Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3634291" data-attributes="member: 18280">Of course not, but one doesn't need to know much more than "large retail chain" to understand the term.  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.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.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 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.  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</blockquote>

Verification