nor implies any mechanics as to how magic items are bought and sold. RAW is completely silent on the issue. How can RAW be read to mean something it doesn't actually say? RAW states that magic items can usually be bought and sold. Period. Anything beyond that is moving beyond RAW. Thus, while Magic Marts might be one idea, it is certainly not the only one, none of which is actually supported, or denied by RAW.

Actually, I do agree this is a mildly negative term. It's certainly less than say 3etard. But, again, why use a negatively loaded term when you don't have to? Unless, of course, you mean the negative connotations.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A term is without descriptive value when the term can be interpreted in various, and mutually exclusive, ways.

So, you are saying that you were wrong when you said that how "loaded" a term is has anything to do with descriptive value?

You are also saying that Magic Walmart can be interpreted in mutually exclusive ways? I have yet to see any evidence of that on this thread.

Also, by your definition, "D&D" has no value as a descriptive term.....actually, quite a bit less than Magic Walmart.

Perhaps you would like to define ambiguous?

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:ambiguous&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

A large word, phrase, sentence, or other communication is called ambiguous if it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. The simplest case is a single word with more than one sense: The word "bank", for example, can mean "financial institution", "edge of a river", or other things. Sometimes this is not a serious problem because a word that is ambiguous in isolation is often clear in context. ...​

(emphasis mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguous

No, actually it isn't. RAW neither states, nor implies any mechanics as to how magic items are bought and sold. RAW is completely silent on the issue. How can RAW be read to mean something it doesn't actually say? RAW states that magic items can usually be bought and sold. Period.

How can RAW both be silent on the issue, and "that magic items can usually be bought and sold"? Actually, RAW says quite a bit more. It says what size community, for example, an item can usually be found in. It also says, in the MIC, that if a player asks a DM if an item can be bought, the DM should say Yes.

Actually, I do agree this is a mildly negative term. It's certainly less than say 3etard. But, again, why use a negatively loaded term when you don't have to? Unless, of course, you mean the negative connotations.

The reason that it is less negative than 3etard is because 3etard targets a person while Magic Walmart targets a game mechanic or convention. And, when I use the term in a negative contextual sense, I use it that way because I mean it that way.

Same with any other term.


RC