The Magic-Walmart myth

[Odhanan]

I'll just pitch in to repeat my own stand: I think it is not AT ALL about censuring terms. It's about the individual responsibility of formulating your argument to convey what you actually mean to the wider audience, not just to the people who think the same way you do, or there isn't any point in a discussion.

I personally think that terms like say, "munchkin", "powergamer", "drama queen", "MagicMart", "Pokemount" and others are always damaging a discussion rather than helping it. I think this thread is a proof of that.

I got to ask: What the hell is wrong with saying "people who like fighting, looting, and the overall acquisition of power in the game" rather than "munchkin"? RC speaks of the readers' entitlement as a sickness. Hmmm.

First off, that has nothing to do with the reader's entitlement but with what we, as writers, want to convey as a message and where we want the conversation to go. Second, if there's a sickness, IMO, that's the notion that insults are always in the eye of the beholder, that saying "the n-word" is okay because "I don't mean it as an insult", this sort of dismissive apathy that screams "either you understand words like I do, and you're okay, or you don't, and you're not worth talking to". That's the three monkeys, you know?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Psychology and Management

An increasing amount of research is concentrating on how people react and respond to ambiguous and uncertain situations. Much of this focuses on ambiguity tolerance. A number of correlations have been found between an individual’s reaction and tolerance to ambiguity and a range of factors.

Apter and Desselles (2001)[3] for example, found a strong correlation with such attributes and factors like a greater preference for safe as opposed to risk based sports, a preference for endurance type activities as opposed to explosive activities, a more organised and less casual lifestyle, greater care and precision in descriptions, a lower sensitivity to emotional and unpleasant words, a less acute sense of humour, engaging a smaller variety of sexual practices than their more risk comfortable colleagues, a lower likelihood of the use of drugs, pornography and drink, a greater likelihood of displaying obsessional behaviour.

 

[Doug McCrae]

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.

I think what you're doing here is conflating the idea of a single broad sense with multiple narrow senses. 'Magic item trade' has a single but broad sense. It's true that all those possibilities above (1-4) reside within it. But because it is a single sense, the reader is aware of that. I don't think a reader would make the assumption you say. If he did, he would be making an error, the fault would be on him, not the writer. By rights, he can make no such assumptions.

'Magic Wal-Mart' otoh has multiple senses. One of them is broad and in fact has the same meaning as 'magic item trade'. Another is narrow - a single large store. This in itself is a simplification as we're ignoring the negative connotations, which are an additional layer of meaning. So because 'Magic Wal-Mart' contains all the meaning of 'magic item trade', if confusion can occur as you say above (but I don't believe it would) then it's more likely with the former term.

However I proposed 'magic item trade' as a replacement for MW-M in the negation statement - 'My game does not contain X'. That's where it is at its best, conveying a far clearer meaning than MW-M. Even where it is a lot weaker, in the positive statement - 'My game does contain X', it's still stronger.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I personally think that terms like say, "munchkin", "powergamer", "drama queen", "MagicMart", "Pokemount" and others are always damaging a discussion rather than helping it. I think this thread is a proof of that.

I personally think that "munchkin", "powergamer", and "drama queen" target people, which is an important distinction between them and "MagicMart" or "Pokemount".

RC speaks of the readers' entitlement as a sickness. Hmmm.

Umm.....I was lampooning my own side there.

that saying "the n-word" is okay because "I don't mean it as an insult", this sort of dismissive apathy that screams "either you understand words like I do, and you're okay, or you don't, and you're not worth talking to".

A term that dismisses a game mechanic, when used to dismiss a game mechanic, is in no way equivilient to using the N-word. If you think it is.........well, honestly, I can't think of anything to follow that at all. I hope you do not think it is.

I'm calling that one an already oft-repeated and oft-answered strawman.

 

[Doug McCrae]

It's true that MW-M is one of many ambiguous terms in roleplaying. 'Munchkin', 'powergamer' and 'min-max' are also good examples. There's massive disagreement about what these terms mean. I never use 'munchkin' but I have to admit I do use the other two, which means I am not as clear as I could be and am myself committing the same error as those who use 'Magic Wal-Mart' without clarification.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think what you're doing here is conflating the idea of a single broad sense with multiple narrow senses. 'Magic item trade' has a single but broad sense. It's true that all those possibilities above (1-4) reside within it.

<snip>

'Magic Wal-Mart' otoh has multiple senses. One of them is broad

So, both terms have one broad sense and multiple narrow senses. But "Magic Item Trade" can contain all the meanings of "Magic Walmart", whereas (as opposed to what you said) "Magic Walmart" is limited to only a subset of meanings encompassed by "Magic Item Trade". For example, "Magic Walmart" never means a difficult procedure to buy and sell magic items, which "Magic Item Trade" can (and for some, does) mean.

"Magic Item Trade" is a broader, less specific, term than "Magic Walmart". If you are painting in broad strokes, it might be the way to go. If you mean something more specific, it is not.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's true that MW-M is one of many ambiguous terms in roleplaying. 'Munchkin', 'powergamer' and 'min-max' are also good examples. There's massive disagreement about what these terms mean. I never use 'munchkin' but I have to admit I do use the other two, which means I am not as clear as I could be and am myself committing the same error as those who use 'Magic Wal-Mart' without clarification.

Or "D&D".

 

[Odhanan]

A term that dismisses a game mechanic, when used to dismiss a game mechanic, is in no way equivilient to using the N-word. If you think it is.........well, honestly, I can't think of anything to follow that at all. I hope you do not think it is.

Nah, I don't think it is, of course. The use of the N-word is obviously much, much worse. But the type of justification is the same, and is therefore just as faulty. That's what I mean.

I personally think that "munchkin", "powergamer", and "drama queen" target people, which is an important distinction between them and "MagicMart" or "Pokemount".

Some people just do not take it that way. How is it so hard to understand? Wait. I don't think that's hard to understand. I think the considerations is just dismissed because it would be faulty. Well, that doesn't matter because you won't change people's minds about it! People who would take it as an insult and would talk to you in a very constructive, very profitable way if you weren't using the word in the first place. You can't control other people. The only control you can exercise is over yourself. So... why not?

 

[Doug McCrae]

For example, "Magic Walmart" never means a difficult procedure to buy and sell magic items

I think it could include that, if it's in the negation phrase. The writer might mean his game contains no magic item trade whatsoever. I'm not certain, but I think I've seen Emirikol use it that way.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nah, I don't think it is, of course. The use of the N-word is obviously much, much worse. But the type of justification is the same, and is therefore just as faulty. That's what I mean.

The type of justification is the same?

Are you actually suggesting that I need to justify using a term like MagicMart or Pokemon?

Do you actually not understand the difference between people and game mechanics?

As I have said before, if we want to get rid of all of this rigamarole about clarity (having demonstrated repeatedly that the term is as, or more, clear than any replacement), and concentrate on whether or not the connotations are sufficient to discourage its use, then we might have a profitable discussion.

This could be the begining of it.

People who would take it as an insult and would talk to you in a very constructive, very profitable way if you weren't using the word in the first place. You can't control other people. The only control you can exercise is over yourself. So... why not?

Possibly. Possibly not.

Of course, people have taken offense to 3e being called "D&D". They feel that calling 3e D&D is a negative remark toward game systems that they have known and loved, and have requested that it be referred to instead as the more neutral term "D20 Fantasy".

If you could agree that 3e and 3.5e should henceforth be called "D20 Fantasy" I suppose I could agree that Magic Walmarts should henceforth be called "The Magic Trade". I guarantee, though, that within a 6-month period, we'll start having people say that "The Magic Trade" is used to connote an elitist attitude, etc., etc.

I think it could include that, if it's in the negation phrase. The writer might mean his game contains no magic item trade whatsoever. I'm not certain, but I think I've seen Emirikol use it that way.

I think not.

"No magic item trade whatsoever" is a broad concept that might include narrow concepts, but the narrow concept on its own is never meant by the term. Meanwhile, Magic Item Trade can mean both.