The Magic-Walmart myth

[Odhanan]

Since the expression is used time and time again, I would like to precise it is wrongly spelled.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseam would be the correct way.
If you want to indicate repetitive arguments, argumentum ad infinitum is correct as well.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Since the expression is used time and time again, I would like to precise it is wrongly spelled.

Ad infinitum, ad nauseam would be the correct way.
If you want to indicate repetitive arguments, argumentum ad infinitum is correct as well.

Thank you, sir.

 

[Odhanan]

Happy to oblige, my friend.

 

[Sound of Azure]

Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means?

To be perfectly frank RC, I didn't even know what a Walmart was until I visited North America back in 2001. We don't have them down here, and apparently they aren't around in Europe either. It was obviously some kind of large retail chain, but that's all I'd have to go on until I went looking for information.

A lot of North American things are common in the world market and consciousness, but they are far from ubiquitous. The cultural capital is simply not present here, and does not hold the same connotations as it would in North America. It's one reason I prefer Magic Mart (more generic) as opposed to Magic Walmart (more specific).

Finally, there is a difference between saying that there is more than one meaning for a word (that is, the term Magic Walmart being non-transparent, and not with a single meaning that overrides all others) and not knowing the meaning of a word. You keep repeating (Ad infinitum, ad nauseam) the quoted text as if Nellesir et al are saying #2, where I feel it is closer to #1. I'd rather think better of people than assume they are ignorant.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I think it needs to be said that more than one person can be right. I also think it's never a bad thing to be respectful of other people/posters.

...

I'm not entirely sure why I jumped in with these comments (especially so late in the conversation), since it seems unlikely that anyone would listen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A lot of North American things are common in the world market and consciousness, but they are far from ubiquitous.

Of course not, but one doesn't need to know much more than "large retail chain" to understand the term.

Finally, there is a difference between saying that there is more than one meaning for a word (that is, the term Magic Walmart being non-transparent, and not with a single meaning that overrides all others) and not knowing the meaning of a word.

Sure. But this has been dealt with so many times upthread that, by this time, anything that I might say would be simple repetition. Many, many, many terms used in everyday life have multiple meanings, and we determine which meaning to apply by examining the context in which it appears. Most people are capable of doing this subconsciously most of the time.

Repeatedly, we have heard people arguing that Magic Walmart isn't a good term because it isn't well defined enough to have a discrete meaning, so we should replace it with a term that carries a less discrete meaning (such as magic shop), and besides, (paradoxically) its understood meaning connotes dismissal of the concept.

In order to claim that X isn't a good term because it is not transparent enough to be easily understood, and therefore should be replaced by Y, Y would have to be a more transparent term than X. None of the suggested Y terms, in fact, is more transparent than X. What every term Y has in common (and, in one case, this is commented on) is that it removes meaning from the term it is meant to replace.

You keep repeating (Ad infinitum, ad nauseam) the quoted text as if Nellesir et al are saying #2, where I feel it is closer to #1. I'd rather think better of people than assume they are ignorant.

I feel, at this point, that it is honestly closer to neither. There is more than one meaning to the word "bear" but that doesn't making it valueless as a descriptive term. What makes a term valueless is that, even given context, you can't understand it. You can differentiate why it cannot be understood (which, IMHO, your #1 & #2 does), but if the term is understood, neither #1 nor #2 make it valueless as a descriptive term. Your #1, in the event that the term is understood in context, increases rather than decreases descriptive value.

OTOH, people upthread have argued that the term cannot have descriptive value on the basis of it being derogatory. One person, at least, did so explicitly.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I think it needs to be said that more than one person can be right.

Absolutely. I dislike the pokemount flavour text/mechanics. You might like them. That's subjective, and we can both be right.

I might find, for my purposes, that MagicMart works well as a descriptive word. You might not like the word, or you might not understand it, either one leading to your not using the word. If I say that the term is comprehensible to almost everyone I use it with, and you say that it is not comprehensible to you or your friends, we can still both be right.

However, if you say that the term has no descriptive value, and therefore should not be used by anyone, and I say that it does, then we cannot both be right.

I also think it's never a bad thing to be respectful of other people/posters.

I would agree, but I don't think that showing distaste for a game mechanic should be considered disrespectful to other people/posters. OTOH, I think that telling other people/posters that they should not show their distaste for a game mechanic is enormously disrespectful.

I'm not entirely sure why I jumped in with these comments (especially so late in the conversation), since it seems unlikely that anyone would listen.

Well, I can understand that. But, again, so long as you're adding something to the conversation, I'll listen. I've changed my mind about things in the past; I am able to do so in the future. All that's required is a position that makes more sense than the one I currently occupy, or strong enough reason to believe that my position makes no sense.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't know what 'Magic Wal-Mart' means. It might mean a single magic item shop with a large stock. It probably refers to the default 3.5 position on magic item trade in a disparaging way. It might, as Ourph says, refer to the default 3.5 position in a non-disparaging way. The writer might think that a single shop is the default position. The writer might know that it is not but wish to imply that it is.

And the problem is that, unlike 'bear', the different meanings aren't clear from context.

I think the strongest possible defence of the term is to say that it is disparaging and that that is a good thing, because you believe 3.5's magic item trade rules are ridiculous. That would leave you with the following problems:

1) Not everyone thinks it is disparaging, as this thread has demonstrated, so you won't get your point across. Whether you wish to mock, or not to mock, there's more precise language available.
2) Adding fuel to the edition war blaze.
3) When it was first coined, it was clever. Now it's worn out. If you want to mock, do it with a bit of style and wit. Be original. Make up your own term.

 

[Nellisir]

I realize I said I was done, but there are a number of points here that I disagree with, and may shed some light on the disagreement.

Of course not, but one doesn't need to know much more than "large retail chain" to understand the term.

I disagree. Knowing Wal-Mart is a large retail chain (the largest, I believe, worldwide), is certainly fundamental, but there are connotations to Wal-Mart that don't exist with, say, Target or Ikea, and those connotations are important to establishing Magic Wal-Mart as a negative - not a neutral - term.

Repeatedly, we have heard people arguing that Magic Walmart isn't a good term

Yes.

because it isn't well defined enough to have a discrete meaning,

Not from me

so we should replace it with a term that carries a less discrete meaning (such as magic shop),

yes, but because of the reason below, not the reason above

and besides, (paradoxically) its understood meaning connotes dismissal of the concept.

Yes.

In order to claim that X isn't a good term because it is not transparent enough to be easily understood, and therefore should be replaced by Y, Y would have to be a more transparent term than X. None of the suggested Y terms, in fact, is more transparent than X. What every term Y has in common (and, in one case, this is commented on) is that it removes meaning from the term it is meant to replace.

The only difference between magic shop and magic wal-mart, in my opinion, is that the former is neutral, and the latter is negative. It seems that you don't view magic wal-mart as negative, or that you have no problem using negative terms (which is above and beyond a simple disagreement). In either case, there's a disagreement about the term magic wal-mart that does not exist with magic shop, yet both refer to the same fundamental concept in RPGs. The only meaning that is removed is the negativity, which isn't anymore necessary to a respectful conversation than swearing.

OTOH, people upthread have argued that the term cannot have descriptive value on the basis of it being derogatory. One person, at least, did so explicitly.

Not I. Derogatory terms absolutely have descriptive value. Derogatory descriptive value. If they didn't have value, they wouldn't be derogatory - they'd be meaningless.

I might find, for my purposes, that MagicMart works well as a descriptive word. You might not like the word, or you might not understand it, either one leading to your not using the word. If I say that the term is comprehensible to almost everyone I use it with, and you say that it is not comprehensible to you or your friends, we can still both be right.

Part of my objection, as stated upthread, is that I have rarely, if ever, seen the term magic wal-mart used in a respectful fashion in a discussion about game mechanics. I've nearly always, if not always, seen it used negatively - as a means to put down someone else's style of gaming. I have no opinion about the gaming style or mechanics myself - I object to the term.

However, if you say that the term has no descriptive value, and therefore should not be used by anyone, and I say that it does, then we cannot both be right.

Answered above.

I would agree, but I don't think that showing distaste for a game mechanic should be considered disrespectful to other people/posters.

I agree, but that's not how I see this term used.

OTOH, I think that telling other people/posters that they should not show their distaste for a game mechanic is enormously disrespectful.

I agree...but I think that the exhibition of distaste has a time and place, and can be done respectfully. It might not be done so often, but that's all the more reason to fight back against it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I don't even like the term 'magic shop'. There's no agreement on what it means. Some people think it's shorthand for 'magic item trade' ie metaphorical magic shops whereas others think it refers to literal magic shops, with anachronistically large stocks. To my mind, the former's a lot more plausible than the latter, in a D&D universe.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've nearly always, if not always, seen it used negatively

Usually in posts that also use the following words and phrases: 'video game', 'dungeonpunk', 'whining players', 'sense of entitlement', 'instant gratification' and any of a number of misspellings of 'medieval'. The last one being the most original element.

 

[Hussar]

The phrase you suggested, 'magic mart', is a bit better. 'Magic shop' better still but it does suggest an establishment with a large stock which is not necessarily the case. Even better is 'magic item trade'. It's a good phrase. It doesn't annoy people. It's neutral. It imparts information. Now that's good communication!

Because that's what people mean isn't it, when they say 'No Magic Wal-Marts in my game'? They mean there's no magic item trade. Or maybe limited magic item trade. They mean that they don't follow the 3.5 default. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

But the problem is the people using the 'Magic Wal-Mart' term aren't happy with a neutral communication of the state of their games. Nah, that's not good enough. Cause they wanna diss 3.5 while they're at it, by exaggerating the position in the 3.5 rules. They want to make the default look ridiculous, which it isn't.

It's not a major thing. No lives are lost. But it's a bit annoying.

Doug FTW.

Look, I cannot believe that people are arguing in favour of ambiguity. That just blows my mind. Let's take the term Magic Walmart. It can be interpreted as follows:

• As a single, large physical place where magic items can be bought an sold. This is the literal definition.
  
• A shorthand for easy trade in magic items. Items can be bought and sold in any area large enough to support the trade and shopping is largely hand waved. This is a fairly neutral connotation.
  
• A shorthand phrase for elitist DM's to state how they are so much better than other DM's in that they keep their peon players from buying and selling magic items and retain the power inherent in the position of the DM. Carries the additional meaning that anyone who does allow easy buying and selling of magic items is a poncy little git who should never DM.
  
• A shorthand phrase, originally coined in edition war threads, used as a derogatory phrase to talk about player entitlement and DM disempowerment inherent in 3e.

Now, however one wants the phrase to be interpreted is irrelevant. The phrase will be interpreted by the reader. When RC asked if the phrase had any descriptive value, I said no. He jumped on that to mean that I had said that the phrase couldn't be used to describe something. That is mistaken. You can use "Magic Wal-mart" to describe lots of things. That's the problem. It's too vague. It's an internet neologism created by D&D players, so of course it is vague and imprecise.

Doug MCCrae put it best above:

'magic item trade'​

A perfectly accurate phrase that carries no baggage. Completely neutral. A DM could say, "Hey, I'm starting a new campaign. In my new campaign, magic item trade will be restricted to items less than 1000 gp in value." Poof, no connotation. Direct, to the point and no one is going to see him as an elitist DM or as starting yet another edition war.

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?