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: 3629214" data-attributes="member: 22779">Isn't it funny.  I'm arguing in favour of using clear language free of connotative meaning that only serves to confuse the issue, but, I'm being accused of censorship.  Wow, now that's a leap.  Are you claiming that this wasn't directed at me?  If you are, then who was this directed at?  If it was, then it is a deliberate attempt to twist my words to make a point.  Thus the misquote comment.  Since this apparently wasn't directed at me, who are you talking about?  Please be clear in your statements.  I ask this because you are arguing that obfuscation is the same as adding meaning and I would prefer not to have to read your mind in order to determine your meaning, since, it's apparently the reader's job to parse out what the author means and author's are now freed from having to clearly explain their points.Back to the magic walmart thing.  I see your point RC about "descriptive value" although, I would point out that just because something describes something, doesn't give it any real value in a conversation.  If what you are describing is being completely misunderstood by your audience, then the descriptive value is zero.  Of course, since apparently you think that the reader's job is to be able to read the author's mind, then it wouldn't be a problem for you I suppose.For the rest of us mere mortals who lack telepathic abilities, here is why using loaded language is bad;RC is correct in one thing, RAW does not preclude the existence of a Magic Walmart.  All RAW states is that an item of a given value may be available in a population center wealthy enough to have one for sale.  The how and who are generally left entirely up to the DM.  Note, there is no assumption that a Magic Walmart exists, it's just that it is also not assumed that it doesn't.So, let's define Magic Walmart as a process by which the players can easily (for a given value of easy) purchase whatever magic item they can afford in a population center large enought to have the item for sale.  By itself, that's a fairly neutral idea.  Some people like that, some don't.  That's fine.  However, language rarely exists in a vacuum and the idea that the players can open the DMG or the MIC and go shopping leads some to cry "player entitlement" and link it to a loss of authority from the DM.After all, if the players can buy whatever they want, who needs a DM to reward good play?So, now Magic Walmart gets used by some to decry player entitlement and frequently crops up in Edition War threads as an example of how 3e strips power from the DM and gives it to the players.  A look through any edition war thread you feel like will bear this out.  If you don't believe me, go look for yourself.Of course, this ignores the fact that RAW never actually assumes the existence of Magic Walmarts in the first place - just that a given item may be available for sale.  So, now we have our new DM who posts about his campaign and emphatically states that there are "No Magic Marts (or Walmarts) in my world!"  How do people react to this?  Some see this as simply a statement of not having easily purchasable magic items.  Some, whose perceptions are colored by other people's usage of the term, see it as an elitist statement saying "I am such a great DM that I keep all that authority that all those stupid other DM's give to their players."  Others see it as a proxy for another edition war.  I'm sure there are other interpretations as well.  The point is,  EVERY one of those interpretations is correct.  It is correct for the reader.  What the author originally intended is irrelavent.  We cannot know his intent, we can only know what he said.  If he later adds more information, we can act on that, but, that changes the original statement.  Using loaded language to try to make a point is fine.  I've done it, and I'm sure everyone reading this has done it as well.  But, don't try to pretend wide eyed innocence when different people interpret your words differently and react, not only to the words you have used, but the contextual meanings embedded in those words as well.Here's another example.  Tolkien, until the day he died, emphatically stated that the Lord of the Rings was not an allegory for WWII.  He repeatedly stated this quite publicly.  Yet, there is a rather large and well supported body of criticism of the LOTR which states that LOTR is an allegory for WWII.  What Tolkien intended is completely irrelevant.  Literary criticism is based on the text, not on what the author wanted the text to mean.  Now, conversation is obviously a bit different, because we can ask for clarification.  But, when you start waving red flag terms around, don't be shocked when people get hostile to your point of view.</blockquote>

Verification