The Magic-Walmart myth
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Raven Crowking
First Post
Doug McCrae said:
And herein lies the problem with the replacement terms -- if anything, they are more vague. Moreover, that the speaker/writer is unhappy with the convention being spoken/written about is absolutely part of the meaning of the term. Removing that connotative meaning disables communication of that idea....which is, from my reading, exactly what is desired.
But, let's switch to another term. We know from various "edition wars" threads that some posters don't feel that 3.X is "real" D&D. One might say that they view referring to 3.X as D&D as being disrespectful toward the game that they love. They feel that calling 3.X D&D is insulting to the "One True Game" or whathaveyou.
Now, imagine that such a vocal minority decided that "D&D" as a term wasn't meaningful. After all, when people play D&D they mean at least as many things as are meant by the term "Magic Walmart". I would go so far as to hazard that "D&D" has almost as many different meanings as there are groups of people playing.
The OP has a thread about how and why our 1e experiences differed so much. It is quite possible (and I would dare to say, quite likely) that our 3e experiences differ just as much.
Imagine, therefore, that these people then demand that, to be respectful of other people/posters, you never again refer to 3.5 as D&D, but instead use the more neutral term "D20 Fantasy".
Well, do you switch?
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Hussar, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and imagine that you didn't actually read what you were responding to.
If, however, you need me to show an example of where think that telling other people/posters that they should not show their distaste for a game mechanic is enormously disrespectful, you can use any of my participation on this thread as an adequate example, I hope.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Ah, if only that were the case.
Actually, though, I asked you to clarify under what circumstances the term could have descriptive value. Repeatedly. Starting with post 313. Again in post 315. Again in post 370. And in post 371.
Then in post 382, when you were not quoted, you asked me to stop misquoting you. You also, finally, answered the question:
Hussar said:
Far from "jumping on that", I asked you to clarify time and time again. And, yes, while you did claim that it was "vague" (without, though I had asked that too, describing why this term was too vague for use, when many equally vague terms are perfectly fine for use), the gist of your response wasn't "it is vague and imprecise". The gist of your response was "It's simply too loaded a term to use with any value".
And, frankly, I'd be hard pressed to determine how "magic item trade" (the term you prefer in post 460) could not be used for a single large physical place where magic items can be bought and sold, a shorthand for easy trade in magic items, many small artisans, a one-of trade in magic items that can never be repeated, etc., etc, etc. It suffers from the exact same problems of being "vague and imprecise".
What the term is harder pressed to do, though, is to demonstrate dislike for something. And, you know, the most shocking thing that could happen on this thread would be that someone would just admitted that their objection has nothing to do with vagueness, and is all about perceived negative connotations.
Hussar said:
From Post 322:
When I say, for example, "pokemount", it conveys a specific meaning. It conveys a denotation of this edition's paladin's mount, and a strong connotation of my distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.
It might also provoke a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount?" Possibly with an irrational conflating that distaste with a distaste for the game system as a whole, or with those who like the current edition's paladin's mount. However, I don't know of a single example where the term "pokemount" was intended to carry this secondary connotation. Nor, frankly, do you need to use the term "pokemount" to garner the same reaction -- you need merely to imply a distaste for the current edition's version of the paladin's mount.
The same is true for Magic Walmarts, Magic Marts, and Magic Shops. The problem lies not in the terminology, IMHO, but in the idea that any implication of personal distaste of any game element inherently implies that it is "wrongbadfun".
IMHO, this is a failure to read properly, and should be corrected rather than be catered to. YMMV.
Well, when you run into that again, remind them that the phrase was coined at least as early as 2e, and probably earlier than that.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Do you mean, some place where some poster claimed that if you used a term showing distaste for a mechanic you might be taken as an "elitist DM" trying "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." Possibly using terminology showing distaste "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."?
That sort of thing?
I'm flummoxed. I guess it's never happened in this thread.
Hussar
Legend
Raven Crowking said:Do you mean, some place where some poster claimed that if you used a term showing distaste for a mechanic you might be taken as an "elitist DM" trying "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." Possibly using terminology showing distaste "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."?
That sort of thing?
I'm flummoxed. I guess it's never happened in this thread.
Are you saying that this connotation is false? That no one could ever mean this? That the phrase "magic walmart" has never been used in such a way.
Nice try.
Again, why are you advocating the use of such loaded language? What purpose does it serve? The term "magic item trade" can easily encompass any form of exchange of magic items - from one stop shopping to little old men on the tops of mountains. Yet, it comes with no additional baggage. Perfectly clear.
If you wish to add distaste, do so with your own words. Ie. "I don't like magic item trade. I think it disempowers DM's and it's one of the worst things about 3e." Poof, no contextual confusion. I know exactly what you mean. You aren't expressing distaste about a single one stop shop form of magic item trade (one interpretation of "magic walmart") nor are you expressing distaste about "virtual walmarts". You are expressing distaste about the mechanic of buying and selling magic items.
Great.
See, you can express distaste without appearing like an elitist. It's possible. Of course, it requires basic writing skills, but, it is possible. It's easy to simply accuse the reader of lacking reading abilities, but, when you continuously use vague and imprecise language, it's your fault that the reader doesn't understand.
Raven Crowking
First Post
Hussar said:
Uh huh.
I can also just say "MagicMart", and something along the lines of 80-99% of readers are going to know what I mean.
Obviously, I would have to accept that that 1-20% of readers might be confused, or even read into that the worst possible interpretation and then internalize it, but, as I said, IMHO this should be corrected rather than be catered to. YMMV.
Tell you what. Why don't you admit that your only problem with the term is that it has a derogatory connotation toward the easy buying and selling of magic items, and then we can discuss reasonably whether or not that is sufficient reason to cease using it.
RC
Similar Threads
