The Magic-Walmart myth

[Doug McCrae]

And still, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "MagicMart" valuable as a descriptive term. Wonder why?

'Magic Wal-Mart' is the term under discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

'Magic Wal-Mart' is the term under discussion.

Semantics. And still, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "Magic Wal-Mart" valuable as a descriptive term, either. Wonder why?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't think there is a more loaded term being used in this thread than wrongbadfun, its the messageboard equivalent of playing the race card to win an argument.

I'm not a wrongbadfunist, some of my best friends ride pokemounts!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Going back to the original post for a moment, if I might.

Whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (or Magimarts, etc.). This kind of statement makes no sense.

It is interesting to note that on one hand, the OP opines that the phrase is widely used, and presumably understands what is meant by the phrase, yet on the other hand that it also makes no sense.

The setting suggested in the core rules has no "Magic-Walmarts". Greyhawk has no Magic-Walmarts. I'm not real familiar with Eberron or Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they have Magic-Walmart-style stores either.

Examination of the core rules and various settings has shown that the "best reading" says they do not mandate Magic-Walmarts. However, it is nonetheless quite easy to read the core rules (and some settings) and conclude that they do have Magic-Walmarts. How these sections read depend very much upon the "filter" applies by the reader. The Magic Item Compendium suggests that, if a player asks you if he can buy any particular magic item, that you say Yes. No gp limit is mentioned. It is very easy to read these rules differently than they were, perhaps, intended.

The only times I've ever heard of anything like a Magic-Walmart in a D&D campaign, it was in a 1984 Dragon magazine, and when I played one game session with a new DM around 1991. Both of those were aberrations from the norm.

Those who believe that Magic-Walmarts are a 3e phenomenon, please take note. In 1984, 1e was the norm. In 1991, the game du jour was 2e.

So, saying your preference/setting is low magic "with no Magic-Walmarts" is like saying your preference/setting is low power -- no god killing PCs. 99% of everyone's preference and setting qualifies as low magic if the definition is "no Magic-Walmarts."

This doesn't follow. Quasqueton offers scant (if any) evidence of what the norm is, and has another thread devoted to the question of why what seemed like the norm in 1e for various people is so widely diverse. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that, merely because Quasqueton's experience includes few Magic-Walmarts, that the average experience is the same. Moreover, we have commentary from several people on this thread that contradict Quasqueton's experience. Even Quasqueton's experience, unless he has played with over 100 DMs, precludes his conclusion that 99% of everyone's preference and setting qualifies as low magic if the definition is "no Magic-Walmarts."

Therefore, we must conclude that this premise is false.

Is "high magic" defined by the existence of Magic-Walmarts? If so, there are very, very few high magic settings. Other than the two strange situations I mention above, I've never seen or heard of any.

While the inclusion of object X might make a setting high magic, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X is mandatory to make a setting high magic. While the inclusion of object X might be a component of a high magic setting, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X automatically makes a setting high magic.

We can safely say that "high magic" is not defined by the existence of Magic-Walmarts.

Moreover, this is reinforced by the observation that whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (which must be taken as a bit of hyperbole). If someone equated high magic to the inclusion of Magic-Walmarts, they would not need additional clarification

So why does this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick? If a DM was trying to entice me to his game by saying it was low magic because there are no Magic-Walmarts, I'd have laugh. "So, it's just like Forgotten Realms, then?"

Clearly, this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick because there is not a strict correlation between low magic and no Magic-Walmarts. One can have high magic without Magic-Walmarts, and one can arguably have low magic with Magic-Walmarts.

RC

 

[gizmo33]

As the saying goes, when you AssUMe....

Ironically, I'd have to assume I know the last part of this expression. Not a strong case for why non-literal issues in communication are significant.

 

[Hussar]

Semantics. And still, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "Magic Wal-Mart" valuable as a descriptive term, either. Wonder why?

I did answer this. None. There is no criteria which would make magic walmart valuable as a descriptive term. Why is that hard to believe? That a politically loaded word with negative connotations is a bad phrase to use when describing something seems pretty self evident.

Of course, reading what is written would help as well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

There is no criteria which would make magic walmart valuable as a descriptive term.

Thank you for making that crystal clear. I didn't want to assume an answer earlier, as you've already accused me of misquoting you when I wasn't quoting you.

I myself would argue that the criteria which would make X valuable as a descriptive terms would be the same as the criteria which would make Y valuable as a descriptive term, regardless of what X and Y are. Of course, I think a thing is a descriptive term or not regardless about how one actually feels about it. I also tend to think that the value of a descriptive term is inherently based upon how well understood that term is. I certainly wouldn't argue that a descriptive term has no value based on connotations (political, derogatory, or otherwise). Connotative meanings add value to descriptive terms.

"Bonehead" may be derogatory, but has value as a descrptive term, for instance, because it is easily understood by almost everyone. Conversely, a term like "liberal" (which has both political and sometimes derogatory denotation/connotation) has lost some descriptive value not because of these denotations/connotations, but because the widely disparate modern useage has prevented it from being as easily understood by society as a whole.

Claiming that you understand what is meant by a term, while at the same time claiming that the term has no descriptive value, is exactly equivilent to claiming that you don't know what huzzuwits are, but you know that you don't like them. It is a rational contradiction.

You say the term has no value as a descriptive term, and could have no value under any criteria. You then say "That a politically loaded word with negative connotations is a bad phrase to use when describing something seems pretty self evident."

This makes it clear that the criteria for Magic Walmart being a valuable descriptive term, far from being none, is that it somehow loses all "political" and "negative connotations". In other words, it is not the term you are objecting to per se, it is instead the meaning of the term you are objecting to. One should not say what "Magic Walmart" or "Pokemount" mean. And that, my friend, is an attempt to control the content of conversation.

As Gentlegamer said, "It would seem there's a certain Ministry of Truth mindset at work here that would like to do that very thing . . ."

RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Bonehead" may be derogatory, but has value as a descrptive term, for instance, because it is easily understood by almost everyone. Conversely, a term like "liberal" (which has both political and sometimes derogatory denotation/connotation) has lost some descriptive value not because of these denotations/connotations, but because the widely disparate modern useage has prevented it from being as easily understood by society as a whole.

It's also possible that the terms come to mean different things for different speakers, and the loss of value is not in the usage per se, but in different interpretations of the word in different cultural milieu. If I say "fag," as an American, I'll be meaning something quite a bit apart from if I say it as a Brit, after all. And if I'm a Brit speaking to an American, I'll have two choices once I realize the terms have different (both legitimate) meanings: continue to use the term, be often misunderstood, and insist that I have every right to use the term, that it is accurate, and that others should make the effort to understand me. OR, speak in such a way that my language will be understood -- often by using a different term. Perhaps I will loose some of the zingy punch of calling my smokestick a fag, but I will gain an understanding of the content of my message. And if that's not my goal, maybe I'm only talking to hear my own voice after all, and not to actually convey some meaning to those who listen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

KM,

You again conflate a term that is derogatory to a person with a term derogatory to an idea.

This has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum.

In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone. The only thing in large dispute at this point is whether or not a term derogatory to an idea is automatically derogatory toward anyone who might like that idea.

RC

 

[Shadeydm]

I believe post #394 sums it all up quite well, nicely done RC!