Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3623712" data-attributes="member: 22779">Really?  Whenever Tolkien gets a mention in a thread, we spend fifteen pages arguing minor details or discussing authorial intent.  Heck, it happened recently in the rather lengthy discussion about setting vs world building.  Bring up the Professor and you know that the thread is pretty much over for the foreseeable future.  Venture an opinion about the level of magic in Middle Earth and you're in for a couple of weeks.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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".  While I'm sure we could pick out examples of actual Magic Walmarts, they are certainly not assumed by RAW.  Many campaign settings also do not assume this either.  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.No one's arguing that you can never buy magic items in D&D, nor is anyone arguing that magic as commodity isn't assumed by RAW.  It is.  If a particular place has gp value of X, then anything under X will possibly be available, by RAW.  Note, that doesn't mean that you can simply open up the DMG and start shopping.  That's not assumed by RAW.  So, "No Magic Walmarts" doesn't really tell me anything about your setting, other than "My setting adheres to RAW."  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.In other words, as I've been arguing for a while now, why not take the thirty seconds to actually post what you mean and not rely on sloppy shorthand that brings up ghosts of edition wars past?And, in case you think I'm being hypersensitive here, take a look at ShadyDM's point:Now, we have magic shopping being equated with video gamey.  And not in a good way.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  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.</blockquote>

Verification