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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3629309" data-attributes="member: 18280">Hussar, are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means?  Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means?  Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word?  Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear.  If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.If you are arguing any of these things, then how can you also argue that a term you do not understand is offensive?If you are arguing that a term is offensive, then how can you also argue that you do not understand it.It is clear that you understand the terms, and that you feel they are offensive.  If you are not arguing against clarity of language, then it is obvious that you are arguing because you feel the terms are offensive.  In fact, you said as much when you claimed that there was no way such offensive terms could be considered of descriptive value.  To wit:So, either I must accept that you do not understand the words "value as a descriptive term" or that you are being disingenious.  In either event, it is clearly the "politically loaded word with negative connotations" you are objecting to, which is censorious.The bit you quoted is a specific response to the reasoning Jedi Solo supplied as for why he felt the terms Magic Walmart and Pokemount were offensive.  You can find his post about two pages back.And, regardless of whether or not you feel your words were twisted, Jedi Solo's point (nearly identical to the one you make in the post I am now responding to) has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum pages back.  In fact, I foresaw the point and answered it before it had been made."Descriptive value" is based solely on how well something is described.  Social value may be something else....Again, are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means?  Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Pokemount" means?  Are you actually arguing that you do not understand the connotations of either word?  Because those are the requirements for arguing that the language is unclear.  If you are not arguing this, you are not arguing against the clarity of language used.If you are arguing any of these things, then how can you also argue that a term you do not understand is offensive?If you are arguing that a term is offensive, then how can you also argue that you do not understand it.So far, rational.  But what is it about the term that you are therefore objecting to?  Let's see:Once more, it is not the term that you object to, it is people crying "player entitlement" or arguing that "3e strips power from the DM and gives it to the players".  Rather than targetting the actual culprit in terms of poor wording -- the DMG text that leads some readers (and a large amount of readers, if the threads you are talking about are any indication) to conclude that 3e does assume Magic Walmarts.  After all, if they read the Magic Item Compendium, they are told outright that if a player asks if any magic item is purchasable, the DM should say Yes.In other words, it may be true that some terminology is used more frequently in 3e than it was in 2e (where, as I said before, I believe the first derivative of "Magic Walmart" arose), but this is due to the wording of the RAW.  If there is anything, therefore, that we should point at and cry "Lack of descriptive value!" it is the RAW, and not the terminology some use to adequately describe their experience of the RAW.(That the books should be written for the lowest common denominator is one of the things that KM was able to convince me of.)Hopefully, this will be corrected in 4e.</blockquote>

Verification