The Magic-Walmart myth

[Raven Crowking]

Really? Whenever Tolkien gets a mention in a thread, we spend fifteen pages arguing minor details or discussing authorial intent.

Which has what to do with Pokemounts or Magic Walmarts?

As Doug McCrae rightly points out, the point of this discussion is whether or not a term like Magic Walmart has any real descriptive value. My opinion would be "not really".

Despite the fact that you are sure "we could pick out examples of actual Magic Walmarts"?

they are certainly not assumed by RAW

So what?

Many campaign settings also do not assume this either.

Again, so what?

It's pretty much the same as me saying, "Hey, my campaign doesn't have M16's". While it might be very true, it's pretty rare that a player would assume that they can buy them, despite the fact that the rules for M16's exist in the DMG.

So, you think that the presence of Magic Walmarts in campaigns is roughly as common as M16s? Despite the fact that several posters here have already confirmed them as being far more common?

So, "No Magic Walmarts" doesn't really tell me anything about your setting, other than "My setting adheres to RAW."

No, because the RAW neither assumes nor doesn't assume Magic Walmarts. The wording of the RAW is equally valid for either assumption.

As an added bonus, it can come off as a wrongbadfun comparison, implying that anyone who does allow shopping for magic items is guilty of lazy DMing. Not that this is necessarily meant, but, it can be interpreted this way.

So can discussing using APs and prewritten modules. Would you care to stop discussing WLD?

Now, we have magic shopping being equated with video gamey. And not in a good way. Let's see, we've had comparisons to Anime, Video Games, all we need is a direct Dungeon Punk reference to 3e art and we got ourselves an edition war.

"I simply don't allow players to flip open the DMG point and click and bingo they have bought one." sounds more like Amazon.Com to me (a MagicMart comparison) than a video game comparison. Yes, I think you are being far too sensitive.

RC

 

[Hussar]

"I simply don't allow players to flip open the DMG point and click and bingo they have bought one." sounds more like Amazon.Com to me (a MagicMart comparison) than a video game comparison. Yes, I think you are being far too sensative.

And I think you're being deliberately argumentative. Having yanked my chain earlier in the thread, you feel the need to continue to do so.

You seem to imply that just because you don't mean something to be insulting, no one can ever take umbrage from what you say. As I said before, good luck with that.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As Doug McCrae rightly points out, the point of this discussion is whether or not a term like Magic Walmart has any real descriptive value. My opinion would be "not really".

I'd be curious to find out exactly under what circumstances you would think the term had descriptive value.

 

[FireLance]

The illustration of a wizard with a shopping cart examining a magic wand (presumably) from a box of wands marked "Sale!" and a container of staves in the background on pg 21 of the 2nd Edition supplement DM Option: High-Level Campaigns is the one true depiction of a magic shop. The illustration of Regdar and Tordek trying on magic boots on pages 76 and 77 of the Magic Item Compendium is so dungeonpunk.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And I think you're being deliberately argumentative. Having yanked my chain earlier in the thread, you feel the need to continue to do so.

I don't play many video games (fewer than 1 a year average), so "point & click" might have some significance that I am missing. But it seems more like one-stop-shopping to me than it seems video-gamey. Perhaps ShadyDM could clarify what he meant?

You seem to imply that just because you don't mean something to be insulting, no one can ever take umbrage from what you say. As I said before, good luck with that.

No. I am saying (not implying) that the reader has the responsibility to attempt to read as the writer intended. I am also saying that this constant "worry that you might offend someone with your words, so use the blandest possible descriptors" is potentially damaging to both language and culture.

There is a limit to political correctness, a point where it ceases to be a tool and becomes a burden. Where that point is, of course, is open to debate. I just think that, when you cannot discuss a game for fear of being accused of "wrongbadfun phrases" that you are far, far, over that point.

YMMV, and obviously does.

EDIT: I am still curious to find out exactly under what circumstances you would think the term had descriptive value. The easiest way to examine the question is to day IF this THEN it has value. We can then (hopefully) determine whether "this" is met, or is an impossible standard, and can then determine whether the position that it has value or not is a rational one.

 

[Odhanan]

Please tell me by what rational means you determine how the use of the term "pokemount" closes doen any meaningful discourse. I've never noticed that effect. I've seen terms like anime, Tolkienesque, MagicMart, and pokemount on thread after thread, and I've never seen them close down meaningful discourse.

I think you're fooling yourself on this one, RC. These loaded terms nearly always trigger a reaction that is detrimental to the discussion at hand. It may not "close" the discussion per se, but it does change its tone and the expectations/reactions of the participants significantly.

In my experience, these loaded terms would be better off the table completely.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

In my experience, these loaded terms would be better off the table completely.

Agreed. Any of the listed terms might be said/written/included for completely innocent reasons. The user of the term might not even be aware that the other side considers it "bad". Once it is known what either side cosiders to be a loaded/insulting/"bad" term it's up to both sides to try and stay away from them; otherwise the conversation is going to have problems.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you're fooling yourself on this one, RC.

I'll certainly agree with Hussar that, if you begin to discuss, say, the minutia of Tolkein's work, that the discussion becomes derailed along that topic because people have an interest in it. This is similar to the way that mentioning Howard's The Hour of the Dragon caused a few posts to be about the novel rather than MagicMarts in D&D.

But if the term "Magic Walmart" automatically made what followed essentially useless, then this entire thread, beyond the first post, would be essentially useless.

But if the question is, does the term "Magic Walmart" or its derivatives have descriptive value, then that is a different question than "is that descriptive value outweighed by negative connotations?"

IMHO, at least.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Agreed. Any of the listed terms might be said/written/included for completely innocent reasons. The user of the term might not even be aware that the other side considers it "bad". Once it is known what either side cosiders to be a loaded/insulting/"bad" term it's up to both sides to try and stay away from them; otherwise the conversation is going to have problems.

Well, that'll rather instantly make anyone who dislikes the current paladin's mount have a harder time expressing that dislike. They won't be able to say that it reminds them of....well, anything, because we remove the terms pokemount, anime, pokemon, etc. That will certainly make things more comfortable for some.

Then we can also make sure that we remove the terms that might mean the same thing (after all, they might be taken in the same way). So, not only will we remove "railroad" and "railroady" as a description of an adventure, but "linear", "limiting", and "limited" as well.

We will also, I feel sure, remove any "slaps" against earlier editions. Indeed, since anything that can identify the edition spoken about might cause an edition war or be considered "bad" we should remove all reference to anything edition-specific.

The term "wrongbadfun" is about as offensive as any term on this board. IMHO, at least. It'll have to go. So will any statement about preferences, because they might be conceived of as criticism against opposing preferences.

Mentioning Tolkein can derail threads. So, too, can mentioning other authors and/or media. Better not mention them anymore. Or video games.

The conversation won't have problems because it won't exist.

 

[Odhanan]

I'll certainly agree with Hussar that, if you begin to discuss, say, the minutia of Tolkein's work, that the discussion becomes derailed along that topic because people have an interest in it. This is similar to the way that mentioning Howard's The Hour of the Dragon caused a few posts to be about the novel rather than MagicMarts in D&D.

But if the term "Magic Walmart" automatically made what followed essentially useless, then this entire thread, beyond the first post, would be essentially useless.

I think you're making a shortcut here between elements that have a connection to the topic and bring something to it with their share of sidetracks and sub-topics and the use of specific terms that carry a a shortcut, opinion-loaded semantic to them. That's the latter I'm discussing, not the former. Let's not put apples and oranges in the same basket here.

But if the question is, does the term "Magic Walmart" or its derivatives have descriptive value, then that is a different question than "is that descriptive value outweighed by negative connotations?"

IMHO, at least.

I think what matters, when I write it, is not what "I" think I cover with the use of the loaded term, but what other people discussing and responding to it are likely to think when they read/hear such a word. In other words, how I define it does not matter, because I understand what I mean from the start. What matters is what I want others to understand. If I know that some word or another is likely to trigger some negative reaction because it would be misunderstood, then I just don't use it and try to use alternate means of explanation.

Either you don't know what reactions these words trigger, and you may be surprised by the reaction the first time you use it, or you know what reaction they trigger, and in this case, you either use it and aren't surprised if what you say is completely misunderstood, or you don't to actually try to convey the meaning of what you're really trying to say, don't you think?