# The Magic-Walmart myth



## Quasqueton (Jun 24, 2007)

Whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (or Magimarts, etc.). This kind of statement makes no sense.

The setting suggested in the core rules has no "Magic-Walmarts". Greyhawk has no Magic-Walmarts. I'm not real familiar with Eberron or Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they have Magic-Walmart-style stores either.

The only times I've ever heard of anything like a Magic-Walmart in a D&D campaign, it was in a 1984 Dragon magazine, and when I played one game session with a new DM around 1991. Both of those were aberrations from the norm.

So, saying your preference/setting is low magic "with no Magic-Walmarts" is like saying your preference/setting is low power -- no god killing PCs. 99% of everyone's preference and setting qualifies as low magic if the definition is "no Magic-Walmarts."

Is "high magic" defined by the existence of Magic-Walmarts? If so, there are very, very few high magic settings. Other than the two strange situations I mention above, I've never seen or heard of any.

So why does this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick? If a DM was trying to entice me to his game by saying it was low magic because there are no Magic-Walmarts, I'd have laugh. "So, it's just like Forgotten Realms, then?"

Quasqueton


----------



## Luthien Greyspear (Jun 24, 2007)

*Magimarts in FR*

Actually, the latest published version of the Forgotten Realms does have magic marts.  The Red Wizards have set up their "embassies" to be like big magic bazaars where you can order, or even get off the shelf, any magic item you're willing to pay for.  This gives them a foot in the door to affect the economies of the nations they're trying to take over, and power over the individuals who desire magic items that can't be had elsewhere.

All in all, that's very much like a big box corporation.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 24, 2007)

> All in all, that's very much like a big box corporation.



Okay. (And that's a cool plot set up.) But since that set up is notably different than the norm, still, defining "low magic" as "no Magic-Walmarts" means low magic is the normal level of magic. If Magic-Walmarts equal high-magic, then saying, "low magic means no Magic-Walmarts" is the same as saying, "low magic means not high-magic."

Quasqueton


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jun 24, 2007)

Luthien Greyspear said:
			
		

> Actually, the latest published version of the Forgotten Realms does have magic marts.  The Red Wizards have set up their "embassies" to be like big magic bazaars where you can order, or even get off the shelf, any magic item you're willing to pay for.  This gives them a foot in the door to affect the economies of the nations they're trying to take over, and power over the individuals who desire magic items that can't be had elsewhere.
> 
> All in all, that's very much like a big box corporation.




Heh. I remember visiting the Super Thay-Mart in Waterdeep in (doomed) game last year.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 24, 2007)

I think the phrase "no magic Wal-Marts" is to indicate that players should not expect to be able to buy whatever magic items they want simply because they have enough money to buy one according to the rules.  It does not by itself create a low-magic setting, but it is one indicator of the level of magic: magic items being rare enough to not be able to fuel a cottage industry in the buying and selling of them.


----------



## Aeric (Jun 24, 2007)

I think the idea of a "Magic Wal-Mart" came about when lazy DMs looked at the list of magic items in the DMG, saw the prices next to them, and decided that they would be available on demand, off-the-rack, in any community that could support the cost.  What no one seems to take into consideration is the XP cost.  Where is this army of high- to mid-level casters who are slowly killing themselves by mass producing magic items?  At best, a non-adventuring wizard should be able to produce one high-end item per year, or a couple of potions and scrolls.

Take into consideration how many high- to mid-level casters there are in a typical campaign world, minus the ones who are adventurers or otherwise not interested in spending all their time making magic items, and the Magic Wal-Mart idea goes away really quick.  All it takes is a little common sense.

Of course, this also begs the question, "what happens when the PCs roll into town looking for a place to unload their unwanted magic items?"  If there is a thriving population of adventurers, say a city located near a large number of ruins or other popular adventurer destinations, then the idea of a second-hand magic item shop isn't that far-fetched.  This assumes a steady stream of adventurers, however; sooner or later, that dungeon is going to be completely cleaned out, and there won't be any more adventurers to buy or sell the items.  Business dries up.

I could see a travelling merchant specializing in second-hand magic items.  He might even be a bard, using his knowledge of legends and rumors to find the most popular adventuring hot-spots at any given moment and setting up shop in the nearest settlement.  It would certainly be fun to have such an NPC as a recurring character in a campaign.


----------



## Blackrat (Jun 24, 2007)

Yeah, well FR does have these. I think it has been ditched since 3e but wasn't there a thing called Auroras Emporium wich was kinda magic item mail order corporation in FR in the old days.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 24, 2007)

> I think the idea of a "Magic Wal-Mart" came about when lazy DMs looked at the list of magic items in the DMG, saw the prices next to them, and decided that they would be available on demand, off-the-rack, in any community that could support the cost.



Are these real DMs or hypothetical DMs, like those Pun-Pun characters that everyone complains about but no one ever actually sees in a game?

Quasqueton


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Jun 24, 2007)

I don't know that the Red Wizards in the Forgotten Realms really count as a Magic-Walmart in my eyes.

Their 'embassies' sell magic items at 10% off list-price, true.  However, the real purpose of the embassy is:  1) it makes money, 2) it gives their apprentices ways to hone their skills in crafting magic items in a useful way, and 3) most importantly, let's them actively engage in operations against foreign countries/city-states.

That last one is the key; their citizens can retreat to the compound and be protected.  If the city wants to make an issue, the Wizards will be more than happy to pack up and move to a different city-state.


----------



## Andor (Jun 24, 2007)

Huh. I don't think I've played in a 3.X D&D game yet where the GM seriously (or even trivially) limited the availability of magic items. Neither have we ever had any trouble selling items no matter what they were. This is with multiple GMs in multiple settings. 

Is it really common for GMs to limit MI sales to add verisimilitude to the world? While this would actually be a plus for me as a player I've yet to see it.

Sadly, the force is with Wal-mart.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 24, 2007)

> Huh. I don't think I've played in a 3.X D&D game yet where the GM seriously (or even trivially) limited the availability of magic items. Neither have we ever had any trouble selling items no matter what they were. This is with multiple GMs in multiple settings.
> 
> Is it really common for GMs to limit MI sales to add verisimilitude to the world? While this would actually be a plus for me as a player I've yet to see it.
> 
> Sadly, the force is with Wal-mart.



Buying and selling magic items does not imply a Magic-Walmart. Can the PCs buy full plate armor? How about 3 suits for their henchmen? Does this mean full plate armor hangs on racks in an Armor-Walmart?

Can the PCs buy a sailing ship? Can they sell a sailing ship they captured? Does this mean there are new and used ship lots?

Can the PCs buy a spyglass? A waterclock? Thunderstones? Alchemist fire? Holy water? Are there Mundane-Walmarts?

Just because a DM allows PCs to purchase expensive items (magical or mundane) does not mean there are anything like a Walmart. It usually just means that the DM (and the Players) don't want to role play out the shopping expedition -- skip the boring stuff to get back to the adventure.

Say the PCs come back from the dungeon with some loot to spend. One PC wants to buy a suit of full plate armor (1,500gp), one wants to buy a spyglass (1,000gp), one wants to buy four tanglefoot bags (200gp), one wants to buy a heavy warhorse (400gp), one wants to buy a potion of cure light wounds and a potion of invisibility (50gp and 300gp), and one wants to buy a +1 chain shirt (1,250gp). Are any of these purchases made at any kind of Walmart store? Are the magic item purchases more game breaking than the mundane item purchases?

Quasqueton


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 24, 2007)

Magic-marts are a handy exaggeration that people bring up when they want to be snobbish about how -they- game.


----------



## Mortellan (Jun 24, 2007)

If the Thayan embassies are in every nation and they undercut native item vendors by 10% that sounds -exactly- like Wal Mart to me!


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 24, 2007)

Aeric said:
			
		

> I think the idea of a "Magic Wal-Mart" came about when lazy DMs looked at the list of magic items in the DMG, saw the prices next to them, and decided that they would be available on demand, off-the-rack, in any community that could support the cost.  What no one seems to take into consideration is the XP cost.  Where is this army of high- to mid-level casters who are slowly killing themselves by mass producing magic items?  At best, a non-adventuring wizard should be able to produce one high-end item per year, or a couple of potions and scrolls.




Or possibly the GM says they get XP for doing their "job" (crafting magical items in this case) which they use to make more items.  The XP portion of item creation is there to balance PCs, not to limit the rest of the world.  Its not like you have to take time out of scribing scrolls and go kill some orcs and goblins so that you can go back to scribing scrolls again.  Anything you do that nets you XP does the trick, not just strapping on a pack and killing things.

DS


----------



## Andre (Jun 24, 2007)

Aeric said:
			
		

> I think the idea of a "Magic Wal-Mart" came about when lazy DMs...(snip)...All it takes is a little common sense...snip...the idea of a second-hand magic item shop isn't that far-fetched...snip...Business dries up.




But most people don't play RPG's to mimic real world economies. We play to have fun, and worrying about inflation, deflation, supply and demand, exchange rates, labor, capital, etc. just isn't as much fun as killing things and taking stuff, or rescuing the princess, or saving the kingdom. We're not playing Sim Kingdom

It's not about laziness, it's about having fun. If a group enjoys worrying about macroeconomics, great. Personally, I suspect most groups are happy with a world where the economics are about as realistic as the terrain and weather, i.e., not very.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jun 24, 2007)

> Say the PCs come back from the dungeon with some loot to spend. One PC wants to buy a suit of full plate armor (1,500gp), one wants to buy a spyglass (1,000gp), one wants to buy four tanglefoot bags (200gp), one wants to buy a heavy warhorse (400gp), one wants to buy a potion of cure light wounds and a potion of invisibility (50gp and 300gp), and one wants to buy a +1 chain shirt (1,250gp). Are any of these purchases made at any kind of Walmart store? Are the magic item purchases more game breaking than the mundane item purchases?




To answer, IMHO, it depends.  Are they in a big city?  Are Heavy Warhorses common in the area?  Also, Full plate, despite being expensive, does not require the expendature of xp, and its a craft skill, so not so far out of reach as spellcasting--time seems to be the largest investment here.  XP doesn't grow on trees, despite some adventurer's feelings to the contrary.   And once you get beyond a certain point, it seems like spellcasters must pooping magic to keep up with the apparent availability levels. And not every town/village/mudhole is going to have everything someone needs, even if it falls within the max item cost.  Why?  A little math and some common sense. Geography, industry, and politics can also play a part. In any but the largest cities, how many high level wizards or clerics exist, per the current rules in the DMG?

Say you even have a Large City.  Pop about 18,000.  In that city, at best you have three 13th level wizards, six 6th level wizards, and 12 3rd level wizards, 3 13th level sorcerers, six 6th level sorcerers, 3 15th level clerics, 6 7th level clerics, 12 3rd level clerics.  The same for druids.  So at best you MIGHT see a fair availability of mid level items ASSUMING some of those 6th and 7th level folks spend their time selling or making items as well.  How many of those dozen high level characters actually make stuff?  Realistically?  How many clerics would even sell items to those outside their faith?  Even if you say half of these guys have the ability to make items, and half of those actually make them for general sale (which I think is being generous) you got about 3 high level casters churning out magic . . . . .do the math.

Trade with other cities? Sure, but caravans can get raided.  Detect Magic is easy to come by, so it would be a costly endeavor to effectively guard such trade, making it . . . not so much a money maker as some would think.  Items made in the past and unearthed by adventurers? Sure, but how many adventurers do you got floating around?  Again, take into account the numbers and levels generated by even a fairly large city, count the number of cities you may have of a notable size in your world, and again, it becomes a very niche industry . . . .unless your world is chock full o' Metropolises . . . but then that would seem to strain credulity a bit.  And even so, you'd find the number of folks available to be less than what you would need to reasonably allow EVERY item someone wants, within the village/city/town's GP limit, to be available.  Again, unless every caster that CAN make items DOES, and every character of a PC class adventures, and every priestly organization, or arcane organization for that matter, just sells their stuff willy nilly.  Sure, some would, that's reasonable, but not all.  Not all casters are going to see the GP as the be all end all to power, and prefer to keep their shiny stuff.  Heck, especially since even the moderate powered stuff can start to drain their xp pretty rapidly . . . not to mention creation time (which would start to hedge out that much needed adventure time to recoup their xp loss)

So, again, IMO, the whole "Magic mart thing" is the idea that anything that can be available, therefore must be, despite even the basic application of common sense, or any attempt to form some sort of pseudo-real economic and political structure that's even good enough to allow one to suspend disbelief.  I'm not a hard one to go along with the whole suspension of disbelief thing, but even I find the default assumptions of magic availability to be stretching it towards inplausability.  It works if you assume your NPCs have no personalities or agenda of their own, other than to trade and create magic for your characters to purchase, but I think the system falls short and indeed looks Magic Mart like.

Anyway, that's my take.


----------



## Mortellan (Jun 24, 2007)

For me the magimart hate is misplaced. Sure in a D&D world magic items are abundant and can be found in dungeons galore so why not the towns where they are made? BUT the true source of ire IMO is the metagaming knowledge of players who seek to trade in items. It's one thing to not know the properties of a found item and use identify to learn them, but when it comes to spending loot for magic, every character of all classes and levels becomes an expert on magic item types and their infinite variety of properties. Its a minor gripe yes, but surely 'let the buyer beware' should be a constant threat to their hard earned money, unless they craft the items themselves or have someone with the proper arcane knowledge on hand.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jun 24, 2007)

> But most people don't play RPG's to mimic real world economies. We play to have fun, and worrying about inflation, deflation, supply and demand, exchange rates, labor, capital, etc. just isn't as much fun as killing things and taking stuff, or rescuing the princess, or saving the kingdom. We're not playing Sim Kingdom
> 
> It's not about laziness, it's about having fun. If a group enjoys worrying about macroeconomics, great. Personally, I suspect most groups are happy with a world where the economics are about as realistic as the terrain and weather, i.e., not very.




But i don't think one precludes the other.  Besides, its not just about the players having fun.  The guy (or gal) behind the screen wants to as well.  If they have no problem with the way thing are set up, then I guess more power to you.  Some of us like a little bit of realism, without necessarily engaging in full fledged economics and such.  truth is, it doesn't take much more than a cursory look at the system to see its a bit wonky.  I like 3.5 and all, but its still a bit wonky on this issue.


----------



## Gothmog (Jun 24, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> So, again, IMO, the whole "Magic mart thing" is the idea that anything that can be available, therefore must be, despite even the basic application of common sense, or any attempt to form some sort of pseudo-real economic and political structure that's even good enough to allow one to suspend disbelief.  I'm not a hard one to go along with the whole suspension of disbelief thing, but even I find the default assumptions of magic availability to be stretching it towards inplausability.  It works if you assume your NPCs have no personalities or agenda of their own, other than to trade and create magic for your characters to purchase, but I think the system falls short and indeed looks Magic Mart like.
> 
> Anyway, that's my take.




I agree with you 100%.  Its not out of the realm of possibility that there would be some trade in magic items- of course there would be.  What bothers me is the notion that just because the PCs want it and have the gold, they have a RIGHT to the items in question.  Basically, its asking that the PCs be the center of the world, and all other NPCs in question exist to serve them, and have no motives or agendas of their own.  Most of the D&D games I've played in have been like this, and while its a thrill at first to be catered to, eventually it gets really old and really dull- and results in players who have attitudes similar to spoiled rich kids who get anything and everything they want.

Another thing that is rarely, if ever considered is that the government/nobility would likely NOT want free trade of magic items to its citizens.  Nobles hold their lands together through a combination of diplomacy, political maneuvering, and force.  Now, if it were easy for any person to go buy a scroll of Charm Person, or Change Self, or a wand of fireballs, you've suddenly thrown a big monkeywrench in the governmental machinery.  Now its possible for anyone to control a noble's mind, impersonate a noble, or defy the noble's troops because of the ease of finding and buying items, and these are LOW level items.  The problems would only become worse with more potent and higher level items.  Logically, nobles would restrict the availability of magic items that can control others, be used for offensive purposes, and allow divinations for the same reasons our society doesn't allow private citizens to own heavy weapons, preform wiretaps, utilize espionage equipment, and hack into government (or private) databases for example.  Historically, the nobility didn't allow anyone but other nobles and mercenaries to use swords, polearms, or crossbows, or wear almost any sort of metal armor- it undermined their authority and ability to control their subjects.  Now in a world with monsters I could see loosening some weapon and armor restrictions, but allowing anyone to purchase whatever kind of magical gear they wanted with no oversight?  Not a chance.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 24, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (or Magimarts, etc.). This kind of statement makes no sense.
> 
> The setting suggested in the core rules has no "Magic-Walmarts". Greyhawk has no Magic-Walmarts. I'm not real familiar with Eberron or Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they have Magic-Walmart-style stores either.




Yes they do. It's not setting specific, it's rules specific. It doesn't matter if FR doesn't specifically say there are magic marts in the setting; the PCs would get slaughtered if those shops don't exist.

WotC made 3.x too dependent on magic items (IMO) and the only way to balance the items is to make them available for sale.

If you had a low magic rules set (and I don't mean some ad hoc "I'm taking away magic items and watch you suffer" setting from a GM who thinks they understand the rules but are just proving they do not) then you could dispense with the shops. Systems like d20 Modern, Star Wars, Grim Tales and Spycraft can all handle that to a reasonable degree but 3.x cannot.


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Jun 24, 2007)

I had to make it so your couldnt find Magic Walmart shops about a few years ago, when players began thinking they could get whatever was in the DMG from any community that could afford it.
I got tired of telling people that Wizards dont just make +5 Vorpal Great Swords for the fun of it and then seel them to whomever wanders in with enough cash.
Of course Thayans are an exception. Though I could have sworn they had a limit to what they would make and how powerful they made it regardless of the amount of cash?


----------



## Aaron L (Jun 24, 2007)

If I remember right, the Thayans do not sell weapons or destructive spells (like wands of fireball), or anything disruptive.  They only sell non-offensive luxury items.

That is, officially.


----------



## Jeysie (Jun 24, 2007)

My group has actually shopped at a WarMart... however, it was a conscious parody in a setting that is as much tongue-in-cheek as it is serious. And the only magic item we bought was a set of full-plate armor that had pants with the Blinding ability, which we had already vetted by the DM beforehand anyway. The venue was just a handy (and funny) excuse.

All the rest of our magic items we'd picked up as treasure somewhere, and we were pretty happy with it all, even the weird stuff. The only thing we sold off was the immovable rod the cleric picked up last campaign.

So, easily available magic isn't always unfun and it doesn't always spoil the players. Just depends on the players. In fact, one of my other campaigns is just the opposite... treasure is scarce, and "fancy" stuff isn't easy to come by. But despite some good-natured teasing, nobody's really bothered by it; we just get creative. Most of the stuff we *have* bought has actually been fluffy stuff we only bought because it was in-character to do so.

Peace & Luv, Liz


----------



## kaomera (Jun 24, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> I think the phrase "no magic Wal-Marts" is to indicate that players should not expect to be able to buy whatever magic items they want simply because they have enough money to buy one according to the rules.  It does not by itself create a low-magic setting, but it is one indicator of the level of magic: magic items being rare enough to not be able to fuel a cottage industry in the buying and selling of them.



I agree. The real "Magic Wal-Mart" in FR is Waterdeep. This isn't even a FR thing, by the DMG a sufficiently large city will have nearly anything, including magic, that the PCs might want to buy. Calling it a "Magic Wal-Mart" is an exaggeration, but often not too much of one. Players tend to want cool, shiny stuff for their characters, sometimes without regard for the effects that may have on the game ~ that's the DM's problem. But it can be hard (lead to arguments) to put a lid on such purchases, because the rules say it's OK. Couple this with the fact that most groups don't really want to roleplay out every second of a "shopping trip", and you can get the same effect as if you really had just gone down to a one-stop magical warehouse store and bought yourself some _+3 Vorpal Plate Barding of the Bad Example It's Early Leave Me Alone_. It's simple enough to fix. One line in your house-rules that says: "Magic items tend not to be on the open market, expect to spend at least a day to a week per 1000gp of value to find such an item, regardless of local community gp limits." tends to fix it fairly well, at least if your PCs have got anything at all better to do than hang around a given city for possibly months on end...


----------



## shilsen (Jun 24, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Magic-marts are a handy exaggeration that people bring up when they want to be snobbish about how -they- game.



 I think this really does sum it up best, IMNSHO.

Personally, while I've never run a game with a Magic-Walmart or seen a game with one, it would actually strain my sense of disbelief less than the older system of dungeons chock-a-bloc with monsters guarding and/or wielding magical items, with no explanation of where the items came from.


----------



## JustKim (Jun 24, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Are these real DMs or hypothetical DMs, like those Pun-Pun characters that everyone complains about but no one ever actually sees in a game?



Yes, we are real.
We have players who want to sell magic items they don't want, and who know the market price for magic items they do want. We don't have the time to populate every single NPC and store in a community with appropriate magic items, nor the inclination to grind the session to a halt with glorified shopping chores every time a PC wants to buy a magic item- and PCs want a lot of magic items.

To suggest that this is lazy behavior is pretty unreasonable.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 24, 2007)

Luthien Greyspear said:
			
		

> Actually, the latest published version of the Forgotten Realms does have magic marts.  The Red Wizards have set up their "embassies" to be like big magic bazaars where you can order, or even get off the shelf, any magic item you're willing to pay for.  This gives them a foot in the door to affect the economies of the nations they're trying to take over, and power over the individuals who desire magic items that can't be had elsewhere.
> 
> All in all, that's very much like a big box corporation.



What big box store in the real world specializes in custom orders? Big boxes, by their very definition, specialize in bulk purchases to lower costs and sell millions of identical widgets.

The Red Wizards -- while they do constitute a break with what's come before -- are the magical equivalent of high-end artisans. If your 2E game had blacksmiths capable of making exotic armors or weapons, this is very similar.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 24, 2007)

JustKim said:
			
		

> Yes, we are real.
> We have players who want to sell magic items they don't want, and who know the market price for magic items they do want. We don't have the time to populate every single NPC and store in a community with appropriate magic items, nor the inclination to grind the session to a halt with glorified shopping chores every time a PC wants to buy a magic item- and PCs want a lot of magic items.
> 
> To suggest that this is lazy behavior is pretty unreasonable.




I don't stock stores with anything except potions of healing and eve those I limit to 2d6 in any given month.

How I determine if anything the PC's want to buy is availabe is simple. They tell me what they are looking for and I determine a percentage chance of it being available. Somewhere bewtween 1% for very powerful items, like Staff of Power, +5 Full Plate, etc... to 25% chance for various potions, low level scrolls.

If the charactrer wants something badly enough to travel around from city to city to find something then that is what we do, rolling percentiles until he gets it.

Usually players won't do that, but I have had a few.

Plus, if it is something I don't want the players to have yet, the chance of finding it for sale is always zero. Not that I tell them that.

As for selling their stuff. There has to be places where you can off load such stuff. Not only is it inherent to the rules themselves, but it just makes sense. Unless of course your adventurers are the only ones adventuring, and the only ones who are wealthy enough to afford to buy such items.

The rest of the world is just a bunch of boring smucks waiting around for the adventurers to show up and make their lives exciting. 

Thats not my kind of world. I try to make mine as living and viable as possible. I have used Expeditious Retreats and Gary Gygax's World Builder books to flesh out my world economy in broad brushstrokes, and in a few cases down to specific lands/manors/towns, so that I can "wing it" with enough accuracy to work within the economics structural boundaries I have worked out.

So I have "magic shops", which are usually temples, but they certainly aren't like Walmart.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 24, 2007)

For what it's worth, one of those at least partially responsible for the 3E magic item assumptions, Monte Cook, has magic items purchasable -- to an extent -- in his campaign setting.

In Ptolus, there's three tiers of magic item sales:

1) Most temples sell holy water (with possible restrictions depending on the customer), and may sell healing/curative potions and low level scrolls. Given the uneasy relationships between the faiths in the city, not everyone can get a potion or scroll from every temple, and even those faiths that will sell to a given customer won't necessarily sell out of every temple. The pseudo-medieval-Catholic Church -- Lothianism -- has one church out of the many in town that sells these, and it's the church for the dirty, dirty adventurers, the equivalent of a Midnight Mission sort of place. When your players decide they want to worship one of the city's wackier gods, they may well be shutting themselves out of the low end magic item market. (And if they worship Lothian, there's all sorts of complex things they've just signed up for, as you might imagine.) I think this is pretty similar to how a lot of DMs handle potions/scrolls/holy water anyway.

2) Ptolus is built on the ruins of multiple civilizations, including the laboratory/armory/barracks of Ye Olde Evil Wizard, so magic items trickle up with adventurers periodically and there's a store or two that specifically traffics in them. The inventory here is explicitly limited and includes a few bozo items that no one's going to be excited to get.

3) Finally, there's a group that makes magic items to order, but they're a lot closer to scary real world arms merchants or violent drug dealers. They have a bad habit of murdering anyone who starts selling magic items without being affiliated (making items for friends is OK) and the power to back it up. Since they're a semi-secret arm of a prominent organization, there's lots of people they might not actually take on as customers (assuming said people can find them to begin with) and if they provide a product, there's no saying it'll work as intended. And, most importantly, since the Dreaming Apothecary has no actual storefront per se, they're the easiest to drop out of the setting for DMs who don't like them. I suspect that Monte didn't have their wares constantly available, given how he wrote them up. I know that if my gnome illusionist/bard ever gets high enough to have the money and desire for a magic item, I'd be a LOT more comfortable getting a friend to make it for me than dealing with the scary-ass Dreaming Apothecary.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 24, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Magic-marts are a handy exaggeration that people bring up when they want to be snobbish about how -they- game.




Verily.

Brad


----------



## Creeping Death (Jun 24, 2007)

Andor said:
			
		

> Huh. I don't think I've played in a 3.X D&D game yet where the GM seriously (or even trivially) limited the availability of magic items. Neither have we ever had any trouble selling items no matter what they were. This is with multiple GMs in multiple settings.
> 
> Is it really common for GMs to limit MI sales to add verisimilitude to the world? While this would actually be a plus for me as a player I've yet to see it.
> 
> Sadly, the force is with Wal-mart.




I would have to say that this strikes me more as getting paper work out of the way.  The game is Dungeons & Dragons, not Barter & Trade.  How often are all spell components kept track of?  How often is environment really used (Bob, the fighter takes damage walking through a burning building, but wearing full plate in the middle of a 120 degree desert doesn't seem to phase him).

Certain things are skipped in order to keep the most important things on track.  Joe sells his magic item, Bob does charity work, Tim checks out the red light district.... Ok, you leave the town and head towards *insert sinister sounding place*.  See, it's just glossed over.  Doesn't mean there is a walmart ready to buy and sell magic items.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 24, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Magic-marts are a handy exaggeration that people bring up when they want to be snobbish about how -they- game.




If there were no MagicMarts, there would be no responses claiming that calling them MagicMarts is snobbish.  Nor would there be folks claiming that they are a logical extention of the rules on every "low magic" thread that ever gets to four posts.

I know that you were hoping to play Mythbusters, but in this case the only "myth" is that MagicMarts don't exist outside of Internet forums.

RC


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jun 24, 2007)

In my 15 years experience, the magic item Wal-Mart has been around before wal-mart as far I can tell. believe it or not, only 1 DM I ever said, No, had the magic store does not have anything you could want to buy.   There are alot of Dms out there who just say "Ok, what do you want to buy? Alright, do you have the money?" 

I have rejected magic items in my campaigns only because they are story devices in my campaigns, not power ups, and as much as I hate to say it because it (Clee-Shay)[Sp] the video game mentality even though in the mid 80s when I was 8 and started playing D&D at the same time as i got my first NES, the same thing was happening. 

For me, its not 'hate' per say, just a rejection of the idea that a character is only as good as his magic items.  In 3.5 like in 1st ed, when ever a problem came up all players would stop and search there character sheets for something to help, rather then doing any problem solving. In 3.5 I had the same trouble, only more so because people would open up books and argue about a mechanic and how it would work. 

D&D and rpg in general is like a art form because it is all arbitrary to personal experiences. There is no myth, only flat out lies.

Just my 2 copper pieces.

---Rusty


----------



## Ace (Jun 24, 2007)

I prefer to let the players get what they want when they want it with few limitations. While there isn't a magic items Wal-Mart or any other kind of big box retailer there are lots of places that buy and sell magic items.

A artificer can get you most items as can a church of the merchant god, a magesmith, druids, a decently high level wizard, sutler, auction houses, magic item specialty shops etc etc . Hell if the PC' meet the prerequisites and have the power components they can make it themselves.

Magic items in D&D are just stuff, no more magical than say a flashlight in the real world.

 What sets people off is the power curve -- as an example weapons IRL might come in cheap (a norinco 45) good (a colt 45) and custom (les baer custom shop) -- D&D weapons have 10 gradients plus hundreds of options with tangible effects.

To repeat -- magic items are stuff, no more special than non magic stuff in game context -- just more trouble to make. 

They should be available anywhere there is a market for them. I am cool with wealth limits -- After all there are no Porsche dealers in Togo but any decent sized city will have anything a  person might want to buy or have commissioned (if the market is small) . 

Once the PC's reach high level they are powers unto themselves and can do (subject only to other high level types) anything they want -- this takes away the power of the state to regulate them as well, so legal codes often are ignored if anyone bothers with them -- possession is 9/10's of the law if you will 

As powerful people they can get what they want. There is always someone willing to serve the  strong. Low level types OTOH might need a patron.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 24, 2007)

> See, it's just glossed over. Doesn't mean there is a walmart ready to buy and sell magic items.



This is my point, and I think most have completely missed it.

Just because some things are available for purchase, doesn't mean they are sold through any kind of Walmart-like situation.

In most campaigns, everything in the PHB equipment list is available without any rigamarole. Player writes "backpack, rope, lantern, oil, holy water, alchemist fire" on his character sheet and subtracts off the gold cost. But no one says that stuff was bought at a Walmart-type store. It is assumed that the PC went to a general goods store, a temple, an alchemist's shop, etc. Maybe he went to several to round up all the items -- the first general goods store didn't have a backpack, so he ended up at a leatherworker's shop for it. The oil was purchased from a street vendor. The first temple refused to sell to a non-worshipper, so he had to buy from another. Etc., etc., etc. But the actual in-game effort is handwaved.

It's the same when the PC buys a warhorse or a sailing ship. Few DMs, if any, have a problem with skipping the play of locating a reputable horse trader, inspecting the animal, and then working out the payment method.

But if the PC buys a _+1 sword_, suddenly it's assumed to be just a trip to the local Magic-Mart. Why this assumption? In my games, purchasing that magic item means finding a broker or guild to either find the item or create the item. Or maybe, if the item is cheap enough, it can be found at an alchemist's shop, or at small "magic shoppe" (which also sells non-magical charms and trinkets for the commoners). But it is handled at the table, between DM and Player, just as buying a backpack. Unless there is some kind of adventure to be had in the search and purchase, we don't wasted valuable game time playing Shops & Shoppers. Why can't the purchase of magic items be handwave without this mental stumbling block and vocal complaint about turning things into a Walmart?

So, back to my point: If you don't assume that PCs sell and purchase their backpacks, oil, rope, spyglasses, horses, armors, and such from something like a Walmart, why is the Magic-Walmart concept argued when PCs can sell and buy magic items?

Again, just because something is "available" doesn't mean it is sitting on a store shelf. Why the double standard of assumptions between mundane items and magic items? Armor and weapons are "available" for purchase, usually without the DM getting involved in the deal, but no one assumes these are on racks in a big store.

Quasqueton


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 24, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> This is my point, and I think most have completely missed it.
> 
> Just because some things are available for purchase, doesn't mean they are sold through any kind of Walmart-like situation.





I think people are trying to point out that you are the one who has actually missed the point.  Taking the "Magic Walmart" phrase as literal, although in some cases it actually is, is where you have made your error.  The use of such a term is just shorthand for any campaign where most or all magic items are available for purchase.

Did you really miss the point or are you just messing around here?


----------



## kaomera (Jun 24, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Did you really miss the point or are you just messing around here?



I don't think it's entirely a matter of missing the point. Gamers do use terminology like this to insult games / gamers they don't agree with. Personally I try to just shrug and ignore it, but it can be really hard. Heck, the quote above wasn't really directed at me, and yet here I am replying...

I've recently had some interesting conversations with a fiend of mine who just plain does not like D&D. That's fine, but sometimes when she defends her position (which she shouldn't need to, really; but, again there are gamers out there with th idea that there way is the one true way) sometimes she makes generalizations that really aren't true of "D&D". When someone says that D&D is too complicated, that's fine. When they say it takes hours to make a character and try to defend the statement like it applies to every player / group out there, then I tend to want to "correct" that statement. Because it doesn't apply to me, and it doesn't have to apply to every player and every group.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 24, 2007)

> The use of such a term is just shorthand for any campaign where most or all magic items are available for purchase.



Then why do so many say things like, "PCs can purchase magic items in my campaign, but there are no Magic-Marts"?

From this very thread:







> While there isn't a magic items Wal-Mart or any other kind of big box retailer there are lots of places that buy and sell magic items.





> So I have "magic shops", which are usually temples, but they certainly aren't like Walmart.



Quasqueton


----------



## Imp (Jun 24, 2007)

> Why can't the purchase of magic items be handwave without this mental stumbling block and vocal complaint about turning things into a Walmart?



There's a difference between handwaving the interaction in real time and handwaving it in game time.  Many of the proponents of the "buy anytime, anywhere" philosophy seem to wind up making those kinds of purchases more instantaneous and convenient (in game time) than analogous purchases (a car, a house, a boat, an antitank rocket) would be in _real, modern_ life let alone a non-networked pre-industrial society, and that is where things get ridiculous.

If you have a month or two of game time between adventures to track down, verify the suitability of, and arrange the purchase of a magic sword for your character, that's easy to handwave.  If you peel into a strange city on the heels of a fleeing cultist and expect to have available for handy purchase the best of the city's high-end magic items within a 48-hour stay, this is where the buy-anytime-anywhere notion gets strained.  You may as well be able to pile your gold on an altar and have it directly transformed into sweet customized sorcery by the deity of your choice – it's actually one of the more plausible explanations for this kind of thing.


----------



## Mark CMG (Jun 24, 2007)

kaomera said:
			
		

> I don't think it's entirely a matter of missing the point. Gamers do use terminology like this to insult games / gamers they don't agree with. Personally I try to just shrug and ignore it, but it can be really hard.





Oh, I'm not saying that some bit of attittude might not come along with such shorthand but I think Q actually is taking that to be a literal statement.




			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Then why do so many say things like, "PCs can purchase magic items in my campaign, but there are no Magic-Marts"?





I think in those cases they mean that they fall in between and it isn't just a matter of walking into a shop, but that for the right price and a great deal of effort, almost anything is for sale.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jun 24, 2007)

Blackrat said:
			
		

> Yeah, well FR does have these. I think it has been ditched since 3e but wasn't there a thing called Auroras Emporium wich was kinda magic item mail order corporation in FR in the old days.



Actually, the Aurora's Whole Realms Catalog explicitly said they didn't trade in magic items.

The whole catalog only had three items that had any magical properties.  One was some window lace that imposed a mild magical penalty on attempts to open any lock the lace was draped around or over, the other was a small carved "lucky bead" that gave some minor luck bonus, the big one was an "infra-lantern", a drow crafted magic gem in a lantern housing that amplified infravision (well, probably darkvision now), but the infra-lantern was listed as being usually unavailable (and only available at explicit DM permission).

As for the Thayan enclaves, they do provide a way for PC's to get just about any item or magic service, but I'd really not call them "wal marts".  They aren't in every country, and while you can buy a lot of common items off the shelf.

The idea of a magic store makes a lot more sense than the nonsense in older editions of D&D  (like the 2e High Level Campaigns book) that nobody never, ever sells magic items and the only way to get them is to find them by adventuring or make them yourself, and even the most minor of items would never be on the market or available by commission, and if they ever did, it instantly becomes like a modern big-box retail store and the game becomes a farce (complete with a silly illustration of a wizard shopping at a "magic mart" complete with a bargain bin of wands).

In a world where in any random town, 4 or 5 local teenagers (i.e. low level adventurers) can take a walk outside town to one of many local spooky caves or old ruins (the local dungeon/s) and come back with a wagonload of treasure including magic items, and this is a common way of life, it's foolish to assume that there aren't a lot of magic items in circulation.  

When you realize that basic potions, simple magic weapons, and basic wondrous items can be made by characters that by the demographics rules can be found in most towns, and how many creatures exist in the world that can only be meaningfully injured by magic weapons, it's inevitable that magic items would be a lot more common than the impossibly rare way they are treated in some campaigns.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 24, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So why does this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick?



I think you know the answer to that as well as I do. It's a straw man. A misrepresentation of a position designed to make that position look ridiculous.

The default in the core rules is that magic items can be freely bought and sold, limited only by the size of the town. It does not suggest that there should be vast stores filled with magic items, because that of course would be ridiculous. Rather the majority of magic items sold are not held in stock, but crafted to order.


----------



## Imp (Jun 24, 2007)

> In a world where in any random town, 4 or 5 local teenagers (i.e. low level adventurers) can take a walk outside town to one of many local spooky caves or old ruins (the local dungeon/s) and come back with a wagonload of treasure including magic items, and this is a common way of life



Right, do you assume that the PCs are engaged in an ordinary activity for the world in which they dwell, or an extraordinary one?  Cue questions about whether old ruins and spooky caves are a renewable resource or not.

Anyway, I think that taking the DMG as a guide for how your fantasy worlds work, instead of just as a guide to how your fantasy adventures can work, can only lead to grief and nitpickings.


----------



## Treebore (Jun 24, 2007)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> Oh, I'm not saying that some bit of attittude might not come along with such shorthand but I think Q actually is taking that to be a literal statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





And luck. Don't forget the luck. Its not as easy to roll 25% or less as some people might think. 1% is outright luck, but I have rolled it a fair number of times over the years.

Like I am amazed when I roll the d1,000 when I use my "Mother of All Encounter Tables" just how often I have actually rolled at the extremes. I have actually rolled both 1,000 and 0,001 when using those tables.


----------



## IceFractal (Jun 25, 2007)

Ok, I can see the argument that it would take a while in game time, but that doesn't mean it should take a long time in real time.  When someone just goes and "buys" Gloves of Ogre Strength, the actual process may be something like:
1) Ask around town for who might know about such an item.
2) Track down a transaction broker, paying his commission (included in the item's "purchase price").
3) The broker uses his contacts to locate a merchant with gloves matching your description, or possibly several.  The merchants probably got them from adventurers like yourselves, mage's guild members experimenting with new creation methods, or treasure seized from outlaws and auctioned.  They've had a long time to accumulate stuff, as well.
4) You check out several merchants, as some might have the wrong kind of gloves (Gloves of Climbing could make you seem stronger, for instance), or want an unreasonable price.
5) Haggle with the merchant till you get a good price.

But out of game, you just say you're buying them, and life goes on, because the adventure is not normally about shopping.  And a town's GP limit doesn't indicate that the items are sitting on store shelves, necessarily, but that someone in town has one and would be willing to sell it.



Ok, but how does that work with +5 Vorpal swords?  Who has one of those sitting around?  Well, remember that by the time PCs can afford stuff like that, they have abilities that alter the normal shopping process considerably.  
1) They can use divinations to find the one person in the world willing to sell one.  
2) They can travel to extraplanar markets like Sigil, where a much wider variety of things are on sale.
3) They can summon a Djinn and use it as an intermediary to hire a Noble Djinn to wish the item into existance, or likewise with an Efreet (Note: Does not involve trying to scam free wishes).  Genies need money too, as they can't grant it to themselves.
4) They can hire someone to do the above, if they can't themselves.  This may well explain the universal 100% markup on items - commisions.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

Post #12 FTW.



> If there were no MagicMarts, there would be no responses claiming that calling them MagicMarts is snobbish. Nor would there be folks claiming that they are a logical extention of the rules on every "low magic" thread that ever gets to four posts.
> 
> I know that you were hoping to play Mythbusters, but in this case the only "myth" is that MagicMarts don't exist outside of Internet forums.




I'll bite.

Show me.


----------



## The Green Adam (Jun 25, 2007)

One of the favorite places in my main D&D campaign world is a 'magic shop' run my an Elven adventurer now long since retired. A former PC, like many NPCs of note in this particular milieu, the proprietor is constantly testing and experimenting with various magical potions and spells, making entry into the store an adventure in itself. Players have opened the door to the entire place being coated in shades of orange, the shopkeeper unable to deactivate a self-inflicted polymorph and the "stock boy" (a 9 ft. troll) being lost amid the shelves for hours on end.

The shop carries, buys, sells and trades everything from magic items to spell components and is willing to identify and/or translate items and ancient texts to the best of the owner's ability. His colorful antics, foppish clothing and slightly effeminate English accent are all a carefully constructed facade to hide his vast wealth of arcane knowledge and phenomenal spellcasting ability. Make not mistake, he players the clown but is a deadly combatant. And of course, the stock boy _is_ a troll.

For regulars and favorite customers it is not unusual for the shopkeep to preform identifications free of charge, order special, hard-to-get items and even teach a few unique spells of his own creation.

This to me is far from a Magic Walmart and I can safely say my campaign would not be the same without it.


----------



## Thurbane (Jun 25, 2007)

I think the "no magic Walmarts" statement usually means no bulk magic stores where PCs waltz in with a shopping list from the DMG and MiC. Whether or not this is specifically spelled out in the rules, many see it as an inevitable side effect of the Wealth by Level guidelines...


----------



## Imp (Jun 25, 2007)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> Ok, I can see the argument that it would take a while in game time, but that doesn't mean it should take a long time in real time.



Oh lord no.  It can be kind of fun to take players through the process, _once_, maybe later twice if it's different, so they get an idea of what it entails, and you make it interesting with maybe some rivals out there looking to buy the same thing, but yeah, going through a laborious item-hunting process in-game every single time, that sucks, no question.

It's only really an issue if you treat a 3e campaign as a six-month nonstop thrillride to 20th-level demigodhood, which the game makes very possible if you don't allow downtime, and which is really pretty cartoony – though that can be fun.  If you give the campaign a pre-modern pace to begin with, make it more episodic, and have the characters grow at the comparatively glacial but still objectively impressive rate of a level per game year (on average), or even just provide a month or three of downtime between adventures, the time considerations aren't such a strain.


----------



## Toras (Jun 25, 2007)

Planescape has always been a magic intensive setting, and given that the wheel exists in many settings that can be a starting point for many of the magical items that filter their way onto the prime.

In the case of Sigil itself, magical items are easy to come by if you have the cash or the credit.  The reason for this is due in part to the fact that magical items continue to be created but a smaller number are destroyed.  Add to that the fact that the setting allows for other ways of creating such items, like exotic materials or techniques, grand artifice of all the outsider races and the forges of the Gods themselves and there is a great deal of them.

The reason that so many of the ones that seem to change hands or return to stocks happen to be weapons and armor, is easily explainable due to the Blood War.  The war creates an ever present demand for new material, and when people wielding the current are killed the other side or scavengers will claim the weapons and sell them back. 

It creates an abundance of the lower level magical items.   Beyond that it is more of a boutique sale or knowing the right person (that term is applied broadly).  And it can be commissoned or located.  The trick of course is having the money to pay and a way of getting to there.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 25, 2007)

Never mind.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 25, 2007)

KM.. see post #47... right under yours..

 I have seen 'Walmart' approaches to buying magic items, and invariably the results were not good. Perhaps its only my group that constantly has a Thief who sees a 'WalMart' as an opportunity. DM-NPC's and dues ex machina have been the only means to protect such a gathering of magical artifacts.

 For me, if a GM has a shop, such as the one in post #47... I am positive the game will end poorly when the Thief uncloaks the inevitable loophole in the shops protection scheme and gets unceremoniously killed just prior to cleaning the place out.
...and yes, I am speaking from experience.

There was a HR thread a while back, almost a year now, that took a look at this issue. The solution was a simple mechanic based on Gather Information checks that allowed PC's to seek out items they want to buy or sell. The HR has the added benefit of involving a little used skill, the Rogues niche, and possibly incuring side plots {when the local police or guild notices the PC's search...}

The thread is Here for those interested.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 25, 2007)

Is it worthwhile to distinguish between actual "magic marts" and effectively having one in the campaign?

In some cases, having an actual "magic mart" adds to the flavor of the campaign - e.g. Sigil is the crossroads of the multiverse, so anything and everything that can be bought and sold can be found in its Great Bazaar.

In most campaigns, however, no actual magic mart exists, and the key issue is how easily the PCs are able to convert gold into the magic items they want, and conversely, convert the magic items they do not want into gold. In this case, the answer is not a simple yes/no, but a continuum - some DMs simply handwave the process and assume that the PCs are well-connected or lucky enough to be able to find the items they want at short notice (the local alchemist just happened to have a couple of vials of shilversheen), others require the expenditure of game time for shipping or NPC crafting (the local weapons dealer needs a week to arrange for a _+1 longsword_ to be delivered, or the local cleric needs a day to craft a _wand of cure light wounds_), and yet others require Gather Information or Diplomacy checks, the expenditure of other PC resources such as calling in favors, player effort to role-play the acquisition the item, or determine item availability randomly.

Of course, "no magic marts" carries with it mocking undertones which are not present in more neutral statements like "finding and purchasing specific magic items will be more difficult", and it is possible that some people prefer to use it for that reason.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 25, 2007)

> There was a HR thread a while back, almost a year now, that took a look at this issue.



The starting premise of that thread is seriously flawed:







> The problem that all D&D published worlds and to an extent most home games if you follow the list in whatever the big city in the world is the limit is 100,000 gold. Thats the ability to go in to a store and buy almost anything in the DMG(this is stupid on the 2 main levels of the game)



Something being available for purchase in a city does not mean the item is in a store for pick out and pick up. The Player's Handbook lists the price of sailing ships, and they are available for purchase in most campaigns. Does that mean they are in a store? Are they in a ship lot? How about a city in the middle of a desert, or in the mountains? Even in a coastal city, is it assumed that the PCs can just go buy one in an hour?

Of course not. The assumption is that the PCs must do more than just walk into a store and buy a ship. We may not play out the whole search and deal; we may handwave all the in-game work, but it is usually understood by all concerned that there was more to it.

But with magic items, if they are available for purchase by the PCs, why must it mean they are sitting on store shelves in a Walmart? Where is the disconnect?

Quasqueton


----------



## CruelSummerLord (Jun 25, 2007)

I think Quasqueton's original point should be picked up-if PCs can go and casually write down mundane purchases on their character sheets, subtracting the appropriate amount of money, why do people throw such a hissy fit when magic items are involved?  

Speaking as someone who would probably throw one of those hissy fits, I can say that it's because whoever's running the setting doesn't want what they see as something mysterious and exotic (in this case, magic) becoming trivialized and just another commodity.  If magic can be bought and sold like a CD or a pair of pants, what makes it so special, mysterious and exotic if mages can just crank it out wiithout too much trouble?  

Remember, if you look back through fiction and fantasy, magic items are usually a real pain in the &** to create.  If they're treated like any commodity, what makes them any different from flashlights, ceiling fans, or any of the other mundane knick-knacks we buy on a regular basis?  

Maybe a compromise is in order.  There are magic shops...they just don't sell permanent items.  Wizards' guilds and churches might sell potions and scrolls to raise capital, just as they sell their prepared spells.  If you don't have many magical weapons or armor in your campaign, maybe that _oil of impact, oil of sharpness_ or _oil of physical protection_ will make a handy substitute.  

And, of course, all the various odds and ends needed to scribe scrolls or brew those potions in the first place can be sold at magic shops.  If your PCs need diamond dust, or little crafted doors, or something else like that that cost a given amount of money, they can buy them at the magic shops.  Better yet, enterprising players can have another source of income-how much will an alchemist pay for those wyvern eyes, or that horn of minotaur?  The 1E DMG has all sorts of notes on what could be used to brew potions or scribe scrolls (pumpkin seeds, kobold horn, elf blood, various types of gems and herbs, etc.) so why not sell these kinds of things instead?


----------



## MerricB (Jun 25, 2007)

In my Adventure Path games, due to the time constraints the designers have placed on the campaigns, there might as well be magic marts. I don't mind the PCs being able to buy what they want. Selling items is, of course, easy. Buying them might not be so easy, but hey, if they only have 30 minutes of downtime before the next adventure because the designers didn't leave any space of time, I'm not going to make things harder for the PCs. Let them get what they want!

For me, it's the adventures that are fun, not the "realism" of the setting.

In the campaigns I design myself, I get more picky about what the PCs can buy. I can put downtime into the adventures, so I do so. PCs can get a artificer to craft the item they want... although it'll be some weeks before they get it.

If I put cool items into the adventures, the PCs don't have to buy their own items. If I don't put cool items into the adventures, I've made a mistake, and I'm not going to hurt the players as a result.

Cheers!


----------



## FireLance (Jun 25, 2007)

CruelSummerLord said:
			
		

> Speaking as someone who would probably throw one of those hissy fits, I can say that it's because whoever's running the setting doesn't want what they see as something mysterious and exotic (in this case, magic) becoming trivialized and just another commodity.  If magic can be bought and sold like a CD or a pair of pants, what makes it so special, mysterious and exotic if mages can just crank it out wiithout too much trouble?



While I can get behind the idea that some magic should be mysterious and exotic, it is usually more trouble than it is worth (and probably impossible) to make all magic mysterious and exotic. 

The magic item that the PC treasures and wants is the one that allows him to do something that he can't do (or finds difficult to do) by mundane means, but which he can't obtain easily. Simply restricting magic items in the campaign will fulfill the second criteria, but that is only one approach. Wealth by level and magic item level guidelines (from the Magic Item Compendium) can do the same, and probably scale better with PC level. 

The magic item in question must also be significant enough to fulfull the first criteria. D&D's level-based scaling system means that some magic items do become trivial at higher levels. A _potion of cure light wounds_ might mean the difference between life and death at low levels, but at high levels, a single _potion of cure light wounds_ makes hardly any difference to a character's hit points. No matter how rare you make _potions of cure light wounds_ in the campaign, a high-level character isn't going to go out of his way to get one, or feel particularly happy should he happen to find one. In fact, probably the best way to make magic feel trivial is to stock the world with anemic magic items that won't make much of a difference to the PCs.

Since some magic items are going to become trivial when the PCs reach the higher levels, do we really lose anything by making them available for sale?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> KM.. see post #47... right under yours..




For reference: 



> One of the favorite places in my main D&D campaign world is a 'magic shop' run my an Elven adventurer now long since retired. A former PC, like many NPCs of note in this particular milieu, the proprietor is constantly testing and experimenting with various magical potions and spells, making entry into the store an adventure in itself. Players have opened the door to the entire place being coated in shades of orange, the shopkeeper unable to deactivate a self-inflicted polymorph and the "stock boy" (a 9 ft. troll) being lost amid the shelves for hours on end.
> 
> The shop carries, buys, sells and trades everything from magic items to spell components and is willing to identify and/or translate items and ancient texts to the best of the owner's ability. His colorful antics, foppish clothing and slightly effeminate English accent are all a carefully constructed facade to hide his vast wealth of arcane knowledge and phenomenal spellcasting ability. Make not mistake, he players the clown but is a deadly combatant. And of course, the stock boy is a troll.
> 
> ...




Specifically, the poster notes that this is "far from a Magic Walmart." Rather, it's an eccentric shop run by an eccentric one-time adventurer and current spellcaster. As an expert in magic items who exists in the setting, it makes sense for this NPC to set up shop. In the "default D&D" assumptions, other adventurers exist, so this would fit right in in Eberron or FR or most homebrews who use that default D&D assumption. 

So I can't see how calling it a "MagicMart" is anything other than trying to reduce his flavorful, time-built campaign element into some harmful problem waiting to happen when for him, and his group, it quite obviously isn't.



> I have seen 'Walmart' approaches to buying magic items, and invariably the results were not good. Perhaps its only my group that constantly has a Thief who sees a 'WalMart' as an opportunity. DM-NPC's and dues ex machina have been the only means to protect such a gathering of magical artifacts.




Again, you call his adventurer-run shop a "Walmart" approach, which he specifically denies (and which, honestly, I don't see). You falsely assume there's only two ways (two negative ways, at that) to stop some potential "thief" from robbing the place.



> For me, if a GM has a shop, such as the one in post #47... I am positive the game will end poorly when the Thief uncloaks the inevitable loophole in the shops protection scheme and gets unceremoniously killed just prior to cleaning the place out.
> ...and yes, I am speaking from experience.




And then you go on to claim that your experience is one that is universal? That all GM's with even flavorful, historic places where magic items and magic supplies can be bought and sold will have a problem because someone will eventually steal the items?

There's a million and one ways to protect a location in D&D without the abuse of DM power or the strangling of verisimilitude. There's even more ways than that to "handle" a thief who *does* rob a place like that that the world already has in place.

First thing I would think of is "You are meddling in the affairs of wizards. You'll be lucky if being unceremoniously killed is the only thing they have planned for you." Second thing I would think of is "Troll stock boy."

So, your complaints with even a sensible magic shop fall very flat, and, indeed, sound more like you condemning the concept without an understanding of the concept, in other words, showing how a campaign without magic shops (like yours, presumably) is better than any possible campaign with magic shops (like The Green Adam's). 

Your experience sounds rather poorly handled to my ears. Don't assume that privately owned stashes of magic items are always so easily accessed or obsessed over.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jun 25, 2007)

MidknightSun pretty much nailed it. There aren't enough high level wizards in most cities for folks to buy major items (like +1 swords) off the rack. I go with about one in three wizards of sufficient level even having the crafting feats, and half of _those_ are tied up in government contracts (the Iron Kingdoms is a bit closer to 19th Century than 12th...).

If you do want to buy a magic item you commission it, cash down, well in advance of when you will actually get it. You aren't the only one standing in the queue.

Potions and scrolls of healing or Remove Disease and the like are the most common items to find readily available, even from the temples.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Destil (Jun 25, 2007)

Eberron, for the record, has the dragonmarked houses. You can typically find service of some of the minor spellcasting (arcane mark, cure light wounds, restoration, mending, shield other, detect poison et cetera). But the services of anyone who can use anything beyond the least dragonmark abilities (0th level to weak 2nd level spells) are beyond the availability of almost everyone (typically reserved for governments and interhouse work). Cannith can make most magic items, but anything above caster level 4-5 typically needs to be special ordered unless your in someplace major like Sharn (and even there you'll only find the most common and useful stuff "on the shelf"). Sharn also has an auction house where people specifically buy and sell powerful unique items, but it's almost never going to be a given being able to get anything that requires even, say, a 7th level caster.

All in all there's more people making magic items and selling magical services (your 6th level and higher experts with marks can do stuff like teleport, create rain, cure serious wounds, scrying and nondetection. Magewrights are an NPC wizard who mostly specializes in using craft skills with a +5 bonus, but can also learn a few other spells. And then there's artificers). But they tend to be low level and the items you find commonly for sale are cheep (relativity, their fantastically expensive for the common people) and useful to society.

Yeah, the Jorrasco cure light wounds may save your life, but you're nearly as well off with their halfling expert giving you a few days of care and bedrest. And it won't cost the equivalent of 3 month's salary.


----------



## irdeggman (Jun 25, 2007)

There are settings where magic item availability is supposed to be low.  Birthright and Dark Sun for two, although in Dark Sun they are supposed to be "different" not necessarily not there - oh and "hidden" since wizardly magic is associated with defiling and in general "frowned on" if not outright "hated".

So in these type of settings there should be no easy way of getting magic items, unlike other setttings like FR, Greyhawk or Eberron (where it is a commercial enterprise by the way - magic is a commodity and part of way of life of most residents, especially in Sharn).

In Birthright there are supposed to be far fewer people capable of casting greater magic (and thus creating magic items) by setting design.

In Dark Sun they are supposed to be more reclusive and except for the elven markets (elves will pretty buy and sell anything they can get their hands on) they are underground and thus much more rare than would be in "other" settings.

IMO the term Magic Walmart refers to a "high magic item" world where it is relatively easy to find (and dispose of) magic items of most types.  It can be unfortuneatly deragatory though.


----------



## Maldor (Jun 25, 2007)

i see alot of people pointing to XP cost like they are a big deal but just one (cr 1) monster gets you over 7000 gp worth of crafting XP and you can craft that in 7 days then sale it compared to the years of work doing a non-magic carft to make that much. 
and the thay shops have a price limit on the stuff they make yes with a good deplomicy and a waiting list you can get more expensive stuff but being albe to comission expensive items just makes common sense i you are willing to pay for it you can buy almost anything


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> ...(Lots of fancy demographic calculation, depending on city size, all taken from the rules.)...
> 
> Anyway, that's my take.




And yet.

Magic items have existed in the game world for eons. Take FR, Eberron, or GH.

There aren't lots of fancy rules to describe how long a magical blade will last. Whether it will rust in the rain, get bent when slicing through armour, and heaps of other mundane wear-and-tear rules. Basically because they aren't much fun, and it is a part of the genre: ancient swords, borne by famous swordsmen through the ages. Fantasical, Mythical, & Magical.

So if the entire planet consists of, say 100 million sentient creatures (a low estimate considering the fact that sentient beings exist underground in massive communities (drow, duergar, illithids, aboleth,...) as well as below the seas (mermen, sea elves, sahuagin,...)), and if we assume that over the past 10,000 years, our fantasical planet has seen maybe 100 billion sentient creatures (apart from those visiting from beyond the sphere/phlogiston/other planar entities/divinities), how many +1, +2, +3, +4 & +5 swords would you expect to see lying around? Given this glut of almost nondestructible items, wouldn't you expect to see people giving them away? 

Just be happy you see them +5 vorpal holy avengers in Walmarts, and not being given away by farmers for seed.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jun 25, 2007)

And yet.

Magic items have existed in the game world for eons. Take FR, Eberron, or GH.

_But magic items get used (charges, one shots, etc) and destroyed.  Additionally, not everything that's made is found after centuries or eons . . . especially at the same time_

There aren't lots of fancy rules to describe how long a magical blade will last. Whether it will rust in the rain, get bent when slicing through armour, and heaps of other mundane wear-and-tear rules. Basically because they aren't much fun, and it is a part of the genre: ancient swords, borne by famous swordsmen through the ages. Fantasical, Mythical, & Magical.

_Again, I just don't see how applying a little internal consistency and a moderate baseline of reality suddenly = not fun, or suddenly becomes overwrought.  It really doesn't.  I've never really had any of my players say anything like that, and for the record I run 2 campaigns . . . one of which I was begged to run, so I got no shortage of people who apparently think things ARE indeed fun with my view of things.  I do also have magical "stores" or whatnot, I just don't see even the basic logic in the "everything is available" idea . . . . not to mention what someone said before about players even knowing that half this stuff exists. YMMV_

So if the entire planet consists of, say 100 million sentient creatures (a low estimate considering the fact that sentient beings exist underground in massive communities (drow, duergar, illithids, aboleth,...) as well as below the seas (mermen, sea elves, sahuagin,...)), and if we assume that over the past 10,000 years, our fantasical planet has seen maybe 100 billion sentient creatures (apart from those visiting from beyond the sphere/phlogiston/other planar entities/divinities), how many +1, +2, +3, +4 & +5 swords would you expect to see lying around? Given this glut of almost nondestructible items, wouldn't you expect to see people giving them away? 

_Not really.  Its actually fairly easy to destroy magic, even by 3.5 rules (as long as their not in someone else's hands).  Even then, sunder is pretty rough.  Doesn't take more then a well placed fireball or two to incinerate all the magic on a fallen character (often, this isn;t even intentional)_

Just be happy you see them +5 vorpal holy avengers in Walmarts, and not being given away by farmers for seed.

_Lol, yeah that would pretty much kill me right there, but I don't think saying "it could be worse" really helps the issue.  The caveat here is that, if your group is fine with the whole idea of getting whatever you can afford, then have at it.  I personally hate the idea, and don't think the rules even support the availability they claim._


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'll bite.
> 
> Show me.




Show you what?  People calling it snobbish?  That's upthread.

People claiming it makes sense to have MagicMarts?  If I did the search and pulled up examples, would that change your mind?  Heck, you can go upthread for that, too.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 25, 2007)

I think people keep focusing on opposite ends of the spectrum to make their points in this thread. You can make any of these outlooks on the topic work in your campaign if you are willing to account of the consequences of your choice.

IMC PCs can find shops that have a limited inventory of magic items as well as alchemy shops to buy potions etc. I would not consent to PCs being able to walk into a shop and buy a +3 keen shocking burst greatsword of wounding. OTOH I wouldn't have a problem with a PC dropping off his +3 great sword of wounding to get a keen enchatment or a shocking burst enchantment added to it. It might seem like petty distinction but it is an important one to the flavor of the game world I created. 
I would never allow a holy avenger to be bought in a magic store and I don't think such a distinction in any way breaks the game. If a PC has the weath and appropriate level to own one and really wants it then there will be other avenues to coming into possesion of one. Perhaps gather rare or dangerous components to have one made. Perhaps a quest or series of quests to locate or free one from the clutches of evil. Maybe the church has one locked up awaiting the chosen one to fulfil prophecies before they give it over then all the PC has to do is start making those prophecies happen. 
Buying one off the shelves of a store blah no thanks.

*edited because typing is not a class skill for me.


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Lol, yeah that would pretty much kill me right there, but I don't think saying "it could be worse" really helps the issue.  The caveat here is that, if your group is fine with the whole idea of getting whatever you can afford, then have at it.  I personally hate the idea, and don't think the rules even support the availability they claim.




Who claims? I've never had anyone "claim" that at all.

The point being:

1) nobody expects a walmart.
2) players ask if they can find a certain object, given the time available, and the city size, the DM adjudicates whether or not it is available, and for what "price." 

Mature players don't bemoan the DM when told the sought after object isn't found (for whatever reason). They suck it up and move on. Major cities like Waterdeep or Greyhawk are more likely to have rarer objects.

Bottom line: it all comes down to the whim of the DM.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> Show you what? People calling it snobbish? That's upthread.
> 
> People claiming it makes sense to have MagicMarts? If I did the search and pulled up examples, would that change your mind? Heck, you can go upthread for that, too.




Show me what you consider a "MagicMart."

If it's anything like Green Adam's post, I don't really understand why it's a problem in most campaigns (though it certainly may be a problem for some specific campaigns who treat magic less like the psedo-science D&D treats it like as a default). If it's a more crudely drawn stereotype of 20th Century capitalism in action, I can perhaps see a problem for most campaigns, but I don't see any real examples of the literal "WalMart of magical items" being posted, either.

In absence of the latter, I'm inclined to say that "MagicMarts," as they exist in the heads of many who would decry them, don't really exist except for those who want to belittle the idea of magic item purchasing by mocking it (which is a fairly "snobbish" thing to do, I feel). 

With the presence of the former, I'm inclined to say that, when available, "magic items traded for gp" tend to be great opportunities for PC's to meet eccentric sages, get hooked into plots about magic and dungeons, know that there's a world beyond them (other adventurers who have had other adventures and gained their power), and, perhaps most simply, to be able to customize a large portion of their character's power to their own imaginations. And I fail to see why any of that is necessarily something to be avoided.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

green slime said:
			
		

> 1) nobody expects a walmart.




Except, of course, for those who do?  Go upthread, and you'll see that people specifically posted that they played in games that, in effect or in actuality, had magic marts.



> 2) players ask if they can find a certain object, given the time available, and the city size, the DM adjudicates whether or not it is available, and for what "price."




Unless, of course, the DM uses the MIC, where he is instructed to tell the players Yes.    

Seriously, though, the city size and the time available _are not, and should not be_ the only factors involved.  Let's use a mundane item, like a ship, for example.  You wouldn't expect to be able to buy a ship in the largest of cities if it is landlocked.  IMC, there are mundane items that one cannot always pick up.  If one is in the lands of the Alderhald or the Bearfolk, the people aren't technologically proficient to create a spyglass, no matter how much you offer them.  Platemail, anywhere, can only be bought on commission....if there is someone there capable of making it.

Of course, in my world too you can buy some magic items.  Mostly you can commission them from individual artisans.  You pay upfront, and you may be required to supply power components.  IMC, the means of creating any given item is a Secret, and every crafter has a limited number of Secrets.  Therefore, not every item is available from every crafter, and Secrets are jealously guarded.  Wresting the Secret of creating Item X might be an adventure in and of itself, and finding the secret libraries of wizards is interesting again.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jun 25, 2007)

green slime said:
			
		

> Who claims? I've never had anyone "claim" that at all.
> 
> The point being:
> 
> ...




I was referring to the default claim of the DMG, not anyone in particular. No need for you to take offense.

1) All I need to do is find one person who does indeed expect to get anything they can afford, a la WalMart, and I've shot down this claim.  Sure you want to hold onto that?

2) Sure, I have no problem with this.  Its when players DO whine and point to their DMG as to how they should be able to find the "mighty macguffin of cause internal bleeding on the DM" per the DMG, that we have problems.  Not all whining is a drop on the ground, kick in the air, coniption either.  Grownups usually default to less overt methods.  The default setting greatly encourages getting what the might GP can buy.  As a DM can I say NO to such and such an item? Sure, and I have now and then.  But the default assumption greatly entitles players to expect to get anything they want as long as the town's wealth guidelines allow it, regardless of the other things that are going on in the Campaign.

If I'm reading your last paragraph here right, I'm not sure we are really disagreeing with each other, so much as disagreeing on each other's word choice.  

Mature players do indeed play along, as long as they feel their DM isn't being a complete jerk.  However, I've come across more than a few mature people who are surprisingly immature players.  You don't often realize it until you're neck deep into a campaign.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Show me what you consider a "MagicMart."




Best example is the Arcane from 2nd Edition.  MagicMarts are any place in which a PC can go to obtain any (or nearly any) magic item for the list price (or near list price) in the DMG.

In a magical version of the James Bond universe, Q Branch would be a MagicMart (although not one open to the public).



> If it's anything like Green Adam's post, I don't really understand why it's a problem in most campaigns (though it certainly may be a problem for some specific campaigns who treat magic less like the psedo-science D&D treats it like as a default). If it's a more crudely drawn stereotype of 20th Century capitalism in action, I can perhaps see a problem for most campaigns, but I don't see any real examples of the literal "WalMart of magical items" being posted, either.




Whether it's a problem or not is a secondary issue.  This thread, AFAIK, is about whether or not they _exist_ outside of Internet forums, and I would say that is obvious that they do.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> All I need to do is find one person who does indeed expect to get anything they can afford, a la WalMart, and I've shot down this claim. Sure you want to hold onto that?




Wait, now any hassle-free commercial exchange is automatically trivialized by comparing it to big-box concepts?

"I have 1 GP, can I get rations?"
"....Maybe."


----------



## Midknightsun (Jun 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Wait, now any hassle-free commercial exchange is automatically trivialized by comparing it to big-box concepts?
> 
> "I have 1 GP, can I get rations?"
> "....Maybe."




Strawman


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Except, of course, for those who do?  Go upthread, and you'll see that people specifically posted that they played in games that, in effect or in actuality, had magic marts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Sure you can. You just can't expect to immediately take possession of the item. Case in point: Purchasing a ship. You could buy a ship, sight unseen, from a noble living in a landlocked city. He gives you the deed to the ship, and you then take yourself to the port at which it is said to be anchored, only to find the sloop is a barnacle-covered reef-wreck, with crabs holding the planks together.

When there is an IQ-liberated someone with a ludicrous amount of money in dire need of an item, ... Especially in large cities, and even moreso when the need is well-advertised.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Strawman




Yup.  Clearly KM has access to the army from Family of Blood.


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> If I'm reading your last paragraph here right, I'm not sure we are really disagreeing with each other, so much as disagreeing on each other's word choice.




Probably. I may just be suffering from work boredom, the secondmost common emotion experienced at work. In which case, please ignore my incoherent ramblings.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> Mature players do indeed play along, as long as they feel their DM isn't being a complete jerk.  However, I've come across more than a few mature people who are surprisingly immature players.  You don't often realize it until you're neck deep into a campaign.




Yes, I too have noticed that.


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> 1) All I need to do is find one person who does indeed expect to get anything they can afford, a la WalMart, and I've shot down this claim.  Sure you want to hold onto that?




I should have qualified with: IMX, ... 

Comes from typing faster than I think.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

green slime said:
			
		

> Sure you can. You just can't expect to immediately take possession of the item. Case in point: Purchasing a ship.




Please note that I didn't say that it was impossible.  I said "You wouldn't expect to be able to buy a ship in the largest of cities if it is landlocked".  Those are two different things.  There may be a noble in Landlocked City who has a deed to a ship, but there equally well may not be.  It very much depends upon how far the reach of the nobility in that city goes.  Even in a city with ports, there is not always a ship available for sale (although one could presumably have one built).


----------



## Holy Bovine (Jun 25, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> MidknightSun pretty much nailed it. There aren't enough high level wizards in most cities for folks to buy *major items (like +1 swords) *off the rack.




Emphasis mine.  Do you really consider +1 swords 'major items'?      I guess that might be why I don't have much problem with magic shops in D&D.  Major items, to me, are stuff over 50 000gp in value.  Most anything else can be found to purchase...eventually.  That doesn't mean there are actual magic shops in my games (except for minor items worth less than 2000gp) I try to use a combination of retired adventurers, churches (do you really want to steal from the CN church of the God of Thieves?) and even criminal organizations (although they always seem to have a 'front' of honest business  ) to facilitate the purchase of magical items.  Also most any city over 5000 will have at least one wizard willing to craft items for a fee if you don't mind waiting.  I guess I really don't get why DMs feel the need to throw huge obstacles in front of players simply because they are now 'x' level and want something to spend their gold on.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> MagicMarts are any place in which a PC can go to obtain any (or nearly any) magic item for the list price (or near list price) in the DMG.




So, then, your campaign has MagicMarts, too, right?



> Of course, in my world too you can buy some magic items. Mostly you can commission them from individual artisans.




These artisans are places PC's can go to obtain nearly any magic item (within the limits of the secrets that artisan knows) for near the list price (plus any "power components") in the DMG, right? The whole "secrets" thing tends to limit individual artisans, but taken as a whole, the artisans can presumably make a lot of magic items.



> This thread, AFAIK, is about whether or not they exist outside of Internet forums, and I would say that is obvious that they do.




Actually, I think it was a much more narrowly focused than "any place the PC's can go to obtain magic items for the DMG price (-ish)." 

Specifically, this comes to mind:



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> The setting suggested in the core rules has no "Magic-Walmarts". Greyhawk has no Magic-Walmarts. I'm not real familiar with Eberron or Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they have Magic-Walmart-style stores either.




But FR and Eberron at least both have places that the PC's can go to obtain magic items for the DMG price (specifically, you have artificers and dragonmarked houses in the latter, and Red Wizards in the former). Greyhawk is the world implied by the DMG, so it seems they have "magicmarts" too (limited by town size and available NPC's and the like). So I'm not so sure that's the same definition the OP uses when he doubts their existence.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 25, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> All I need to do is find one person who does indeed expect to get anything they can afford, a la WalMart



Being able to purchase anything you can afford, given time, is not the same thing as a Magic Walmart. The phrase 'Magic Walmart' conjures up the image of a single vast store containing many, many magic items ready to be sold.

This is why the term is misleading and should not be used.


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please note that I didn't say that it was impossible.  I said "You wouldn't expect to be able to buy a ship in the largest of cities if it is landlocked".  Those are two different things.  There may be a noble in Landlocked City who has a deed to a ship, but there equally well may not be.  It very much depends upon how far the reach of the nobility in that city goes.  Even in a city with ports, there is not always a ship available for sale (although one could presumably have one built).




True. But expectation is only limited by the fantasy of the expecter. Realistic expectations are best left at the door. This is DnD we are talking about, after all.


----------



## Felix (Jun 25, 2007)

Reading this thread is like watching two singles tennis players have a match on two different courts. MidnightSun and his proponents keep saying, "There are no Magic Wal-marts; they don't make sense!" Quasqueton and his supporters keep saying, "There are no Magic Wal-marts, we just don't roleplay tracking down Ummba-Chula the Mysterious who is reputed to collect famous fantastical swords of heroes when we want to buy a +1 _flaming_ sword."

Oddly, both sides are saying the same bloody thing. Quit banging your heads against the wall.

---

The question of how many magic items are available in a city is something else. But ask yourself, why would someone continuously craft magic items? Certainly Wizards have the most cost intensive career: that 13th level Wizard needs 700gp worth of stuff to scribe _one_ 7th level spell in his spellbook. Where does he get 700gp? Well, possibly he knows the lower-level wizards or is their master, so he could easily get 700gp by scribing some lower-level spells for them and their spellbooks. So now you've got Wizards scribing stuff: scrolls become available on the market.

Why would potions be available? The government is interested in keeping their troops alive, and the 13th level cleric is interested in spreading the word of Dog. The government gets their cure-lights for the platoon's medic, and the cleric makes his 3rd level novices and 6th level apprentices brew a few potions.

Why would armor be available? In this mideval fantasy, you'll likely have some kind of a feudal  feudal system so let's assume that. Cavalry was fairly important in warfare, and it took a lot of money to keep a knight in full kit. So it isn't a stretch to say that knight will be fairly wealthy on the whole, and that some of them will be very wealthy indeed. You'll have knights interested in armor that offers them better protection, and this will give incentives to money-seeking casters to create a Craft Magic Arms and Armor commissioning system.

The same will be the case for weapons, wands, rods, rings and sundry. Folks who have the ability to craft but don't have money will meet up with people who have the money but can't craft, and by the exchange both will come off better off.

Does this mean that NPCs will be spending XP making things? Yes. And they'll make that XP back the same way they did the first time. But unless you spend time every session updating the group as to the adventuring successes of all your NPCs, this story isn't about them: it's about the PCs. 

Does this mean that it's likely that many things won't be available immediately? Yes. Neither are sailing ships, as Quasqueton keeps pointing out.

Does this mean that it's possible to find people who collect +1 Can-openers of Speed who would be willing to part with one for a price? Yes. It may take a long time to locate them without the convienience of EBay, but that's why we have a Gather Information skill. 

Do players enjoy role-playing the search for Ummba-Chula, the tension-fraught negotiations, and the satisfaction found in spending an hour of real-time coming away with a potion of Cure Light Wounds? *shrug* I don't. Do you?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So, then, your campaign has MagicMarts, too, right?




I have run games with them.  Again, the easiest example was the Arcane from 2e.  They were an official MagicMart in a game that officially suggested you don't have MagicMarts.    



> These artisans are places PC's can go to obtain nearly any magic item (within the limits of the secrets that artisan knows) for near the list price (plus any "power components") in the DMG, right? The whole "secrets" thing tends to limit individual artisans, but taken as a whole, the artisans can presumably make a lot of magic items.




No.  If all of the artisans were located in one place (such as Waterdeep in FR), then you could make that claim.  If the artisans within a given location knew how to make nearly any magic item, then you could make that claim.

Likewise, if your game has a shop that sells some scrolls, and a church that sells some potions, but you have to travel 100 miles to get a magic warhammer, which wasn't already made for you, and which you couldn't be certain the artisan you sought _would_ make for you, then I wouldn't claim that this was an example of a MagicMart in your game, either.



> But FR and Eberron at least both have places that the PC's can go to obtain magic items for the DMG price (specifically, you have artificers and dragonmarked houses in the latter, and Red Wizards in the former). Greyhawk is the world implied by the DMG, so it seems they have "magicmarts" too (limited by town size and available NPC's and the like). So I'm not so sure that's the same definition the OP uses when he doubts their existence.




Well, then, I suppose Q's definition ought to be given.  Until he defines what he means specifically, we can only go by our own definitions.


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Oddly, both sides are saying the same bloody thing. Quit banging your heads against the wall.




Spoilsport


----------



## Midknightsun (Jun 25, 2007)

_Probably. I may just be suffering from work boredom, the secondmost common emotion experienced at work. In which case, please ignore my incoherent ramblings._

I'd kill for boredom . . . its just that my ADHD keeps me from doing that contract I should be finishing up right now . . . . at least that's my story.



> Being able to purchase anything you can afford, given time, is not the same thing as a Magic Walmart. The phrase 'Magic Walmart' conjures up the image of a single vast store containing many, many magic items ready to be sold.




Not the same, but not far off. However, the issue was walmarts in general, not ways DMs use to allay or lessen the sense of entitlement to instant gratification (which is fine now and then too, I suppose) Indeed, saying something will take time is a useful in game device to show the PCs had a work a bit for it.  

Yet, another way is simply saying NO.  Really folks, its not a bad word.  Cats won't start chasing dogs.  The world won't implode.  Your game won't suddenly have all the fun sucked out of it, despite some claims to the contrary.  Character concepts won't fall apart because said item isn't freely flowing around the campaign world like internet pictures of Brittany Spears sans hair. 

However, the phrase of mine that you quoted was in reference to GS's claim that nobody expects a walmart, which he later qualified as saying IMX, which I have no problem with.  Its just that the initial claim was rather all-encompassing.  Bringing time into the equation is another issue.

_Oddly, both sides are saying the same bloody thing. Quit banging your heads against the wall._

I would, if someone would take the sign off the wall of my office that says "bang head here".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> No. If all of the artisans were located in one place (such as Waterdeep in FR), then you could make that claim. If the artisans within a given location knew how to make nearly any magic item, then you could make that claim.
> 
> Likewise, if your game has a shop that sells some scrolls, and a church that sells some potions, but you have to travel 100 miles to get a magic warhammer, which wasn't already made for you, and which you couldn't be certain the artisan you sought would make for you, then I wouldn't claim that this was an example of a MagicMart in your game, either.




So it has to be a single discreet location in the campaign?

Does it count if you just abstract it all by saying "You go into town and can re-supply your magic items," assuming that you go to a temple for your Cure Light Wounds potions and an Akademy for your Magic Missile wands and a dwarven priest-smith for your +1 sword (assuming the town can support it, of course)? Because there's not one location in the game, but there is in the playing experience, in this case.

The core rules, at least, suggest that this is more the case. Even a setting as rich in magitek as Eberron doesn't have a single warehouse, they have competing families and differing town sizes (most of which don't have high level NPC's).

What about something like Sigil or other grand planar metropoli where critters like Mercane/Arcane hang out (effectively, almost without a GP limit)? They have a Market Ward where you can get almost anything, but they don't always keep it on-hand, and where it's not just one salesman...is that a MagicMart if abstracted, but not if drawn out?



> Well, then, I suppose Q's definition ought to be given. Until he defines what he means specifically, we can only go by our own definitions.




Well, if I were to use the mighty power of deductive reasoning, I'd say that Q is implying that giant magical warehouses of magic items from Apparatus of Kwalish to Zombie Powder are aberrant, and so those who complain about them should at least be more accurate, because the term "Magical WalMart" meaningless, if what they are railing against only appears in campaigns that are actually out of the norm anyway. 

This would be consistent with his argument, while a definition such as yours (that seems to make MagicMarts relatively common, if all the above examples apply) isn't. It would also be consistent with several posters who claim that "MagicMarts" were used for humor value or for tongue-in-cheek campaigns, but who nevertheless might have mundane places where people can obtain magic items in their own campaigns. Even if it is abstracted to such a level where the DM simply says: "The GP limit of the town is X, you can buy any magic item below X GP, sell stuff up to Y GP. Go change your character sheets, I'm going to use the restroom," it doesn't necessarily imply one physical warehouse location in the setting, I think.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> However, the phrase of mine that you quoted was in reference to GS's claim that nobody expects a walmart, which he later qualified as saying IMX, which I have no problem with.  Its just that the initial claim was rather all-encompassing.  Bringing time into the equation is another issue.




Which is, btw, actually the main problem with the OP.  

I would say that there are settings in which MagicMarts (or equivilent) are _required_, btw.  A truly Victorian Fantasy setting should have shops that sell souped up bicycles and motorcars, after all.  A Fantasy Western setting should include the sale of magic guns and ammo.  If the feel of the time you are attempting to portray (pastiche, mimic, whatever) includes mass-production, then perhaps magical doo-dads _should_ be for sale.

Games that mimic Westerns (and we all know there's more than one out there   ) could well have trading posts that sell "magic guns and ammo" in the form of swords and potions.  That wouldn't be my cup of tea at this point, but if it was skillfully handled, it wouldn't be a game-breaker for me, either.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So it has to be a single discreet location in the campaign?
> 
> Does it count if you just abstract it all by saying "You go into town and can re-supply your magic items," assuming that you go to a temple for your Cure Light Wounds potions and an Akademy for your Magic Missile wands and a dwarven priest-smith for your +1 sword (assuming the town can support it, of course)? Because there's not one location in the game, but there is in the playing experience, in this case.




I would say, Yes.  The town effectively becomes a gigantic Warehouse of Holding.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> I would say, Yes. The town effectively becomes a gigantic Warehouse of Holding.




So if one just abstracted your magical artisans, and said "Okay, in this big city, you can find any vendor who doesn't manufacture wonderous items given a week," wouldn't that be the same thing?

So, wouldn't it be accurate to say that for you, MagicMarts are just when people don't pay attention to the little details of shopping for magic items that can make them memorable? Whenever buying magic is as easy as buying rations, it becomes a MagicMart?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So if one just abstracted your magical artisans, and said "Okay, in this big city, you can find any vendor who doesn't manufacture wonderous items given a week," wouldn't that be the same thing?




I assume you mean that, if you abstracted my system and said "Okay, in this big city, you can find any vendor capable of manufacturing any wondrous item you want given a week" rather than "doesn't".  If that was the case, yes, that would be MagicMarty.  

However, that is not the case, IMC at least.  



> So, wouldn't it be accurate to say that for you, MagicMarts are just when people don't pay attention to the little details of shopping for magic items that can make them memorable? Whenever buying magic is as easy as buying rations, it becomes a MagicMart?




I don't think you have to go so far as to make it as easy as shopping for food before you've hit MagicMart status.

I think that what I'd say is that MagicMarts are any place in which a PC can go to obtain any (or nearly any) magic item for the list price (or near list price) in the DMG.


----------



## Rothe (Jun 25, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (or Magimarts, etc.). This kind of statement makes no sense.
> 
> The setting suggested in the core rules has no "Magic-Walmarts". Greyhawk has no Magic-Walmarts. I'm not real familiar with Eberron or Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they have Magic-Walmart-style stores either.
> 
> ...





lol I think the Walmart idea is more just the idea of handwaving how you can come about things, it follows this "old schoolism"

"13) Screw realism, screw ecology, screw explanations, screw economies,  screw physics. The explanation is out there for why an ogre is wandering the city without molesting anyone until he sees the party. The explanation isn't what the game's about. Killing an ogre in a cool city brawl is what the game's about. If they ask why, tell them to figure it out. They may try. Their line of inquiriy will give you good ideas."

(emphasis added)

Magic items have to come from somewhere and there is no reason to think for the right price, whatever that is, they couldn't be bought.  IMC, which is low magic in even sepll power, magic items are strategic resources so you need to have both a lot of cash, and be in with the right person.  The end effect is it's a lot cheaper to adventure for them and custom orders are near impossible, but the stuff everyone wants, (heal potions) is available.  End effect, your in good with the King here is a list of what he's willing to part with and for what price.  Afterall he needs cash to pay for the troops.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 25, 2007)

It might stem from the villages and cities effectively being the 'magimart'. Per the rules, a given collective will have an item under a given amount based on population. Your DM can say otherwise, but it's declared a reasonable expectation.

At this point, unless you're a heavy roleplayer, a city is a place to go and blow all your cash. It always seems to have everything. Much like Wal-Mart


----------



## werk (Jun 25, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Are these real DMs or hypothetical DMs, like those Pun-Pun characters that everyone complains about but no one ever actually sees in a game?
> 
> Quasqueton




Real DMs, I've had three since 3.0 almost came out.

"Just pick 2 items from the DMG between $$ and $$$, that's what you find."


----------



## AllisterH (Jun 25, 2007)

I kind of handwave AND keep it somewhat realistice in the selling and buying of magic items.

Basically, IMC, it takes twice the time it takes to make an item to either sell it or buy it. 

That seems to get the best of both worlds....


----------



## chriton227 (Jun 25, 2007)

I think it's funny that people are saying that being able to walk into a store and buy whatever magic item you want is like shopping at a Walmart.  IMX, whenever I go into a Walmart looking for something in particular, it is nowhere to be found, but I do find lots of other things to spend my money on. 

IMC, minor items relative to the size of the community (say less than 1% of the max item value in a community) are generally available off the shelf.  Anything more expensive than that I allow a Gather Info check (DC based on the value of the item relative to the local max) to find someone who has it for sale (extraordinary successes may even find it at a discount from someone who needs the cash *now*), otherwise they can commission the item (if there is a caster of the appropriate level in town).


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> At this point, unless you're a heavy roleplayer, a city is a place to go and blow all your cash. It always seems to have everything. Much like Wal-Mart




I dunno, I've always had it assumed that you're visiting curio shops, antique shops, the homes of previous adventurers, wizard schools, temples of magic gods, dwarven forgers, etc. in this, just as I'd assume if you popped into town and picked up a longsword you didn't just go to the local Longswords R Us. 

Part of the inherent "medievalism" for me has always been this proliferation of specialists, but it's kind of boring to RP through. Usually I say "assume you get what the rules let you get, and if you want to try for something more, you might be able to if you roll well enough...but it's a risk."

It's not really worth going over in detail, but if the PC's find that the temple that they bought potions of Enlargement at has gone out of business because a corrupt landowner is buying up portions of the city to build "adventurer's houses" just for those rich and powerful members of society (to rip a plot from the '80's), that turns into a hook....if I want it to.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 25, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Part of the inherent "medievalism" for me has always been this proliferation of specialists, but it's kind of boring to RP through.




Different strokes for different folks.



> Usually I say "assume you get what the rules let you get, and if you want to try for something more, you might be able to if you roll well enough...but it's a risk."




What's the risk?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2007)

> What's the risk?




In general terms, they must make a Gather Info check to point them at someone capable of "bending the rules, just for them." That's a small risk of gp for no reward right there (and the weirder the request, the higher the DC). And once they find such an individual, it tends to be an "in over your head" scenario.

For instance, you might be able to get the item, but it's cursed in some way (a cloak of protection that must be constantly bloodsoaked, a magic weapon that attracts a swarm of butterflies that it cannot hurt, a potion that works but results in gastronomic distress after the effect is over). You may have to find a special item for a specialist to build it. You may acquire the item, but it's hot property, so you've got the town guard (or the lich who originally owned it...) looking for it. 

The simplest risk is something like a minor sidequest or a guarded shipment, which then the item becomes the reward for.

One of my favorite scenarios had them sneaking the item from out under the sleeping Terrasque. Asleep, the beast's Listen rolls weren't that great, so the challenge was mostly in their heads, but the thought that getting their hands on that ritual tome could inadvertently trigger an apocalypse kept them very on edge. 

Of course, half the time they just decide to jaunt to the nearest metropolis, but sometimes that isn't possible or desirable (metropoli aren't very common IMC, perhaps 2-4 on the entire planet, but I am a fan of urban campaigns). It gives "adventuring in Podunk" a real nice feel of being away from it all when you can't count on the luxuries of high-level spellcasting services at the drop of a bag of glit, and gives the characters a certain respect for the gritty NPC's that endure the harsh conditions.


----------



## Slife (Jun 25, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I would say, Yes.  The town effectively becomes a gigantic Warehouse of Holding.



So, let's say the party's wizard can cast teleport several times a day.

Is the world now "effectively a giant planet of holding?"


----------



## tzor (Jun 25, 2007)

First of all, I have always thought the Magic-Wallmart was misnamed.  In a true Magic-Wallmart you would not be able to buy anything you wanted.  Instead you would have a plethora of magic items which would be in general demand produced by foreign wizards at relatively low prices.  

In general I have never had such a store in my campaign worlds.  If there was a population that could support such a store the local wizards would get together to destroy it.  Supply and demand works by agreeing to keep supply lower than the demand.

This isn't to say that some wizards might not set up shops, especially in the potion business.  Clerics might have a little store next to their temples to provide some additional revenue.  There is also the used magic item collector, more like a high level pawn shop and of course there are those who offer connections to people with magic items who might be willing to sell them if the price was right.

Finally there are those who are willing to make magic items.


----------



## Felix (Jun 25, 2007)

tzor said:
			
		

> Supply and demand works by agreeing to keep supply lower than the demand.



Prices are artificially raised by keeping supply lower than demand. This is the tactic of guilds, unions, monopolists, and everyone who wants to keep competition from cutting into their profit margins.

Though it does make sense that a cabal of wizards would send thugs to break legs down at the Practical Magic-Mart; they wouldn't want anyone to buy things made in "for'n parts". Must be evil, them durn for'ners.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jun 25, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Different strokes for different folks.



Very true, but I do find that most players prefer solving mysteries, overcoming terrible monstrous threats from the dawn of time, foiling the plans of mad sorcerers, and preserving the very fabric of existence from the eldritch horrors lying just beyond visible reality to... SHOPPING. 

I happen to not use standard magical equipment rules (I play Iron Heroes), but if I did, I certainly wouldn't eat up enormous amounts of play time RPing the search for x or y item from a or b shopkeeper or artisan. Just not where my or my players' precious time is best used. 

Thus, I guess one can count me in with the handwaving-magic-shopping crowd.


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 26, 2007)

We've been using the blackmarket rules from an OGL source for our item shopping. It keeps the power gaming down, and gives the faceman an important role to fill. The fighter has combat, the bard gets his haggle time...


----------



## Ourph (Jun 26, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> For what it's worth, one of those at least partially responsible for the 3E magic item assumptions, Monte Cook, has magic items purchasable -- to an extent -- in his campaign setting.
> 
> In Ptolus, there's three tiers of magic item sales:
> 
> ...




If we create an arbitrary scale of 1 to 10 for magic availability (10 being "ultimate magic item Wal-mart syndrome" and 1 being you can't buy any magic items, ever) and we assign Ptolus a ranking of 5 based on the above, I would have to say at least 95% of the 3e D&D campaigns I've played in qualify as at least 8 or above.  This is primarily because the DMs were using the economic rules in the DMG without alteration.  In other words, if the PCs were in a big enough city (like Ptolus), any magic item they wanted was available for purchase at book prices and magic items could be sold at half book price.  Such transactions were handled entirely out of character with no RP or flavor implications.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Liberally snipped for space:
> 
> 1> Specifically, the poster notes that this is "far from a Magic Walmart." ...
> 
> ...



1> Yup, he specifically states his single building full of magic items available for sale is not a magic walmart. My issues with the 'magic walmarts' come primarily from the exisitance of a single building, modern mallish storefront with a plethora of expensive goods. Goods that can be pilfered by a cunning pilferer under the right circumstances...

2>  The 'campaign flavor' stores I have seen run by eccentric NPCs do not have a sufficient security methods, more often they have gaping holes.. readily exploited. However since the PC's gaining all this 'kewl' power would be a bad thing... 

3> Yup... You didn't know I am the one true gamer, all others are a pale imitation?

4> And there are a million ways of breaking into such stores and filch the goods. Since the GM has to show his hand first, by setting up the store security, the PC's get to choose a method that works.

 They can't kill who they can't catch.
 Troll stock boy isn't there 24/7...and can be dealt with in a number of ways if he is. {can we say 20% of the cut?}

Seems that if I were in your game..and this store was there... any attempt I make to pilfer from it would be stopped by the apparently omnipresent NPCs... sounds kinda like the two negative methods I mentioned...    

5> Yes, The Green Adam's campaign world is soo lame... after all, I am the one true gamer.. so his world is just a pale imitation...
  Nice turn of words tho, basing your comment that the shop is sensible even tho that opinion is debatable.

6> Yes, my experience with stores that hold large amount of 'kewl' magic gear for sale has been handled poorly in every iteration I have seen it in, regardless of edition, decade, or even game system. 
 Did I say 'easily accessed?' Nope. Some GM's are fairly good at designing a decent security net... But locks are there to keep the honest people out 


7> You mentioned that the thread I linked to with the Gather Information checks started on a bad premise.. {sorry, I missed the exact quote}
 Which obviously means that since the OP was off-base any discussion or posts that follow are also off-base and can be dismissed out of hand.
Cool... the OP in *this* thread started with a bad premise.. hence the past 3 pages of discussion can be dismissed out of hand!!  Especially this post 


=========================================

To the root of the matter... single location, modern malls of magic item displays bug me from the points of 'who spent the xp on all these', 'wow.. this place has the +3 flutterknife spring blade I was looking for', and the 'this place is a tempting target for thieves' angles.

A better way to represent the purchase of magic items is to have rules for searching for existing magic items {Gather Info checks} and commissioning new items. This keeps magic items from being the mass produced breakers of verisimultide...at least for me.

If you aren't bothered by any of that, more power to you.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 26, 2007)

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> We've been using the blackmarket rules from an OGL source for our item shopping. It keeps the power gaming down, and gives the faceman an important role to fill. The fighter has combat, the bard gets his haggle time...




Which blackmarket rules? I am always in the market for better haggling rules


----------



## Ourph (Jun 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Being able to purchase anything you can afford, given time, is not the same thing as a Magic Walmart. The phrase 'Magic Walmart' conjures up the image of a single vast store containing many, many magic items ready to be sold.
> 
> This is why the term is misleading and should not be used.




"Magic Wal-mart" is a euphemism for a play style, not a description of an actual structure in the game world.

If we're crusading against euphemisms now, can I start the threads for "spank the monkey" and "do the horizontal mambo"?


----------



## Storyteller01 (Jun 26, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Which blackmarket rules? I am always in the market for better haggling rules





The Spycraft weapons guide (I forget the books name). It's a bit complicated, but we like it.

Here's our touch up version:


Black Market Rules:
-Finding a broker requires a level check with the following DC’s:
* Untraceable civilian equipment: 12
* Illegally modified civilian equipment: 16
* Minor illegal (ex: standard law enforcement) equipment: 20
* Major illegal equipment (ex: high end law enforcement/low end military): 25
* Extremely illegal or banned items (ex: high end military/dweoware): 30
* Unique or exceptionally hard to obtain items (ex: tarrasque scale/unicorn horn): 35+

-The above roll can be modified as follows:
* Typical fence (deal check fails on a 1-5): +0
* Trustworthy fence (deal check fails on a 1-3): +5
* Scrupulous fence (deal check fails on a 1): +10
* Fighter or rogue makes the check: -2
* Character looking for a fence has the Procure feat: -5
* Gather Information was used before attempting to find a broker: -1 for every three the Gather Information result exceeded 12.

-Cutting the deal requires a contested roll with the buyer rolling Diplomacy and the fence rolling Sense Motive. One roll is used for the entire group. Each item must be rolled for separately. The Diplomacy roll is modified as follows:
* Character is a rogue or fighter: +2
* Character has the Procure feat: +5
* Deal is being made with a typical broker: +0
* Deal is being made with a trustworthy broker: +2
* Deal is being made with a scrupulous broker: +4
* Deal is being made on the broker’s turf (increase check failure chance by 2): +2
* Deal is being made on neutral territory: +0
* Deal is being made on the character’s turf (decrease check failure chance by 2): +4

-Results of a successful check:
* Check succeeded by up to 5 above what the needed DC: $500 x the items BP or 5 x the base market cost.
* Check succeeded by 6 to 10 more than the needed DC:  $300 x the items BP or 3 x the base market cost.
* Check succeeded by 11 to 20 more than the needed DC:  $200 x the items BP or 2 x the base market cost.
* Check succeeded by 21 or more than the needed DC:  $150 x the items BP or 1.5 x the base market cost, plus all further ‘cutting the deal’ checks during the same deal are treated as one level higher.



Hope it helps.

PS: the "Deal check fails' section under the types of brokers means a roll in that range auto fails, and disasterously. Have fun.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 26, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> "Magic Wal-mart" is a euphemism for a play style, not a description of an actual structure in the game world.
> 
> If we're crusading against euphemisms now, can I start the threads for "spank the monkey" and "do the horizontal mambo"?



It's not a euphemism.

From Wikipedia:

"A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker."

The phrase 'Magic Walmart' is almost the exact opposite of a euphemism, designed to be *more* offensive than saying magic items can be bought and sold. It's an exaggeration.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 26, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's not a euphemism.
> 
> From Wikipedia:
> 
> "A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces



How do you know "Magic Wal-mart" isn't less offensive than the word or phrase it replaces?    



> The phrase 'Magic Walmart' is almost the exact opposite of a euphemism, designed to be *more* offensive than saying magic items can be bought and sold. It's an exaggeration.



Why is it offensive?  Where's the proof that it was originally coined specifically to be offensive?  It seems pretty innocuous to me.  I thought the problem was that the phrase is (supposedly) inaccurate, not that it is offensive.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 26, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Why is it offensive?  Where's the proof that it was originally coined specifically to be offensive?  It seems pretty innocuous to me.  I thought the problem was that the phrase is (supposedly) inaccurate, not that it is offensive.



In order for 'Magic Walmarts' to be a euphemism saying that magic items can be bought and sold must be regarded as taboo or offensive so that our delicate sensibilities could be protected with the perfectly acceptable notion of a vast store containing many magic items.

This is clearly not the case, hence not a euphemism.


----------



## JustKim (Jun 26, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> is a euphemism





			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> not a euphemism



Guys, let's figure this out or I won't be able to sleep at all!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 26, 2007)

Dude, comparing magic item shops (historic items of legendary power encompassing power beyond most mortal ken sold in bizarre antique shops by eccentric and dangerous individuals) to Wal-Marts (well lit zits of commerce bursting with generic value and lowest-common-denominator thinking) kind of robs all of the mystery and power out of magic items in a way that magic item shops don't necessarily do.

So either it's insulting (your magic item shops rob all the mystery and power out of magic items!) or it's useless (applying only to the fringe cases of campaigns that actually don't care about the mystery and power of magic items).


----------



## Ourph (Jun 26, 2007)

If "My game doesn't include Magic Item Wal-marts" is a euphemism for "I'm ignoring the economy rules in the DMG because, IMO, they're a game-wrecking, steaming pile of poo." I'd say it's not only a euphemism, but an eminently useful one as well.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Dude, comparing magic item shops (historic items of legendary power encompassing power beyond most mortal ken sold in bizarre antique shops by eccentric and dangerous individuals) to Wal-Marts (well lit zits of commerce bursting with generic value and lowest-common-denominator thinking) kind of robs all of the mystery and power out of magic items in a way that magic item shops don't necessarily do.



Is anybody making that comparison?  I haven't seen that.  In fact, I don't see the "Wal-mart" label as a reference to magic item shops at all.  As I said above, it's referential of a play-style, not a specific in-game entity.  It's shorthand for a style where buying magic items is as fast and convenient as shopping at Wal-mart (not everyone considers Wal-mart a "zit of commerce" after all, some of us like the convenience of being able to buy our chocolate milk, shotgun ammo and bubble bath all in the same place).



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So either it's insulting (your magic item shops rob all the mystery and power out of magic items!) or it's useless (applying only to the fringe cases of campaigns that actually don't care about the mystery and power of magic items).



That's funny, I find it very useful shorthand and not insulting at all.  On the other hand, I find the "mystery and power of magic items" to be kind of a goofy concept.  Does anyone really get all goose-pimply about magic items after their first couple of years of playing RPGs (even if they aren't sold on every streetcorner)?

Anyway, this is all off topic.  As I said above, I thought the problem was that the term "Magic Wal-mart" was inaccurate not that it was offensive.  If the term is shorthand for a certain playstyle, how is it inaccurate?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> How do you know "Magic Wal-mart" isn't less offensive than the word or phrase it replaces?
> 
> 
> Why is it offensive?  Where's the proof that it was originally coined specifically to be offensive?  It seems pretty innocuous to me.  I thought the problem was that the phrase is (supposedly) inaccurate, not that it is offensive.




The problem is, it's generally used as a term to mean, "My campaign is so hard core that my players cannot just buy whatever item they want willy nilly."  The corollary to that is any campaign which does allow PC's to buy magic items is somehow inferior, immature and stupid.  It's also typically used as a proxy term for edition war as well since earlier editions either didn't allow the purchase of magic items or made it a very niche element.  

Either way, whenever "Magic Wal-Mart" gets trotted out, you can almost guarantee it's a shot at 3rd edition.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 26, 2007)

> Anyway, this is all off topic. As I said above, I thought the problem was that the term "Magic Wal-mart" was inaccurate not that it was offensive. If the term is shorthand for a certain playstyle, how is it inaccurate?




The OP doesn't seem to be talking about a playstyle. He seems to be talking about a specific descrete location in the game world.



			
				OP said:
			
		

> The setting suggested in the core rules has no "Magic-Walmarts". Greyhawk has no Magic-Walmarts. I'm not real familiar with Eberron or Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they have Magic-Walmart-style stores either.




Buying magic items as suggested in the core rules (and thus in Greyhawk, Eberron, and FR) is all fairly hassle-free and convenient, however.

So saying that "MagicWalmarts make perfect sense if you define them as X, and not Y" doesn't really address the OP, who obviously doesn't share definition X with quite a few posters who apparently are fond of the term, right?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> In general terms, they must make a Gather Info check to point them at someone capable of "bending the rules, just for them." That's a small risk of gp for no reward right there (and the weirder the request, the higher the DC). And once they find such an individual, it tends to be an "in over your head" scenario.




If you follow the Wealth By Level guidelines, then, there's no risk.   

Also, I would concede that if you could simply _teleport_ to any location you wanted to to pick up any magic item you wanted to, then the entire campaign world would be one gigantic MagicMart.  I, for one, would see very little point in playing in such a world.  But then, what I want from a game is different than what you want.  I rewrote the rules to prevent that sort of play.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2007)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Very true, but I do find that most players prefer solving mysteries, overcoming terrible monstrous threats from the dawn of time, foiling the plans of mad sorcerers, and preserving the very fabric of existence from the eldritch horrors lying just beyond visible reality to... SHOPPING.




Examine KM's story about having to sneak the desired item out from under the sleeping Tarrasque.

Obtaining magic items can involve solving mysteries, overcoming terrible monstrous threats from the dawn of time, etc. etc.

I am currently reading _Hour of the Dragon_ by Robert E. Howard.  In this story, King Conan loses his kingdom due to the powers of an undead sorcerer.  The sorcerer is invincible except to a jewel (magic item) called the Heart of Ahriman.  Conan has to go on a quest to gain this magic item (there being no MagicMarts for him to shop at) in order to oust the sorcerer and regain his throne.

Is Conan trying to get a particular magic item that he wants to meet a particular threat?  Yup.  Is trying to get it equal to boring old shopping?  Nope.  Is this a scenario that has played itself (or similar) out in hundreds of D&D games since Gygax first set pen to paper?  Yup.  Is it one that works well in a MagicMart world?

Well, maybe.  But eventually someone's going to say, "Why is it we can buy any item we don't actually _need_, but when we really _need_ something it's under the sleeping Tarrasque?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is, it's generally used as a term to mean, "My players cannot just buy whatever item they want willy nilly."




FIFY.



> Either way, whenever "Magic Wal-Mart" gets trotted out, you can almost guarantee it's a shot at 3rd edition.




I thought it came from the 2nd Ed High Level Option Handbook, where it was described as something one shouldn't do.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Is Conan trying to get a particular magic item that he wants to meet a particular threat?  Yup.  Is trying to get it equal to boring old shopping?  Nope.  Is this a scenario that has played itself (or similar) out in hundreds of D&D games since Gygax first set pen to paper?  Yup.  Is it one that works well in a MagicMart world?
> 
> Well, maybe.  But eventually someone's going to say, "Why is it we can buy any item we don't actually _need_, but when we really _need_ something it's under the sleeping Tarrasque?



It's a macguffin. A unique item used for a specific purpose. I don't see any difficulty in having macguffins and +1 swords coexist, they're just different varieties of magic item. Our previous campaign used normal magic items alongside frequent macguffins and I didn't see any problems with having the two together.

Macguffins are vital in situation X and only situation X. Normal items, such as an amulet of health, are useful (though not essential) in many situations.

Personally I prefer normal items to macguffins. A macguffin means there's only one solution to a problem, which smacks of railroading. I regard them as lazy plotting when used in fiction (even though they occur in classics like The Lord Of The Rings and The Maltese Falcon) so I resolved not to have any in the game I'm running. It feels too easy to create unsolvable problem X then create impossible item Y which magically fixes problem X.

I think part of the issue with magic item shops is the meaning of the word 'magic'. One of its meanings for us is special or unique. But the problem is that in D&D universes 'magic' does not mean special, it refers to a universal force, like gravity or electromagnetism. You could argue that calling such a force 'magic' is misleading and it should have its own descriptive term, like 'The Ebb' in SLA Industries.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2007)

Personally, I just went to a skill-based combat system so that your personal skill (in general) outweighs the value of your magic sword.


----------



## Felix (Jun 26, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I am currently reading _Hour of the Dragon_ by Robert E. Howard. <snip>



1. The Heart is nothing less than an artifact. That is decidedly not what we're talking about.

2. The Hyborian Age is noteworthy for its dearth of magic items; suits you to a T, I imagine. While it works as an example of how a world can work without magic, it is certainly something other than "standard D&D". But you don't like that word either, do you?



> Is it one that works well in a MagicMart world?



Obscure collectors of antiquities strewn through the world does not make the setting one giant emporium. If you continue to suggest so I'll begin to think you actually intend the sneering condemnation of immature gaming that your prior posts have been, I hope unwittingly, reeking of.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 26, 2007)

Our group recently went over to the RPGA item system.  This was decided after a couple of us (players and DM included) had our head sexplode when it took over two hours to devide loot that everyone basically sold off anyway (clean up after that session was real [bleep]).

What was the point of getting stuff off of NPCs and raiding dragon hoards when most of it would just be sold anyway?  Why did the players spend such a large amount of time splitting gear that they obviously didn't want anyway? (Part of the answer was that in an earlier campaign the fighter ended up with all of the magic weapons since he was the only (or almost only one) who could use the randomly rolled weapons and no one (including the DM) noticed what had happened for quite a while).

Yes; that assumes that PCs are able to sell their gear and our DM has some problems with the current setup as he said we won't be using this system next campaign.

Going after the MacGuffin as an adventure is fine.  It's the purpose of the adventure.  Roleplaying an encounter to buy a potion of Cure Light Wounds is fine.  I don't want to RP buying the potion every single week though.  I don't mind watching another player RP buying the potion but I'd likely get bored watching ALL of the other players RP buying that potion week... after week... after week...

I'm there to save the world/universe/multiverse and the most likely method of doing that is to kill things.  I hope my DM lets me RP buying the big weapon - or buy the flying carpet from the Magic Carpet Guy who is played like Harley Davidson Motorcycle Guy.  Even buying that potion once or twice.  But not all the time.

I like the converatsion - I like to do more at the table than roll d20s (I like rolling d8s!!).  But I am there for the story and the story (usually) doesn't advance when I'm haggling over the price of a replacement Wand of CLW.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> 1. The Heart is nothing less than an artifact. That is decidedly not what we're talking about.




In any classic fantasy, it is difficult to come up with an example of someone simply buying anything magical without a lot of effort involved.  The only example I can think off is Bilbo buying some magical toys from Dale for his party in _The Fellowship of the Ring_.



> 2. The Hyborian Age is noteworthy for its dearth of magic items; suits you to a T, I imagine. While it works as an example of how a world can work without magic, it is certainly something other than "standard D&D". But you don't like that word either, do you?




Nope.  Much as I enjoy reading Howard and Burroughs, I use a world with quite a bit more magic than they do.  Story hours in my sig (although woefully far behind and untouched in a long time) will give you some idea.  Or read some of the "Some X Encounters" threads that I've started.  I posted an initial adventure setting on EN World, where I was asked if I really thought I should be giving out so much magic to 1st level characters.  So, go figure.    

Also, you should note that what "standard D&D" means has changed quite a bit over time.  If you mean "standard 3e D&D", then I agree that some of the ways that they used the rules engine, and some of the defaults, aren't to my particular tastes.  But that should be okay....different strokes for different folks, right?  Besides, I am more than capable of making changes to the game to make it suit my tastes.



> Obscure collectors of antiquities strewn through the world does not make the setting one giant emporium. If you continue to suggest so I'll begin to think you actually intend the sneering condemnation of immature gaming that your prior posts have been, I hope unwittingly, reeking of.




I think (hope) you are confusing me with some other poster.  If not, you are really reading what I am writing in a way it was not intended to be read.

Again, I define a MagicMart as any place where one can buy whatever (or nearly whatever) magic items one wants for a price close to that listed in the DMG.  Kamikaze Midget sought to qualify the word "place" in that definition, and I answered his questions.  If the game allows you to treat a city as a single place, a continent as a single place, a world as a single place, or a plane of existence as a single place _in terms of shopping_ then I would agree that any of these meets my definition.

"Obscure collectors of antiquities strewn through the world" doesn't imply that "can buy whatever (or nearly whatever) magic items one wants for a price close to that listed in the DMG" nor does it imply a single "place".  If you run the world, though, so that those "obscure collectors" are effectively a single place, then it meets my definition.

This all goes back to the OP, where the question is asked, do MagicMarts (or Magical Wallmarts, or whatever) really exist?  There are a few posts in this thread where people say they use them, so I would answer Yes.  Of course, that Yes has to be qualified on the basis of what one means by the term.

I suppose, btw, that you also missed the post where I said that there were some settings that probably mandate MagicMarts as I define them.

Remember, there are no facial expressions, no vocal inflections, and no gestures on messageboards.  Emoticons don't really cut it.  I hope that, when you read what you believe to be "sneering condemnation of immature gaming" that you will consider that, possibly, you are reading the other poster's words in the worst possible light.  I know I've been guilty of the same more than once, no matter how often I remind myself to do better.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> The problem is, it's generally used as a term to mean, "My campaign is so hard core that my players cannot just buy whatever item they want willy nilly."



I disagree.  I think the problem is that some people are way too quick to believe they can read someone else's intentions based on a two word phrase.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The OP doesn't seem to be talking about a playstyle. He seems to be talking about a specific descrete location in the game world.



Well, that was my original point before we got sidetracked into the discussion of euphemisms.  IMO the OP's understanding of the term "Magic Wal-mart" is flawed.  As a result, his points about the inaccuracy of the term are also flawed.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So saying that "MagicWalmarts make perfect sense if you define them as X, and not Y" doesn't really address the OP, who obviously doesn't share definition X with quite a few posters who apparently are fond of the term, right?



Of course it addresses the OP.  He says "I see no evidence of this thing, it must not exist."  I respond by saying, "The thing does exist, you are looking for the wrong kind of evidence because you misunderstand the nature of the thing."  That is a constructive response to the OP's post.  He may not agree with me, but it is a direct and useful response to his original point.  

For example, I said "You are mistaken in calling "Magic Wal-marts" an inaccurate term.  It is a euphemism, it's not supposed to be interpreted literally."  Doug McCrae responded by pointing out the definition of euphemism and arguing that my use of the word didn't fit the definition.

Now, I happen to disagree with Doug, but that doesn't mean his post doesn't address me and my point.  If it didn't I wouldn't agree or disagree with him, I would simply be confused by his response.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2007)

> I disagree. I think the problem is that some people are way too quick to believe they can read someone else's intentions based on a two word phrase.




Well, having seen it rather often in post after post, I'll just agree to disagree.  A bazillion "How can I do low magic" type threads where you often see this crop up tend to disagree with you.


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 26, 2007)

I've got a low-magic setting WITH magic walmarts (see artwork).  Essentially I have a limit however.  Just like a real-walmart, there's nothign with a value over 300 gp's 

WalMagicmart:  Low quality items for people who don't know better.

Our rule is potions or scrolls up to 300 gp in value may be found in most villages (unless the DM say's otherwise) in witches and herbalists shops.

jh
Walmart ruins everything

http://www.enworld.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=28410


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, having seen it rather often in post after post, I'll just agree to disagree.  A bazillion "How can I do low magic" type threads where you often see this crop up tend to disagree with you.




Are you honestly surprised that, if someone says "How can I do low magic?" that someone else says "Don't let the PCs easily buy whatever they want"?  If money equates to magic (which is what the ability to buy any magic with money means), then you cannot have a low magic setting unless it is also a low money setting.  Therefore, one has to break the "money = magic" assumption in order to proceed with a low magic, normal money game.

That seems so commonsensical to me that I fail to see your point.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 26, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, having seen it rather often in post after post, I'll just agree to disagree.  A bazillion "How can I do low magic" type threads where you often see this crop up tend to disagree with you.



As I've said above, it is useful shorthand.  It doesn't surprise me that it gets used often in discussions of low magic settings.  I fail to see how the fact that the phrase crops up often translates into the phrase being intentionally offensive.   :\


----------



## Emirikol (Jun 26, 2007)

We have a money vacuum cleaner in our campaign.  You can rid yourself of g.p. for x.p.  It's actually a "role playing effect" of what to do with your down time..cost of living, wenching, partying, paying fines/tithes, bribing officials, minimal failed side-quests, etc.  We don't spend TIME doing that stuff..we just mark off the gold and increase the x.p.

It's been a dream come true for our "low" magic game 

Jay




			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Are you honestly surprised that, if someone says "How can I do low magic?" that someone else says "Don't let the PCs easily buy whatever they want"?  If money equates to magic (which is what the ability to buy any magic with money means), then you cannot have a low magic setting unless it is also a low money setting.  Therefore, one has to break the "money = magic" assumption in order to proceed with a low magic, normal money game.  That seems so commonsensical to me that I fail to see your point.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 26, 2007)

> We have a money vacuum cleaner in our campaign. You can rid yourself of g.p. for x.p. It's actually a "role playing effect" of what to do with your down time..cost of living, wenching, partying, paying fines/tithes, bribing officials, minimal failed side-quests, etc. We don't spend TIME doing that stuff..we just mark off the gold and increase the x.p.



That would have been a great rule for AD&D1! Really. Much better than enforcing training costs to get rid of the gp.

Quasqueton


----------



## Warren Okuma (Jun 27, 2007)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> Or possibly the GM says they get XP for doing their "job" (crafting magical items in this case) which they use to make more items.  The XP portion of item creation is there to balance PCs, not to limit the rest of the world.  Its not like you have to take time out of scribing scrolls and go kill some orcs and goblins so that you can go back to scribing scrolls again.  Anything you do that nets you XP does the trick, not just strapping on a pack and killing things.
> 
> DS



Yup.  Or they volunteer to join the city watch until they feel "refreshed" or go hunting to "get inspired" enough to go and enchant.  It's a very well paying job.  For very little time you earn 500 gp or less per day you work.  500 gp per day you work.  Yeah, it's safe to say most wizards will be enchanting churning out 1000 gp worth of items per day.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Jun 27, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> So, let's say the party's wizard can cast teleport several times a day.
> 
> Is the world now "effectively a giant planet of holding?"




Ouch.  I can get you X, but you will have to pay for two teleports.  Ahahaha!


----------



## 00Machado (Jun 27, 2007)

Aeric said:
			
		

> I think the idea of a "Magic Wal-Mart" came about when lazy DMs looked at the list of magic items in the DMG, saw the prices next to them, and decided that they would be available on demand, off-the-rack, in any community that could support the cost.




Isn't it written into the RAW that players should be able to make these purchases? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I think it might be more a factor of following the RAW (or at least an implicit expecation that the RAW sets up with players) as opposed to a lazy DM.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Are you honestly surprised that, if someone says "How can I do low magic?" that someone else says "Don't let the PCs easily buy whatever they want"?  If money equates to magic (which is what the ability to buy any magic with money means), then you cannot have a low magic setting unless it is also a low money setting.  Therefore, one has to break the "money = magic" assumption in order to proceed with a low magic, normal money game.
> 
> That seems so commonsensical to me that I fail to see your point.




But, that's rarely where the point stops...

Y'know what, I'm done.  I've seen this far too many times to get sucked in here.  If you choose to never see this, then fine.  But, whenever "Magic Mart" or "Magic Wal-mart" get's trotted out, invariably it's not a simple shorthand, but a backhanded slap at other people's playstyles.

Heck, Aeric's post 6 pretty much called it right out.  In his words its shorthand for "lazy DMs looked at the list of magic items in the DMG, saw the prices next to them, and decided that they would be available on demand, off-the-rack, in any community that could support the cost."  In other words, it's a perjorative term.  It refers to lazy DM's.  Nellisar in Post 12 says "Magic-marts are a handy exaggeration that people bring up when they want to be snobbish about how -they- game."  Post 16 says, "It works if you assume your NPCs have no personalities or agenda of their own, other than to trade and create magic for your characters to purchase, but I think the system falls short and indeed looks Magic Mart like."

That's just in the first page of this thread and this thread has been pretty well mannered.  How anyone could think that Magic Walmart is a neutral term is beyond me when people all over the place are specifically using it in a perjorative sense.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, whenever "Magic Mart" or "Magic Wal-mart" get's trotted out, invariably it's not a simple shorthand, but a backhanded slap at other people's playstyles.




Invariably, eh?    

I think I see the problem right there.

For example, you bring up Nellisar in Post 12 says "Magic-marts are a handy exaggeration that people bring up when they want to be snobbish about how -they- game."

This post is not a condemnation of Magic Marts, but rather, like yours, a condemnation of _calling_ Magic Marts by that title.  The equiivilent would be if someone trotted out _your_ posts on the same topic to prove it is a prejorative term.



> That's just in the first page of this thread and this thread has been pretty well mannered.  How anyone could think that Magic Walmart is a neutral term is beyond me when people all over the place are specifically using it in a perjorative sense.




Well, yes, there is a degree to which the term is used prejoratively.  There is also a degree that it is used for simplicity, and a degree to which it is purely desriptive.  This is true for just about any gaming term used to describe game style or elements you might care to mention, AFAIK.  I've seen "standard D&D" used this way, and any deviation from "standard D&D" used this way.

EDIT:  Or, here's another way you can look at it.  On the first page of this thread, in which the term Magic Mart or equivilent is used in, what?, almost every post, you found three that you could say were prejorative with confidence, and in one case you were wrong.  That seems to me to be far less than "invariably" prejorative.


----------



## Felix (Jun 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, yes, there is a degree to which the term is used prejoratively.



For someone who pours time into developing a campaign world which incorporates the assumed magic and wealth availability, and spends more time roleplaying the adventure instead of roleplaying the shopping, hearing someone else describe your game as "Magic Wal-Mart" is insulting because it implies that you haven't put any time into fleshing out the world. The term is incredibly dismissive, and for someone who allows the term to apply to an entire world, it seems you dismiss their entire world.

No matter how polite, when you lay "MagicMart Campaign Setting" at a DMs feet, they cannot but be miffed, unless the setting is specifically designed to be lighthearted. I don't believe that most campaign settings out there are designed that way, and I do believe that many do use the standard wealth tables, so using it as lightly as you seem to do is, at best, inadvisable. At worst, it's terribly insulting. And it would be so despite your intension to do otherwise.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> For someone who pours time into developing a campaign world which incorporates the assumed magic and wealth availability, and spends more time roleplaying the adventure instead of roleplaying the shopping, hearing someone else describe your game as "Magic Wal-Mart" is insulting because it implies that you haven't put any time into fleshing out the world. The term is incredibly dismissive, and for someone who allows the term to apply to an entire world, it seems you dismiss their entire world.




But no worse, I am sure, than the "roleplaying the shopping" comments.  You can take offense, or you can shrug and say "different strokes for different folks".  These sorts of things are indicative of personal preference, IMHO and IME, and have nothing to do with saying that other players/DM suck.

The reality is, no matter what game you are talking about, there is a spectrum between not selling one iota of magical treasure and selling anything to anyone at any time at list price.  Very few campaigns, IME, fall at either extreme.

However, the OP asks if these types of campaigns exist, and the answer has to be "Yes".  As I said earlier, though, saying that they exist is not the same as saying that they are bad.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> However, the OP asks if these types of campaigns exist, and the answer has to be "Yes".




Actually, the OP seems to be saying that the types of campaigns where absurd big-box warehouses full of any magic item off the rack where "lazy DM's" and the like play don't really exist.

And I'd have to agree with that statement.

There are campaigns where most magic items are available at the use of a simple teleportation spell and an abstracted spending of some gil. The standard campaign, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, and Eberron (to a lesser extent with the final) are all such campaigns. With a simple attitude change on the parts of the spellcasters, your world with the secrets and artisans could become such a world. 

For such a world, I think "Magic WalMart" is an inappropriate term, because it suggests to many what the OP notes does not really exist: the thoughtless magic warehouses of lazy DM's. There are more accurate and less contentious terms to use.

Such as "A standard-magic world." Or simply "standard."

In the interests of clarity of communication and accuracy of langauge, "Magic WalMart" is obviously an unfavorable term, regardless of the definition that one choooses to use.



> "Why is it we can buy any item we don't actually need, but when we really need something it's under the sleeping Tarrasque?"




Same reason you can buy McDonald's in any podunk in the US, but to get extremely fresh and delicious Alaskan Crab, you probably need to go to Alaska. And if you wanted to find extremely fresh and delicious Alaskan Crab, but couldn't leave Podunk, you might need to jump through some hoops to get it (like importing a couple of live ones through some traveling associates, for instance). 

Certain resources are common because a lot of people need or want them, even in Podunk. Others are luxuries. 

I don't base these adventures on what the PC's need. I base them on what the PC's choose to pursue. If they're in Podunk and they want some Alaskan Crab, they can teleport to Alaska, or they can go pry it from the private stash of the eccentric coinesseur wizard who did so, or they can lean on their shady contacts, or a hundred and one other possibilities. The town's GP limit describes, to a certain extent, the vibrancy and diversity of the economy there, of which magic items are a large part in any world that includes an active non-PC adventuring and/or monster population (soldiers need them, adventurers need them, people who clean the sewers need them, other NPC's need them, anyone who is likely to meet a mosnter might need them), or in other words, any world that uses the default D&D assumptions.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Actually, the OP seems to be saying that the types of campaigns where absurd big-box warehouses full of any magic item off the rack where "lazy DM's" and the like play don't really exist.
> 
> And I'd have to agree with that statement.




Excepting the "lazy DMs" comment, which wasn't part of the OP, and regardless of the fact that people on this thread have said that they both played in, and ran, such campaigns?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 27, 2007)

I think most people who say they have played in a Magic Walmart game are speaking metaphorically, whereas the OP was not speaking metaphorically. I think this is one of the main disconnects of the thread.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think most people who say they have played in a Magic Walmart game are speaking metaphorically, whereas the OP was not speaking metaphorically. I think this is one of the main disconnects of the thread.



I agree. If the term was coined metaphorically or euphemistically, then interpreting it literally is obviously going to lead to flawed conclusions.  

I just looked up "Trouser Trout" in my Ichthyology textbook and didn't find a listing for that species.  Therefore, "Trouser Trouts" do not exist.  IMO, the OP is based on either a flawed premise or a deliberate strawman.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I think most people who say they have played in a Magic Walmart game are speaking metaphorically, whereas the OP was not speaking metaphorically. I think this is one of the main disconnects of the thread.




If it has to be called "Magic Walmart" within the context of the game, then you might be correct.  However, if it has to be a single source for a vast array of magical gear, then you are incorrect.  During 2nd Edition, I ran a game with the Spelljammer Arcane in it.  The Spelljammer Arcane can sell any magic item in the book for list price.  Therefore, I ran a game with what was, for all intents and purposes, a MagicMart.  Anyone who played a straight Spelljammer game using the Arcane, or who used all of the monsters in the Monstrous Manual as written (which included the Arcane) did likewise if they included any single location in which the Arcane could always be found.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 27, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> 1. The Heart is nothing less than an artifact. That is decidedly not what we're talking about.




Why do people say things with such athority for which there is no basis?  Perhaps you could say how it fits this criteria.  As far as I can tell the heart cast a True Ressurection spell.  Casting a 9th level spell is grounds for making something an artifact?  (It very well might, I don't know).  In any case, I don't learn much for unsupported statements like this - and IMO they come across as argumentative.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Why do people say things with such athority for which there is no basis?  Perhaps you could say how it fits this criteria.  As far as I can tell the heart cast a True Ressurection spell.  Casting a 9th level spell is grounds for making something an artifact?  (It very well might, I don't know).  In any case, I don't learn much for unsupported statements like this - and IMO they come across as argumentative.




It can also be used to counterspell.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If it has to be called "Magic Walmart" within the context of the game, then you might be correct.  However, if it has to be a single source for a vast array of magical gear, then you are incorrect.  During 2nd Edition, I ran a game with the Spelljammer Arcane in it.  The Spelljammer Arcane can sell any magic item in the book for list price.  Therefore, I ran a game with what was, for all intents and purposes, a MagicMart.  Anyone who played a straight Spelljammer game using the Arcane, or who used all of the monsters in the Monstrous Manual as written (which included the Arcane) did likewise if they included any single location in which the Arcane could always be found.




Sure, and as a Planescape DM, I've used what many would probably classify as Magic Walmart as well. Heck, most shopping the PCs do in my current campaign is in a single location with an Arcane that they are on good terms with. But, reading the posts in this thread, I get the sense that this isn't what most people are talking about when they use the term. I've read several posts where people outright stated that "Magic Walmart" is a euphemism/metaphor/whatever. So, I do think there's a disconnect in terminology happening here.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> Excepting the "lazy DMs" comment, which wasn't part of the OP, and regardless of the fact that people on this thread have said that they both played in, and ran, such campaigns?





Note the qualifiers on those that have said they've had literal magic marts, though. Lighthearted campaigns, intentional silliness, etc.

Which imply that when people in those low-magic threads are decrying "Magic Wal-Marts," they're decrying the absurdity of something that is inherently absurd (assuming they're decrying literal Magic Wal-Marts and not figurative ones).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Note the qualifiers on those that have said they've had literal magic marts, though. Lighthearted campaigns, intentional silliness, etc.
> 
> Which imply that when people in those low-magic threads are decrying "Magic Wal-Marts," they're decrying the absurdity of something that is inherently absurd (assuming they're decrying literal Magic Wal-Marts and not figurative ones).




You obviously missed the post where I mentioned the Spelljammer Arcane.  That game was not lighthearted or intentionally silly.  As I said earlier, it is possible to make a MagicMart work if it is part of the context and flavour of the campaign.  It just isn't something that I generally enjoy.

(Although saying "There are no MagicMarts in this world" still conveys something specific, more than just decrying the absurdity of the absurd, even if I granted that MagicMarts were inherently absurd.)

RC


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2007)

Calling the term 'Magic Wal-mart' a metaphor, while true, misses the implied criticism of worlds where magic can be bought and sold. The purpose of the phrase is to ridicule such worlds through exaggeration.

Instead of metaphor I think it would be more informative to call it a straw man, misrepresentation, lampoon or parody.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Calling the term 'Magic Wal-mart' a metaphor, while true, misses the implied criticism of worlds with magic shops. The purpose of the phrase is to ridicule such worlds through exaggeration.




By what divination spell did you determine the purpose of everyone using that phrase?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> You obviously missed the post where I mentioned the Spelljammer Arcane. That game was not lighthearted or intentionally silly. As I said earlier, it is possible to make a MagicMart work if it is part of the context and flavour of the campaign. It just isn't something that I generally enjoy.




Fair enough, then. Though it would still seem to be painfully self-evident that a lower-magic game wouldn't have many (if any) places where magic was treated as a common commodity.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Fair enough, then. Though it would still seem to be painfully self-evident that a lower-magic game wouldn't have many (if any) places where magic was treated as a common commodity.




Again, excepting that the game to which I refer was _very low magic_ overall, in comparison with the 3.X standard!    

(Which means it was about the same as what I run now......Which, I suspect, is more magic than most people mean when they say low-magic.  I'd call it middle-magic.  )


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> By what divination spell did you determine the purpose of everyone using that phrase?



'Magic shop' is shorter and more neutral, though still possibly misleading as it suggests modern establishments with a large stock. Why would anyone use 'magic Wal-Mart' instead of 'magic shop' unless the aim were to ridicule?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 'Magic shop' is shorter and more neutral, though still possibly misleading as it suggests modern establishments with a large stock. Why would anyone use 'magic Wal-Mart' instead of 'magic shop' unless the aim were to ridicule?




Magic Shops imply, to me, those individual curio shops that might have a few assorted items, but not everything.  It can easily imply a premodern economy.  MagicMart implies one-stop shopping modelled on a modern (or quasi-modern) economic model.  Which is why I said earlier that campaign worlds with a modern (or quasi-modern) economic model may well _require_ MagicMarts.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> Again, excepting that the game to which I refer was very low magic overall, in comparison with the 3.X standard!




However, the 3.X standard certainly doesn't assume that the characters can get any magic item they desire at the drop of some gold anywhere and everywhere.

It does assume you can buy and sell magic items, but even that is limited by things like a town's GP limit. 

So how would you say it was lower-magic, if magic was more easily-available? Wouldn't the PC's have more magical toys in this campaign than they would in most campaigns? I suppose, unless the Mercane/Arcane were present and the PC's just couldn't buy any of it. Which would be an odd circumstance to claim as a Magic Mart kind of situation since a magic mart would be somewhere where the magic items are easily available, and if the PC's can't afford it it's not easily available...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> Magic Shops imply, to me, those individual curio shops that might have a few assorted items, but not everything. It can easily imply a premodern economy. MagicMart implies one-stop shopping modelled on a modern (or quasi-modern) economic model. Which is why I said earlier that campaign worlds with a modern (or quasi-modern) economic model may well require MagicMarts.




Now I'm extra confused. 

If your entire world consists of curio shops, but you hand-wave buying magic items so that a person with teleport can still basically find what he's looking for at market price, you would still call that a MagicMart?

Because that is somehow more "modern"?


----------



## Imp (Jun 27, 2007)

Well, low-magic can entail any number of restrictions on the assumed ubiquity of D&D magic.  You can say that magic's just very rare, that high-level magic is very rare, that it's more costly, that (certain) items are hard to craft, that it entails various quirks and instabilities not detailed in the core rules, that it is outright baleful and cursed, any number of things... One possible version of a low-magic world is where potions and scrolls are as readily available as the DMG implies, but wondrous items are not, because the feat now has a requirement of caster level 11th, two other crafting feats and Extend Spell, and that's the only change.  Another version of low magic is one where people dooooon't sellll maaagic it makes them covetous and Gollumlike plus wizard's spellbooks crumble to dust as soon as the wizard who made it dies.  Etc., etc.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So how would you say it was lower-magic, if magic was more easily-available? Wouldn't the PC's have more magical toys in this campaign than they would in most campaigns? I suppose, unless the Mercane/Arcane were present and the PC's just couldn't buy any of it. Which would be an odd circumstance to claim as a Magic Mart kind of situation since a magic mart would be somewhere where the magic items are easily available, and if the PC's can't afford it it's not easily available...




There was one Arcane "branch office" in one major city.  This meant that there was one (known) place that you could go to buy from a MagicMart in the entire world.  Overall, the world was lower magic than the 3.X D&D standard, but there was one source that was outside the norm.  Field agents of the Arcane would scout the world on buying trips, though, so that you could sell magic items more readily than buy them.  It was my attempt to connect the campaign world to the overarching Spelljammer campaign "worlds".

It perhaps helped that there was no ready access to Teleport magic.  It also helped that this was for a group which contained (at the time) no one else who was DMing.  Their idea of "what magic was out there" was largely based on what they had encountered, as well as the obvious "legendary" items (such as the vorpal sword) that everyone knew.

IMC, I tend to make it possible to gain more than standard magic at lower levels, but make the "cap" somewhat lower than that of 3.X at mid-levels and far lower at high-levels.  So, at times, more magic than the norm is available, while at other times less is.  Effectively, the world keeps the same "level" of magic throughout the campaign.

In my recent rewrite of the D&D rules, I have made this concept even stronger by making character skill more important than gear.  For example, by using a system of weapon skill ranks, I give players the option of Power Attack for free (moving ranks from attack roll to damage roll), meaning that your skill ranks can help to overcome DR.  Likewise, I use Action Points that can only be gained by meeting role-playing goals.

This game, in all its editions, can use a wide variety of elements to create an even wider variety of "feels", power levels, and so on.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If your entire world consists of curio shops, but you hand-wave buying magic items so that a person with teleport can still basically find what he's looking for at market price, you would still call that a MagicMart?
> 
> Because that is somehow more "modern"?




(Shrug)

Feels that way to me.  At least, it does if you can easily teleport to the right place to find what you want, or you handwave the search.  YMMV.  Different strokes for different folks and all that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> This meant that there was one (known) place that you could go to buy from a MagicMart in the entire world. Overall, the world was lower magic than the 3.X D&D standard, but there was one source that was outside the norm.




How often were the characters capable of using this resource?

Because regardless of how low-magic the world is, if the PC's had a bunch of magic items that they could choose from at whim, the campaign was pretty high-magic, higher than normal D&D, in fact.

Default 3e doesn't have anything that convenient, even. Greyhawk/core D&D is limited by the size of the town (with the possible single exceptions of planar metropoli like Sigil). Eberron is limited by the lack of high-level NPC's (potions and scrolls are common, but you won't find much above +1 for sale anywhere). FR is limited by forcing you to deal peacably with an evil organization.

If PC's could talk to some weird giants and get a +5 sword (even if they had to make an overland journey or stay near the capital city), the core options are all more difficult.



> Feels that way to me. At least, it does if you can easily teleport to the right place to find what you want, or you handwave the search. YMMV. Different strokes for different folks and all that.




I believe you slightly misread me. My confusion doesn't come from the modern definition per se (though it is odd that teleporting feels modern to you since...well...we can't. ), but merely that the distinction between "modern" and "non-modern" is not in any inherent feature of the world, but rather in how the DM describes certain activities.

If he describes it as "You visit some curio shops until you find what you're looking for" it's a MagicMart, but if he roleplays the old fuddy-duddy in the smelly apothecary who stumbled accross a +1 sword one day while digging up roots in the woods, it's a Magic Shop?

More Detail = Less Modern?

It's kind of derailing the thread, but I don't really understand the connection there.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> How often were the characters capable of using this resource?




I sandbox, so they were _able_ to use it; they just never did.  BTW, if you are restricted to a single location in which a resource can be used, you cannot use it "at whim" unless getting to that location can be done "at whim".  Remove Teleport effects, and make Spot X the only place that the dead can be brought back to life, and then ask your players if having a resource available only at a single location makes a difference to them.  I'll bet that it does!    



> It's kind of derailing the thread, but I don't really understand the connection there.




Sure.  We come from different backgrounds.  We might prefer different novels and different music and different movies.  The things that we relate to in gaming might be quite different.  Things that make you think of X might make me think of Y, and vice versa.

Hence, "different strokes for different folks".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> I sandbox, so they were able to use it; they just never did. BTW, if you are restricted to a single location in which a resource can be used, you cannot use it "at whim" unless getting to that location can be done "at whim". Remove Teleport effects, and make Spot X the only place that the dead can be brought back to life, and then ask your players if having a resource available only at a single location makes a difference to them. I'll bet that it does!




So the campaign was voluntarily low-magic.  And it only makes a difference if they have some limitation to just camping out near it and going on adventures around it. Your players would, I believe, be the exception to the rule in this case. I know most of the people I've played with over the years would likely travel to Spot X, and seek adventure around it, because they wouldn't want to get stuck somewhere land-locked with a bushel full of potions of water breathing and nothing to use them on. 




> Sure. We come from different backgrounds. We might prefer different novels and different music and different movies. The things that we relate to in gaming might be quite different. Things that make you think of X might make me think of Y, and vice versa.




Perhaps I should be more explicit:

Why do you think that way, and what makes you believe that thinking that way makes your definition of "MagicMart" something that is relevant?

Because if the difference between "Magic WalMart" and "Magic Shop" is simply a subjective scale of modernity, there's support for "Magic WalMart" being abandoned as a fairly useless term for constructive discourse.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So the campaign was voluntarily low-magic.




There is no low magic campaign that is not.



> Your players would, I believe, be the exception to the rule in this case.




Perhaps, but I knew who would be playing when I set up the environment, so it came as no surprise.



> Why do you think that way, and what makes you believe that thinking that way makes your definition of "MagicMart" something that is relevant?




My definition of a MagicMart is a single place where one can buy whatever (or nearly whatever) magic items one wants at book (or near book) value.  This is what the term implies to me, just as if I went to Walmart, I would do so because I knew I could do one-stop shopping at a known (or close to known) price.

"Magic Shop" doesn't imply that one can buy whatever (or nearly whatever) magic items one wants at book (or near book) value.

Teleport or handwaving can be used in such a way as to make several places effectively one place.  However, multiple places do not have to be handwaved in this fashion.  Nor do multiple places have to have everything one wants (no matter how many places) nor do they have to be priced according to book value.

MagicMart is a _type_ of magic shop, IMHO.  A "Magic Shop" may be a "MagicMart", but does not have to be.  This is similar to the idea that a shark is a fish, but not all fish are sharks.  A lion is a feline, but not all felines are lions.  Etc., etc., etc.

One Stop Shopping is a modern concept.  Using Teleport to allow effective "one stop shopping" feels modern because in this case Teleportation is a handwave device to allow a particular concept to work, much as the technobabble of Star Trek allows certain plot devices to work.

EDIT:  D&D contains all sorts of modernisms, of course.  The question is, for each player/DM/group, what modernisms break/fold/spindle/mutilate your sense of disbelief and/or immersion in the game?  Those are modernisms you probably don't want to include.  So, for those people who like sharks, it seems wrong to differentiate them from other fish.  For those who like many types of fish, but not in most cases sharks, it seems proper to say "no sharks in this campaign".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Why do you think that way, and what makes you believe that thinking that way makes your definition of "MagicMart" something that is relevant?




It answers the OP's question?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 27, 2007)

> One Stop Shopping is a modern concept. Using Teleport to allow effective "one stop shopping" feels modern because in this case Teleportation is a handwave device to allow a particular concept to work, much as the technobabble of Star Trek allows certain plot devices to work.




Ah, I understand now more where our strokes differ. I don't consider handwaved one-stop-shopping to be really anything like actual one-stop-shopping. The former, for me, comes from a desire for efficiency in play. I handwave a week of time, I handwave an uneventful journey, I handwave entire kingdoms, and that doesn't mean that nothing happens, it means that the players don't have to pay attention to what their PC's are doing because there's no significant descisions to be made or anything like that. It still gets injected with a short sentence description, but the handwave is a useful tool for me to save buckets of time and get to what my group is interested in. 

You seem to both use MagicMart in the literal AND figurative senses, where it is both ACTUAL one-stop shopping and things that just feel like one-stop shopping in play, depending upon context. That's part of where bones of contention leap in, because for many people, the two are not really one in the same at all, and to equate the two is muddy language, not to mention reducing a world whose medieval-ish specialization is intact to a modernism simply because of the player's convenience (not the character's).


----------



## Ourph (Jun 27, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> You seem to both use MagicMart in the literal AND figurative senses, where it is both ACTUAL one-stop shopping and things that just feel like one-stop shopping in play, depending upon context. That's part of where bones of contention leap in, because for many people, the two are not really one in the same at all, and to equate the two is muddy language, not to mention reducing a world whose medieval-ish specialization is intact to a modernism simply because of the player's convenience (not the character's).




Why is it muddy language if the effect on the actual game is the same?  If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and hatches cute, little duck babies, then it's a duck.  You are asking us to accept that there is an actual difference between a game where the players buy anything they want without expending any actual, real-world thought or time on the process and a game where the players buy anything they want without expending any actual, real-world thought or time on the process but in the DM's imagination something complex and "medieval-ish" happens.  What, exactly, is that difference?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 27, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah, so your divination spell included your prejudice concerning the term as you would apply it. I am pretty sure there are reasons for using the term that have nothing in the way of intent to ridicule. Besides... who are we to ridicule? We are a bunch of {hopefully} mature people spending our time debating online semantics regarding an opinion of a game of make believe  ....  :\ 

I agree with RC's definition, "... a MagicMart is a single place where one can buy whatever (or nearly whatever) magic items one wants at book (or near book) value."

IMO, handwaving the shopping experience... with a proper allocation of time spent... can be a good method for keeping the game on track based on the groups playstyle. But not for a scenario like this:

GM: You make it to the city late, just clearing the gates as they close at midnight. Checking with the guards you discover that the caravan you wish to join leaves at dawn from the southern gate. Okay.. you all rest up for the night.. is there anything you do before dawn?

MagicMart shopper: Ya, I am going to go out and restock.. I buy {flips through books...scribbles notes.. pounds on calculater} 3,500 gp worth of goods, to include a double bitted spade enhanced with 'Move Earth' and 'Goggles of the Eagle'.... Then since I was riding on the cart I can get 6 hours of rest before dawn and can recover my spells....

 


Incidently, I would have no problem with a high level Mage using Teleport as a means to go from place to place while purchasing stuff.. its just like walking, only faster. And the Mage would have to know where to Teleport *to*... IMHO there should be teh medevial specialization and findig the right shop with the right seller who can acquire the item for you...but is not likely to have it on-hand, sitting in a display case right next to the monkey on a stick BBQ stand...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 27, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> What, exactly, is that difference?



Between the game and the game world. 

An analogy would be when journeys are handwaved, the GM says, "OK you travel for six weeks and arrive in the city of Greyhawk". The journey takes five seconds in the game but it takes six weeks in the game world. Now that's effectively a teleport right? So we might as well say that those games contain Star Trek transporters. No one could be confused by that.

After all, it's obviously just a metaphor.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This all goes back to the OP, where the question is asked, do MagicMarts (or Magical Wallmarts, or whatever) really exist?




No, what he asked was, "why does the phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick?", qualified by the statement that he's never seen any (with, by his standards, two exceptions).

His post, and the question, clearly refer not to a theoretical general availability of magic items in the campaign setting, but an actual "Wal-mart-like" establishment in a campaign.

What is a Wal-mart-like establishment?

I'd attribute the following characteristics to the term: large, characterless, low-cost items, low-quality items, lowest common denominator, uniformity, bland, faceless/unengagable management

So if your magic shops doesn't have those qualities, then you haven't got a magic-wal-mart.  Your shop might have everything in the DMG at listed price, but if it's quaint, or interesting, or a genuine roleplaying experience, then it's probably not magic-Wal-marty as the phrase is commonly used.

I'm sure campaigns exist that do include magic Wal-marts, but the term, overall, is a perjorative one, and the qualities attributed to it are not positive ones.

So why does the term exist?  Why "magic Wal-mart", and not a "magic shoppe", or even "magic Woolworths"?

Because it evokes negative qualities in people's mind, and it's used by people who want to create a negative image.

================
And just to be clear, I don't think the question was about a general availability of magic items.  It was about the phrase "magic Wal-Mart", and why it exists.  It may have -become- emotionally neutral and purely descriptive for some people, but IMO, it began and remains a negative term for most people.  It works because Walmart is a familiar quality with a negative association for the cast majority of Americans (and probably others).  It's not about the "myth" of magic item availability.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'd attribute the following characteristics to the term: large, characterless, low-cost items, low-quality items, lowest common denominator, uniformity, bland, faceless/unengagable management




I would unequivocally add: crowded with shoppers.

That is, after all, one of the defining features of going to a Walmart.


----------



## Felix (Jun 28, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Why do people say things with such athority for which there is no basis?  Perhaps you could say how it fits this criteria.



Because I've read the text:

"My necromantic knowledge is greater than the sum of all the knowledge of other men, yet I do not know the full power of the jewel."​
That's coming from Xaltotun. Doesn't sound like something that is subject to an _Identify_, and if it's known that it can cast _True Res_, what powers does it possess that we don't know about?

Further:

The origin of the Heart of Ahriman is shrouded in the mists of time. Whether it was crafted on Earth or merely brought here from across the black gulfs between the stars is unknown.​
and

And the altar seemed to stand in the heart of a living fire which pulsed and shimmered, dripping flakes of quivering golden flame on the black stones about it. This dazzling glow emanated from a great red jewel which lay upon the altar, and in the reflection of which the priests looked ashy and corpse-like.​
Been around since the mists of time. Origin possibly the gulfs of stars. Emanates a living fire. 

I doubt I'd find this on the Medium Wonderous Items table.



> In any case, I don't learn much for unsupported statements like this



As I was talking to someone who had recently read the text, I put off quoting how the Heart qualifies as an artifact. Satisfied?



> - and IMO they come across as argumentative.



So is accusing someone of saying something with no basis before asking him for that basis.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2007)

> So why does the term exist? Why "magic Wal-mart", and not a "magic shoppe", or even "magic Woolworths"?
> 
> Because it evokes negative qualities in people's mind, and it's used by people who want to create a negative image.




Bingo.  Lump it in with magitech, anime, dungeonpunk, and quite possibly Tolkienesque.  It's a sloppy shorthanded slap at anyone who is engaged in wrongbadfun.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Are these real DMs or hypothetical DMs, like those Pun-Pun characters that everyone complains about but no one ever actually sees in a game?
> 
> Quasqueton






			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Post #12 FTW.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My Thursday did/do it this way.

I actually wrote an article for Mongoose's Signs & Portents (#18 I think) entitled "Joe's Adventure Barn Ruined My Roleplaying" expressing (tongue-in-cheek) my displeasure with that way of doing it.

(We didn't actually have a chain called "Joe's Adventure Barn". It was my running joke description of the fact that we could just buy any item we wanted, "off-camera", regardless of where we were.)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Bingo.  Lump it in with magitech, anime, dungeonpunk, and quite possibly Tolkienesque.  It's a sloppy shorthanded slap at anyone who is engaged in wrongbadfun.




You forgot video gamey.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> My Thursday did/do it this way.
> 
> I actually wrote an article for Mongoose's Signs & Portents (#18 I think) entitled "Joe's Adventure Barn Ruined My Roleplaying" expressing (tongue-in-cheek) my displeasure with that way of doing it.
> 
> (We didn't actually have a chain called "Joe's Adventure Barn". It was my running joke description of the fact that we could just buy any item we wanted, "off-camera", regardless of where we were.)





Apparently your saying that this happened to you in your game is no more evidence to this crowd than those who said the same earlier.   

No doubt you are just saying that to take a slap at wrongbadfun.    

Clearly, this was all just a metaphor and not what the OP was talking about.    

_*No evidence can be presented to those who choose to ignore the presented evidence.*_


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 28, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I'd attribute the following characteristics to the term: large, characterless, low-cost items, low-quality items, lowest common denominator, uniformity, bland, faceless/unengagable management.




To add to this list:

Wal-Mart has also been attributed with some controvercy (labor practices, etc).  These may or may not be deserved (and I really want to avoid THAT debate and I am trying to stay neutral here) but I think we can all agree that the controvercy is there no matter if we believe the accusations that have been leveled against the chain or not.

Calling a place a Wal-Mart-like location brings this baggage along with it.  That is why in my mind the name Magic Mart intended as a derogatory term while Magic Shoppe or Magic Store does not.  When I here the term Mart the above list is what pops into my head.

(I hope I'm not crossing the line bringing this issue up.  I do want to avoid the discussion of if the above mentioned accusations are true or not; though I do feel the fact that these accusations exist is relavent to the issue).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

However, if a poster says that they had a MagicMart in their campaign world that was crowded, cheap, had potential labour issues, etc., the next question will be:  "Was it actually _owned_ by Walmart?"  Because, if it wasn't, it clearly wasn't a "real" MagicMart.


----------



## Bacris (Jun 28, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Magic-marts are a handy exaggeration that people bring up when they want to be snobbish about how -they- game.




Quoted for truth, as they say.

All the games I've had that were "standard" item availability didn't have anything akin to Wal-Marts - instead, the PCs would have to spend around a day or two shopping around the city to find what they were looking for.  Seems reasonable to me with the way 3E/3.5 does magic items, and it's never really been an issue.

At times with some rarer goods, the items will be more expensive or not available, but a simple +1 armor / shield / weapon, or potions and the like that aren't horribly niche or extremely expensive are easy to find - with a bit of in-game time spent.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Bingo.  Lump it in with magitech, anime, dungeonpunk, and quite possibly Tolkienesque.  It's a sloppy shorthanded slap at anyone who is engaged in wrongbadfun.




Magitech is a slap?  I thought it denoted a crossing of magic and technology, like in a Steampunk world or as with the mad scientists of Deadlands.  Wait, is Steampunk a slap now?

Anime is a slap?  I thought it was a genre of animation styled after Japanese style animation (itself originally styled after Walt Disney).  I know some people would rather not have anime influences in their fantasy role-playing, but how does that make the term itself a slap?

Dungeonpunk is a slap?  I thought it was an intentional design choice with the core 3.0 books, to differentiate them from previous editions and attempt to draw in a new crowd of younger players.  As with everything, some people don't like it, but how does that make the term itself a slap?  That would be like saying that "chocolate" is a slap because some people prefer vanilla.

Tolkeinesque is a slap?  Presumably then also Gygaxian?  Howardesque?  Burroughsesque?  Again, this is a descriptive term that denotes a particular style or influence.  If you like that style or influence, it is a bonus.  If not, at least you are warned.  How is this a slap?

Let me guess:  Any descriptive term that describes something that you like that the person using the term doesn't like is automatically a personal attack against you.      Sorry, I just can't see it that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Quoted for truth, as they say.
> 
> All the games I've had that were "standard" item availability didn't have anything akin to Wal-Marts




Granted that you can have "standard" item availability without having MagicMarts (although you might have a harder time following the advice in the MIC to "Just Say Yes" whenever you are asked if something can be bought).

The difference, IMHO, in your case is that "At times with some rarer goods, the items will be more expensive or not available". 

But, saying that something doesn't exist simply because you yourself haven't experienced it leads to the conclusion (for me) that Australia doesn't exist.


----------



## Bacris (Jun 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> But, saying that something doesn't exist simply because you yourself haven't experienced it leads to the conclusion (for me) that Australia doesn't exist.




Except that if you go by most of the internet posts to the contrary, Magic Wal-Marts are the industry standard, or at least a regular occurrence, as opposed to what it sounds like more as the exception to the rule.  Simply because they exist in small quantities doesn't mean that they are anywhere near as common in gaming experience as more vocal posters would like us to believe 

You could have a poster saying that they struck oil in their backyard and it's flooding their house - that doesn't mean oil is likely to flood everyone's house - it's the exception, rather than the rule


----------



## Shadeydm (Jun 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Magitech is a slap?  I thought it denoted a crossing of magic and technology, like in a Steampunk world or as with the mad scientists of Deadlands.  Wait, is Steampunk a slap now?
> 
> Anime is a slap?  I thought it was a genre of animation styled after Japanese style animation (itself originally styled after Walt Disney).  I know some people would rather not have anime influences in their fantasy role-playing, but how does that make the term itself a slap?
> 
> ...


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Bacris said:
			
		

> Except that if you go by most of the internet posts to the contrary, Magic Wal-Marts are the industry standard, or at least a regular occurrence, as opposed to what it sounds like more as the exception to the rule.  Simply because they exist in small quantities doesn't mean that they are anywhere near as common in gaming experience as more vocal posters would like us to believe




If EN World has taught me nothing else, it is that you cannot determine what the standard is from reading message boards.  _Everything_ seems to be the province of "vocal minorities" -- and the most important question seems to be, which vocal minorities have ideas that are usable in my own game?    

But, if the question is, "Do they exist?" the answer is "Yes".

If the question is, "How common are they?" the answer is "Depends on who you ask and where they play".

It's like the thread about how our 1e experiences could have been so different, really.  I suspect that our 3e experiences are equally divergent, and we just haven't realized it yet.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 28, 2007)

The OP's point was, stated in list form for easy understanding:

1- The core, basic, default rules do not say or suggest that PCs can buy magic items in any kind of single-stop shop. The only things I can find in the revised (3.5) DMG that even speaks to buying magic items at all is:

p137, Community Wealth and Populations:
"Anything having a price under that limit [GP Limit] is most likely available, wheter it be mundane or magical."

p139, Economics:
"Spellcasters willing to make magic items or cast spells for hire can make a lot of money, although expenditures of personal power (experience points) are often involved, and the demand for such expensive items is unsteady at best and can be depended on only in large cities."

p215, Magic Item Descriptions: 
"*Market Price:* This gold piece value, given following the word 'Price,' represents the price someone should expect to pay to buy the item."

The opening paragraph from the Magic Items chapter in the DMG doesn't even mention purchasing magic items: "Magic items are the hallmarks of a legendary campaign. They are gleaned from the hoards of conquered monsters, taken from fallen foes, and sometimes crafted by the characters themselves. The most valuable and coveted of all the sorts of treasure that an adventurer could hope to find, magic items grant abilities to a charcter that . . ." No mention of buying magic items.

And Players shouldn't be reading the DMG anyway, right? So from a Player's point of view, the above three non-commital statements don't exist.

There's no mention in the PHB of purchasing magic items. The craft magic item feats only mention a "base price," but no more. The Player with a craft feat wouldn't even know what the base price is for an item he or she wanted to craft. Only the DM has that knowledge.

A new Player coming into the game with just the PHB would not have any conception of purchasing magic items. Even a DM, reading the DMG, might not get the idea of allowing PCs to buy magic items from the above three statements.


2- Even if a DM chooses to allow PCs to purchase magic items, handwaving the shopping does not say or suggest that the items are found and bought at any kind of Walmart-like store. Most DMs handwave all purchases -- for a torch, a masterwork sword, a warhorse, a suit of full plate armor, a potion of _invisibility_, a _+1 flaming sword_, etc. Handwaving a shopping trip in a city does not mean the DM is creating a Walmart-like experience. If you don't think that PCs buy weapons and armors off a shelf, why do you think potions and wands are bought off a shelf?


3- So, since by the core rules, there are no "Magic Walmarts" in a default-style campaign world, describing a setting as having "no Magic Walmarts" does not mean "low magic". It basically means "not higher magic than the core rules," which from the context of most posts using the phrase, is not what the poster seems to mean.

As I compared in the OP, it's like saying "no god killing PCs" to mean "low powered." Since PCs in a default campaign aren't usually killing gods, even at 20th level, "no god killing PCs" basically means, "not more powerful than the core rules."

Quasqueton


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> 3- So, since by the core rules, there are no "Magic Walmarts" in a default-style campaign world, describing a setting as having "no Magic Walmarts" does not mean "low magic". It basically means "not higher magic than the core rules," which from the context of most posts using the phrase, is not what the poster seems to mean.




Go back to your thread about 1e, and how we consistently experienced it in different ways, regardless of how often we moved, regardless of the actual wording.  You are ignoring the "Reader Filter" that says "If I wrote this, this is what I would mean, therefore this is what is meant here".  It is at least as important as what is actually written.

So, if you play in an area where MagicMarts are more common than standard -- or if you would interpret posts on a messageboard through your Reader Filter that way -- they you are likely to specify "No MagicMarts" or "No God Killing" or whatever.

At least, IMHO, and IME.


RC


EDIT:  Personal example.  If I had written the text on EL/CR in the 3.0 DMG, using the wording used, I would have been implying that Tailored Encounters were the standard.  I therefore interpretted it that way.  I recently agreed with KM that this probably wasn't what was intended by the designers, who differentiated (I think) creating setting (sandbox play/Status Quo) from creating adventures (Tailored Encounters).

Just because something seems clearly written to you, doesn't mean that someone else (who also thinks it is clearly written) is gaining the same idea from it.  Which one of the reasons why there are contradictions in rules clarifications -- two different readers reasonably read the rule to mean two different things.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> And Players shouldn't be reading the DMG anyway, right?




Huh?  Why not?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Magitech is a slap?  I thought it denoted a crossing of magic and technology, like in a Steampunk world or as with the mad scientists of Deadlands.  Wait, is Steampunk a slap now?
> 
> Anime is a slap?  I thought it was a genre of animation styled after Japanese style animation (itself originally styled after Walt Disney).  I know some people would rather not have anime influences in their fantasy role-playing, but how does that make the term itself a slap?
> 
> ...




Ok, I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain or not.  How about this for a reaction then:

Shadowfax was a pokemount.  

Should be no problems since pokemount is simply a shorthand for a mount that is easily available when needed and goes away when not.  Describes Shadowfax perfectly.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jun 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Magitech is a slap?  I thought it denoted a crossing of magic and technology, like in a Steampunk world or as with the mad scientists of Deadlands.  Wait, is Steampunk a slap now?




You mean you've never heard someone use Steampunk as a put-down to a setting or style?  I've heard it quite a bit.  As far as D&D goes I've heard it used as a derogatory term a lot in conjunction with Eberron.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Anime is a slap?




I've heard people try to use it as one.  I will admit that in most (if not all) of these cases the person was referring more to the DragonBall or Naruto style and knew they were "anime" so they assumed all anime was like that.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Dungeonpunk is a slap?




I've seen multiple people try to use it as an insult to the early 3.0 D&D art.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That would be like saying that "chocolate" is a slap because some people prefer vanilla.




And I've heard people use chocolate as an insult for someone who was "ooey-gooey sickeningly sweet". (I am not joking.)

You are correct in that anything and everything can be used as an insult and a put down and quite often it is.  Telling something that they are 'great' and 'excellant' can be a put down if it said in a sarcastic tone of voice.  It's absolutely scary how good people are at cutting others down.

Magic Wal-Mart has been used as an insult and not just on message boards (so I was able to confirm that is what the person was intending to do and I heard the tone-of-voice).  It was used to downgrade the target's choice of play style and make the speaker feel superior that they were "role-playing" the shopping encounters and not just "roll-playing" the combats.

As far as I know everytime I have heard Magic Wal-Mart or MagicMart used (until this thread anyway) it has been used as an insult to another play style (it may have been that I incorrectly guessed the intention of the speaker/poster based on that personal experience but the 'insult' seemed to fit the context).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain or not.  How about this for a reaction then:
> 
> Shadowfax was a pokemount.
> 
> Should be no problems since pokemount is simply a shorthand for a mount that is easily available when needed and goes away when not.  Describes Shadowfax perfectly.




If that's what you mean by the term (as opposed to the 3.X paladin's mount), then that's perfectly fine.  So was Trigger, Silver, and any plot-device-mount used in any story, ever.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> You mean you've never heard someone use Steampunk as a put-down to a setting or style?  I've heard it quite a bit.  As far as D&D goes I've heard it used as a derogatory term a lot in conjunction with Eberron.




I've heard it as a descriptive, but not as a slap.  Someone might say "I don't care for Steampunk" but that doesn't make it a slap.  There has to be something inherently negative in the connotation of the term, IMHO, for it to be a slap.



> You are correct in that anything and everything can be used as an insult and a put down and quite often it is.  Telling something that they are 'great' and 'excellant' can be a put down if it said in a sarcastic tone of voice.  It's absolutely scary how good people are at cutting others down.




But that makes neither of those terms a "slap"; it only makes the _usage_ a slap.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2007)

Har har.  Ok, pull the other one, it's got bell's on it RC.  

English is a wonderful language with all sorts of connotations.  When you use a shorthand word that carries negative connotations, even if you don't mean them, it is still likely to be seen as derogatory, regardless of intent.  

A paladin't mount is easily summonable and goes away when not needed - a pokemount

Shadowfax is easily summonable and goes away when not needed - a pokemount.

So, what's the beef with saying that Shadowfax is pretty much identical to a paladin's mount?  The end result is the same.  Yet, you went on at great lengths to disprove that Shadowfax could possibly be interpreted as a pokemount.  I recall polls even.

A fair number of people have chimed in here to say that they find the term derogatory.  It doesn't matter if you think it is or not.  To them it is.  It's a slap against playstyle.  To them.  To me as well.  That you don't mean it that way is irrelevant.  That's how it's being interpreted.  Thus, either you can continue to use the term, knowing that people will associate it with wrongbadfun style posts or pick a different shorthand.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 28, 2007)

> Someone might say "I don't care for Steampunk" but that doesn't make it a slap.



What makes something like that a "slap" is when the reference isn't actually as described.

In reference to Raven Crowking's posts: "I don't have the patience to read the ramblings of a 12 year old." Would that be a "slap" or merely a harmless mistake equating your opinion to that of a 12 year old? Afterall, we've all been 12 years olds, so there's nothing insulting about being a 12 year old, right?

Quasqueton


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> The OP's point was, stated in list form for easy understanding:




No, no, no, that wasn't it at all!  Did you even read the first post?  You have no idea what the OP is asking!


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 28, 2007)

I don't really want to get into a long debate about what terms are derogatory and which aren't, but I personally don't consider anime, steampunk, dungeonpunk, Tolkienesque, or magitech in the same category as "magic Wal-Mart".  To me, they're generally neutral terms that describe a style of setting, without an emotional content.  Those styles of play may not be very popular in some locales, but the term itself is neutral. I've seen all of them (with the exception of "Tolkienesque") in advertising for products.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, what's the beef with saying that Shadowfax is pretty much identical to a paladin's mount?  The end result is the same.  Yet, you went on at great lengths to disprove that Shadowfax could possibly be interpreted as a pokemount.  I recall polls even.





Pokemount was defined differently in those threads.

The argument was based (from my end, anyway) on the idea that, if one wanted the paladin's mount to represent Shadowfax, that there were better game mechanics to do it with than the ones provided in the SRD.  I even rewrote the Paladin's mount so that it had what I saw as the same essential features as the current one (i.e., there when you need it, not in danger when you do not) while removing the things I saw as problematical (disappearing to another plane, instantaneous arrival anywhere).

My version, for example, could not be summoned in Moria, nor could it simply disappear with the Ring into another plane (thus keeping it out of the reach of Sauron forever), and it took a short (but existent) period of time to arrive when called.

It wasn't an argument about the _term_ pokemount, it was an argument about whether or not the _specifics of pokemounts as described in D&D were the best possible description of pokemounts as seen in literature_.

Again, at least from my side.

RC


EDIT:  There was also a sub-argument about whether or not the Paladin's mount was the best SRD description of Shadowfax.  Ex:  Would Shadowfax as he appears in the novel be better described as an Animal Companion in the game?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> In reference to Raven Crowking's posts: "I don't have the patience to read the ramblings of a 12 year old." Would that be a "slap" or merely a harmless mistake equating your opinion to that of a 12 year old? Afterall, we've all been 12 years olds, so there's nothing insulting about being a 12 year old, right?




Honestly, I'm not sure.  It requires context.

EDIT:  Although, if there were any term in there with negative connotations, as I read it, it would be "ramblings".


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

This thread itself shows that 'Magic Wal-Mart' is a poor term. It can mean so many different things:

1) A pejorative describing trade in magic items.
2) A neutral term for trade in magic items.
3) A pejorative for one-stop magic item shops.
4) A neutral term for one-stop magic item shops.

I'm not convinced that (2) and (4) exist, but if they do, then that makes the term worse, not better, as it has a less precise meaning.

'Magic shops' has a similar difficulty as it can also refer to (2) or (4) but at least it's not as negative.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 'Magic shops' has a similar difficulty as it can also refer to (2) or (4) but at least it's not as negative.




Why can't "magic shops" be used equally for all four?  Why is the term not as negative?  It seemed to be used so by some posters on the "Does Your World Have Magic Shops" type threads some time ago.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why can't "magic shops" be used equally for all four?  Why is the term not as negative?



Wal-Mart suggests, to me, a big store that sells everything, which is a bit more implausible than multiple shops.

We don't have Wal-Marts in the UK (though the company took over the ASDA chain here), so despite my pontificating in this thread, I'm one of the least qualified posters to talk about what the term implies.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm not sure if you're just yanking my chain or not.  How about this for a reaction then:
> 
> Shadowfax was a pokemount.
> 
> Should be no problems since pokemount is simply a shorthand for a mount that is easily available when needed and goes away when not.  Describes Shadowfax perfectly.




I agree.  It's a perfectly good analogy and anyone who knows what a Pokemon is and knows anything about the way Shadowfax is portrayed in LotR would have a pretty difficult time arguing that there aren't significant similarities.  If this is supposed to illustrate why "Magic Wal-marts" are inaccurate or offensive, I'm afraid I'm missing the point.


----------



## Felix (Jun 28, 2007)

> I agree. It's a perfectly good analogy and anyone who knows what a Pokemon is and knows anything about the way Shadowfax is portrayed in LotR would have a pretty difficult time arguing that there aren't significant similarities.



"There arnen't significant similiarities."

No, not difficult at all to say.

Unless by "signigicant" you mean, "cosmetic".


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 28, 2007)

In a fantasy game, cosmetics make all the difference.  By changing the 'flavor text' you can signifigantly change the game experience.

The problem with the 'pokemount', from my perspective, is that it describes the paladin as summoning the creature from another plain.  Suddenly, my holy knights with some minor magical talents became conjurers.  I would mind a Shadowfax mechanic much less, that the paladin's mount would take off when not needed, and quickly show up when called.  The default mechanic involves a templar opening a portal to another plane, something I do not want in my games.

The real issue with 'magi-marts' isn't the magic items availability, its their mundaneness.  When everything is quantified and magic swords are not items of legend but a collection of properties, it makes it just another piece of gear.  It isn't thought of as any more different or special than the long sword he bought for 15 gp at first level, except its higher quality.

This is what people don't like when they complain about magi-marts.  Magic items that feel like technology, not magic.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 28, 2007)

> No, no, no, that wasn't it at all! Did you even read the first post? You have no idea what the OP is asking!



Apparently, the OP has no relevance to the discussion.

Quasqueton


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> "There arnen't significant similiarities."
> 
> No, not difficult at all to say.
> 
> Unless by "signigicant" you mean, "cosmetic".




Shadowfax is a fictional character in a fantasy story (i.e. there is no real life equivalent we can use for comparison).  Since the only information we have about Shadowfax is descriptive fiction, how can any similarity Shadowfax shares with something else be anything other than "cosmetic"?   :\


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Wal-Mart suggests, to me, a big store that sells everything, which is a bit more implausible than multiple shops.




What is the difference between every magic item a PC wants to purchase being available in one store and every magic item being available in one city with the actual shopping handwaved?

I'm still failing to see why the distinction between one store and multiple stores is important to the discussion if the end result is exactly the same.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> What is the difference between every magic item a PC wants to purchase being available in one store and every magic item being available in one city with the actual shopping handwaved?
> 
> I'm still failing to see why the distinction between one store and multiple stores is important to the discussion if the end result is exactly the same.




Did you miss the example above about the difference between handwaving travel and teleporting being commonplace in the campaign world?  There's a huge difference in the two, and it is a perfect analogy to lots of curio shops being handwaved and a one stop shop for all magic item needs.

How about if the DM just gives away XP and gp during the weekly 5 minute session? It's the same as the PCs going out and doing adventures, right? Because, after all, the end result is the same.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> What is the difference between every magic item a PC wants to purchase being available in one store and every magic item being available in one city with the actual shopping handwaved?



See post #169.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Did you miss the example above about the difference between handwaving travel and teleporting being commonplace in the campaign world?  There's a huge difference in the two, and it is a perfect analogy to lots of curio shops being handwaved and a one stop shop for all magic item needs.




No, but it still doesn't answer the question.  Why is the distinction important to the discussion if the difference between transporters and hand-waved travel only exists in the DM's head?  For the players and anyone else viewing the game from the outside the distinction doesn't exist.



> How about if the DM just gives away XP and gp during the weekly 5 minute session? It's the same as the PCs going out and doing adventures, right? Because, after all, the end result is the same.




No, the end result is different because in one the players spend no real-world time playing the game, whereas in the other they do spend that time and they reap all the real-world benefits of doing so (having fun, gaining expertise at playing the game, getting to know their fellow players) and so do third parties (retailers and publishers who sell the players dice, books, pencils, paper, snacks, etc.).

In fact, this is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about.  There are distinctions you can make that have an actual impact on the way the game is experienced in the real world, the difference between the literal definition of "Magic Wal-marts" and the figurative definition based on handwaving isn't one of them.  There is no real-world difference between the two, so what makes that distinction important to anyone except (maybe) the DM who is creating the distinction for his own benefit in his head?  And if he is the only person for whom the distinction is important, how is that relevant to this discussion?



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> See post #169.




I read your response.  It doesn't really address the question I was asking.  Sorry.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

People care about the plausibility of their game worlds. Actual Wal-Marts are less plausible than handwaved Wal-Marts.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> No, but it still doesn't answer the question.  Why is the distinction important to the discussion if the difference between transporters and hand-waved travel only exists in the DM's head?  For the players and anyone else viewing the game from the outside the distinction doesn't exist.




It does create a different play experience. It doesn't only exist in the DM's head, it is a world altering thing. If the DM handwaves travel time, then in game time does go by, after all. Seasons may change. PCs will age.

So take two examples, one with teleporters in every city and one with travel handwaving. The PCs have a day to save the princess in a kingdom 1000 miles away. In one they might succeed, in the other they can't.

The world is affected tremendously. In the world with lots of teleportation access, trade will be vastly different as exotic goods won't exist, being that they're a 'port away. Cultural distinctions will be smaller. Warfare will be waged differently. The world is affected in a large way by this innoculous change.

Are Magic Walmarts vs. small shops that different than the above example? Magic Walmart implies that magic is much more widespread, either because magic is a tool for common use among citizens or because of the vast amount of adventurers that can keep such shops active. It means less of a barter trade, which could be sustainable with smaller shops, but is implausable with large magic outlets. It probably means some kind of mass production of  magic items because of this. It implies how the common man views magic.

So there is a difference because it influences the world in which the PCs experience the game. You might not see a difference between handwaving travel and teleportation _during the actual event_, but when every city in the world is like Sigil, with a portal to everywhere you want to go, you might start seeing some dissimilarities.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Are Magic Walmarts vs. small shops that different than the above example? Magic Walmart implies that magic is much more widespread, either because magic is a tool for common use among citizens or because of the vast amount of adventurers that can keep such shops active. It means less of a barter trade, which could be sustainable with smaller shops, but is implausable with large magic outlets. It probably means some kind of mass production of  magic items because of this. It implies how the common man views magic.




My experience disagrees with this.  The whole idea of a "Magic Wal-mart", from what I have seen of them, is to eliminate the consideration of source and economic impact from the game in order to focus on other things.  Campaigns which have "Magic Wal-marts" vs. those that have handwaved magic item purchases don't differ at all in terms of trade, production of items or views of magic in my experience, because trade, production of items and views of magic aren't things that people involved in the game are interested in considering.  The campaign is focused elsewhere and that's the reason for adopting the method of treating magic item purchases in the first place.

This entire discussion seems to be about setting up a strawman (the literal "Magic Item Wal-mart") and knocking it down to make a big deal out of something that's really a very miniscule matter for the vast majority of people who play the game.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> This entire discussion seems to be about setting up a strawman (the literal "Magic Item Wal-mart") and knocking it down to make a big deal out of something that's really a very miniscule matter for the vast majority of people who play the game.




I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of gamers don't really consider where their magic items or gold actually come from.


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of gamers don't really consider where their magic items or gold actually come from.




If we're saying the distinction between a virtual and a literal Magic Wal-mart is that the literal Magic Wal-mart has certain effects on the economy, magic item production methods and common man's view of magic of the game milieu, but we also admit that the vast majority of gamers don't really factor those things into the way they experience the game, then I would argue the assertion that the term is inaccurate (and therefore shouldn't be used) is false.

If I say of my game it has "no Magic Wal-marts" and (in the minds of the vast majority of gamers) there is no significant difference between the virtual and the literal interpretation of that phrase in terms of how they experience the game, then the phrase is not only accurate, but extremely useful in explaining to potential players what to expect from my game.  No?


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 28, 2007)

> If I say of my game it has "no Magic Wal-marts"



Do you [general use, "you"] have mundane Wal-marts? If not, then shouldn't you also say so? Do you have horse lots or ship lots? If not, then shouldn't you also say so?

If the core/default game does not have "Magic Wal-marts," why do you need to state that your campaign doesn't have them? Making the "no Magic Wal-marts" statement is sort of like saying, "My D&D campaign doesn't have spaceships, canons, and skyscrapers."

If your campaign is different than the norm, I would think you should identify what is different, not what is not different.

Quasqueton


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> If your campaign is different than the norm, I would think you should identify what is different, not what is not different.




How do you know what is the norm?


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 28, 2007)

> How do you know what is the norm?



The baseline as presented in the core rules. 

Which is more informative about a campaign:

I don't allow storm giant PCs.

I allow storm giant PCs.

The first is the norm, the second is not.  

Quasqueton


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If I say of my game it has "no Magic Wal-marts" and (in the minds of the vast majority of gamers) there is no significant difference between the virtual and the literal interpretation of that phrase in terms of how they experience the game, then the phrase is not only accurate, but extremely useful in explaining to potential players what to expect from my game.  No?



But what does it mean? Does it mean 'no magic item trade exists', 'limited magic item trade exists', 'all magic item trade will be played out in detail', 'some magic item trade will be played out in detail' or what? I wouldn't be sure going into a game what it meant, which means it isn't useful at all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> The baseline as presented in the core rules.




I'm not sure, within the context of this thread, that such a norm exists.  That there exist norms for things like PC races and feats doesn't imply that there exist norms for the subjective (DM-and-player-input) qualities of campaign worlds.  Or that, if such norms exist, that we know them.

In fact, I would suggest that the content of this thread is indicative that people _think_ they know what the norm is, while other people _think_ that the norm is the opposite of what the first people think.

Go back to your thread about 1e, and how we consistently experienced it in different ways, regardless of how often we moved, regardless of the actual wording. You are ignoring the "Reader Filter" that says "If I wrote this, this is what I would mean, therefore this is what is meant here". It is at least as important as what is actually written.

So, if you play in an area where MagicMarts are more common than standard -- or if you would interpret posts on a messageboard through your Reader Filter that way -- they you are likely to specify "No MagicMarts" or "No God Killing" or whatever.

It is perhaps the "campaign norm" that is mythical, not MagicMarts.

At least, IMHO, and IME.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But what does it mean? Does it mean 'no magic item trade exists', 'limited magic item trade exists', 'all magic item trade will be played out in detail', 'some magic item trade will be played out in detail' or what? I wouldn't be sure going into a game what it meant, which means it isn't useful at all.




You'd know where to start with your questions, though, right?


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Do you [general use, "you"] have mundane Wal-marts? If not, then shouldn't you also say so? Do you have horse lots or ship lots? If not, then shouldn't you also say so?



In my experience, most campaigns which have virtual Magic Wal-marts also apply the same standards to mundane equipment (i.e. - purchasing of items - magical or otherwise - is simply hand-waved as long as a character has the right amount of cash and is near a population center with the correct GP limit).  Even in games where there were no virtual Magic Wal-marts, I've never seen mundane equipment like armor, weapons, alchemical items or horses treated other than as described above.  As a result, it seems to me that the default is virtual Mundane Wal-marts.  As a result, I wouldn't mention such things unless I was specifically deviating from the norm (i.e. - no Mundane Wal-marts).

If purchasing a ship was as frequent an in-game event as purchasing magic items is, then I would expect such things be covered by these types of descriptors as well.  However, in my experience, purchasing ships isn't something that comes up in most games, whereas purchasing magic items is something that has happened in every game of D&D I've played since 2000.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> If the core/default game does not have "Magic Wal-marts," why do you need to state that your campaign doesn't have them? Making the "no Magic Wal-marts" statement is sort of like saying, "My D&D campaign doesn't have spaceships, canons, and skyscrapers."
> 
> If your campaign is different than the norm, I would think you should identify what is different, not what is not different.



But in my experience, "virtual" Magic Wal-marts are the norm.  This isn't exactly surprising, since applying the basic economy rules in the DMG exactly as written is the perfect recipe for running a game that incorporates virtual Magic Wal-marts (Mundane too for that matter).  The reason to state "My campaign doesn't include Magic Wal-marts" is the same as the reason to state any other house rule, because it's a deviation from the default.  The reason not to state "My campaign doesn't include Mundane Wal-marts" is the same as the reason you don't state "I'm using the Saving Throw rules as-written", because you are not deviating from the default.

The fact that the phrase doesn't include the term "virtual" doesn't make it inaccurate or misleading since, as we established above, the vast majority of players don't experience a significant change in their experience of the game between the virtual and literal versions anyway.  If the purpose is to use the phrase as shorthand, then introducing a qualifier that isn't going to add additional meaning for the reader defeats the purpose (i.e. - communicating the idea in as few words as possible).


----------



## Slife (Jun 28, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of gamers don't really consider where their magic items or gold actually come from.



Killing things and taking their stuff.

*DUH!*


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 28, 2007)

Sorry, Raven Crowking, I just can't believe you are seriously confused. I think you are being contrary to be silly. And now you are reduced to copying and pasting your arguments, I guess, because the statements didn't get a rise out of folks like you wanted.

Quasqueton


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But what does it mean? Does it mean 'no magic item trade exists', 'limited magic item trade exists', 'all magic item trade will be played out in detail', 'some magic item trade will be played out in detail' or what? I wouldn't be sure going into a game what it meant, which means it isn't useful at all.



As I said in response to Quasqueton, "Magic Wal-mart" (to me) means purchasing of items - magical or otherwise - is simply hand-waved as long as a character has the right amount of cash and is near a population center with the correct GP limit.

The phrase "No Magic Wal-marts" means that purchasing an item requires more than having the right amount of gold and being in a city with the correct GP limit.

Personally, I would find that distinction very informative if someone were telling me about their game.  Would it answer all the questions about the process for acquiring magic items?  No.  But we're not talking about this phrase being used in a total vacuum.  In every case I've seen the phrase used, that information is followed by specifics (just read back through Raven Crowking's posts in this thread to see examples).  

Simply saying "I'm not using the Ranger class in this campaign." can be a very informative statement about your game.  The fact that it can be even more informative if you follow it up with "Instead, I'm including the Wilderness Scout core class from _3rd Party Splatbook X_ to take its place.", doesn't negate the usefulness of the previous sentence.


----------



## Felix (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Since the only information we have about Shadowfax is descriptive fiction, how can any similarity Shadowfax shares with something else be anything other than "cosmetic"?   :\



By the way he is treated by the other characters, perhaps? 

Legolas, an elf prince who has lived centuries if not millenia, was amazed at the horse when he first laid eyes.

Shadowfax is the greatest horse in a culture which lives seemingly in the saddle.

Shadowfax is admired and respected as _the_ Lord of Horses by a Maiar, Gandalf. 

Also consider the author: Tolkien greatly admired the pre-Norman British Anglo-Saxon culture, and believed that had the Anglo-Saxons had cavalry, the battle of Hastings would not have been lost, and British culture would have flowered on its own. Horses and the respect for them runs deep in Tolkien's work; it shows itself in the character of Shadowfax. So Shadowfax represents not only the superior legendary horse, but also the strength of the culture that bases itself on the animal.

Comparisons with a children's cartoon with a lightning-bolt for a tail that communicates clearly by repeating its name and lives in a ball can't be anything but cosmetic not because they are both works of fiction, but because of the significance of the character's meaning and purpose in the story.

You claimed that there were significant similarities between Shadowfax and Pokemon that anyone familar with both couldn't ignore. To which similarities do you refer?


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 28, 2007)

I'm off, tonight, to play a game of Marvel Super Heroes. And this campaign has no Magical Wal-marts in it, either.

Quasqueton


----------



## Ourph (Jun 28, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> You claimed that there were significant similarities between Shadowfax and Pokemon that anyone familar with both couldn't ignore. To which similarities do you refer?




The ability to appear when they are needed and remain off-camera when their existence isn't plot important (i.e. the most relevant similarity between them when it comes to discussion of the rules for the Paladin's mount in D&D, which was the context for the coining of the term "pokemount" in the first place).


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If we're saying the distinction between a virtual and a literal Magic Wal-mart is that the literal Magic Wal-mart has certain effects on the economy, magic item production methods and common man's view of magic of the game milieu, but we also admit that the vast majority of gamers don't really factor those things into the way they experience the game, then I would argue the assertion that the term is inaccurate (and therefore shouldn't be used) is false.




I'm thinking more along the lines that if people don't put thought into how they get their magic items, then it won't have any impact on the world. It is when they do put thought into it that it will impact the world. So, if they make the conscious choice of using one big shop vs lots of little shops, then there's going to be a reason for that choice.



> If I say of my game it has "no Magic Wal-marts" and (in the minds of the vast majority of gamers) there is no significant difference between the virtual and the literal interpretation of that phrase in terms of how they experience the game, then the phrase is not only accurate, but extremely useful in explaining to potential players what to expect from my game.  No?




I'm thinking most people have never given thought to metaphorical D&Disms, so I'd think your average Joe would immediately think of an actual physical Walmart. Since they haven't given thought to how magic is bought and sold before, there's no reason for them to think of the Walmart as metaphorical.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 28, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Personally, I would find that distinction very informative if someone were telling me about their game.  Would it answer all the questions about the process for acquiring magic items?  No.  But we're not talking about this phrase being used in a total vacuum.  In every case I've seen the phrase used, that information is followed by specifics (just read back through Raven Crowking's posts in this thread to see examples).



Why not just give the specifics then?

For instance if I'm running a game where magic items can't be traded, why don't I just say that instead of 'No Magic Wal-Marts', which is less clear. If there's a sliding scale in terms of how much detail goes into item purchasing (potions are handwaved, 20000gp items must be haggled over if they are available at all) why not just say so?

The main problem with the phrase is that it's not at all clear what it means. If everyone took it to mean 'the core rules on magic item availability will not be followed', without negative connotations, the phrase might be marginally useable but as it is this thread alone makes it clear that not everyone understands it that way.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 28, 2007)

If you want to know about availability of magic items in a campaign, which is a better question?

"Do you have Magic Walmart in your game?"

or

"Can I buy and sell magic items easily in your game?"


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 28, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> The real issue with 'magi-marts' isn't the magic items availability, its their mundaneness.  When everything is quantified and magic swords are not items of legend but a collection of properties, it makes it just another piece of gear.  It isn't thought of as any more different or special than the long sword he bought for 15 gp at first level, except its higher quality.
> 
> This is what people don't like when they complain about magi-marts.  Magic items that feel like technology, not magic.



And this is the distinction between the comfort in handwaving the purchase of torches, suits of armor, etc. (though there are campaigns, like mine, that don't) and magic items. 

Handwaving the purchase of magic items based on merely having the purchase price (listed in the rule book) and being in an "area" (nebulous term) that can support it goes too far (for flavor and mechanical/adventuring reasons) in a way that handwaving the purchase of mundane gear does not (I would argue that suits of full plate armor are not mundane and should not be available through handwaved-purchase, but I can see them still fitting into that category more than magic items).

For some, this is not an important distinction for their campaigns and have no problem using the default system for magic items (Magic-Walmart as characterized at times). Their style is comfortable with "magic as technology." Other styles aren't. Neither is more correct than the other, but there is a rational reason to seek to differentiate them, whether "aesthetic," mechanical, or something else.

I would like to add, that while personally I don't like using the "magic gear can be purchased easily" system, I prefer that system to "Monty Haul" gaming, as long as the resource (GP) that is being used for the purchases was obtained with effort through adventuring, and not just given away. In simple terms, players must earn their rewards. Perhaps it is the feeling that merely spending gold to obtain essentially whatever magic items desired is a kind of "Monty Haul" situation that makes it disagreeable to some.


----------



## Nellisir (Jun 28, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Apparently, the OP has no relevance to the discussion.
> 
> Quasqueton




Not by page 6, no.

(you did get the    in the other post, right?  I mean, I know exactly who the OP is.)


----------



## Sabathius42 (Jun 28, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> You claimed that there were significant similarities between Shadowfax and Pokemon that anyone familar with both couldn't ignore. To which similarities do you refer?




I think they claimed there were significant similarities between Shadowfax and a POKEMOUNT (not a pokemon).  The simililarity being they are both semi-magical mounts that appear conveniently when needed and are off-camera when not.

DS


----------



## Ourph (Jun 29, 2007)

In this thread we've gone from the term "Magic Wal-mart" being based on a myth, to being inaccurate, to being offensive to being simply not specific enough.  Talking about this issue on ever-shifting ground is just wasting everybody's time.  I think I'm done.  I hope the OP found the discussion useful.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2007)

Why can't it be all three?

The "Magic Walmart" as a single big store where the PC's can purchase anything has been shown to be pretty mythical - while it does exist in certain corner cases, it's not common enough to be considered normal.

Numerous posters, myself included, have seen the term "Magic Walmart" being tossed around as a wrongbadfun buzz word in numerous places, thus, using the term may be offensive, although, apparently, not to you.  The term Walmart carries far too many negative connotations to be considered neutral.

While the idea of a "Virtual Walmart" does have more grounding in that I do think a lot of gamers hand wave shopping for magic items, saying "no Magic Walmarts" is very vague.  Does it mean that there are no one stop magic shops?  Does it mean that you can never buy magic items?  Does it mean that certain items will be available but others not?  In other words, it doesn't really tell me anything about your world.  Unless, of course, you choose to add back in the negative connotations, which then take it to mean that magic shopping will not be allowed, it's an "Aulde Skool" campaign where we are dirt scrabble farmers and should bless the DM for gracing us with a +1 Spork.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jun 29, 2007)

> (you did get the  in the other post, right? I mean, I know exactly who the OP is.)



Oh, yeah, I got it, and I was playing along.

Quasqueton


----------



## bodhi (Jun 29, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> We don't have Wal-Marts in the UK (though the company took over the ASDA chain here), so despite my pontificating in this thread, I'm one of the least qualified posters to talk about what the term implies.



It's not an issue. You're on the Internet.


----------



## green slime (Jun 29, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The ability to appear when they are needed and remain off-camera when their existence isn't plot important (i.e. the most relevant similarity between them when it comes to discussion of the rules for the Paladin's mount in D&D, which was the context for the coining of the term "pokemount" in the first place).




LotR would be a bloody boring story otherwise...

Bilbo speaks "Yadayada, this ring business is stoopid", meanwhile Shadowfax munches on grass. Greybeard tries to reply to Bilbo, while Shadowfax lifts his mighty tail and craps. An ominious stench fills the air. Gimli deftly steps aside, seemingly unaffected of the stench "Reminds me of me Grandpa..." Shadowfax smiles with glee, and every mare within 100 leagues whinnies. Shadowfax promptly eats more grass. Aragorn swoons at the innanity of it all "Will it never end?" 

I think you'll find most of the characters appear when needed, and remain off-camera, when not driving the plot, introducing important themes, yadayada...


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 29, 2007)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> The simililarity being they are both ... appear conveniently when needed and are off-camera when not.
> 
> DS





Eureka!   Gandalf is a POKEMOUNT!!!!!

{except the part about being a horse...}


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Sorry, Raven Crowking, I just can't believe you are seriously confused. I think you are being contrary to be silly. And now you are reduced to copying and pasting your arguments, I guess, because the statements didn't get a rise out of folks like you wanted.




Because the objection remains unanswered.

I didn't say I was confused; I said I think you are wrong.  And I said why.

RC

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION:  Your argument about campaign norms requires that such a baseline exists.  As the 1e discussions have demonstrated so amply, the "baseline" experiences and campaign settings of various groups have no direct correlation with what was written in the 1e books.  It seems unlikely to me that 3e is any different.  Indeed, since considering what you've said about 1e on this matter, I've applied that thinking to several other threads and I believe that 3e is probably to some degree in the same boat as 1e.

Therefore, I conclude that you do not have the means to speak with any authority about whether or not Magic Walmarts are the baseline.  Nor do I.  Nor do any of us.

Therefore, I conclude that people who say "No Magic Walmarts" are saying so because of the campaign norms _of their experience_ or _of their perception_.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> In this thread we've gone from the term "Magic Wal-mart" being based on a myth, to being inaccurate, to being offensive to being simply not specific enough.  Talking about this issue on ever-shifting ground is just wasting everybody's time.  I think I'm done.  I hope the OP found the discussion useful.




Well said.

IMHO, it has been demonstrated conclusively that the "Magic Walmart" is _not_ a myth, that it is sometimes accurate, that some consider it offensive, and that it is shorter (and hence easier to type, and hence a "shorthand" term) than some longer, but more accurate phrases that could spell out exactly what can and cannot be purchased, and where.

I think that there is also considerable (but not conclusive) evidence that there is no more a universal "campaign norm" in 3.X than there was in 1e.

EDIT:  Hussar, a thing is mythical when it _doesn't exist_, not when it is (questionably) uncommon among a couple dozen posters on an Internet forum.

SECOND EDIT:  Going back over this thread, I am also struck by the observation that "Magic Walmart" or similar terms are considered offensive (as "slaps" to their game style) only by people who deny the existence of "Magic Walmarts".  Rather as though I said my game had no gumwizzwams, and the only people who were offended were those who thought gumwizzwams didn't exist.  Food for thought.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Apparently your saying that this happened to you in your game is no more evidence to this crowd than those who said the same earlier.
> 
> No doubt you are just saying that to take a slap at wrongbadfun.
> 
> ...




Well, now you come to mention it... was it a metaphor? This is really an issue that strikes at a fundamental question in roleplaying, which is: who within the game gets to determine reality?

Now it's often an assumption in traditional games that this role is performed entirely by the GM, with it often being stated: _"If I haven't said that it happened, then it didn't happen!"_ However, many modern games, particularly those in the "indie" sector, challenge this assumption, with "reality" being defined not simply by the GM's narration, but by a consensual and collaborative narration by both the players and the GM.

i.e. Instead of the following sequence:

*Me:* I roll 18.

*GM:* That's a success. Your sword slices through your opponent's neck. He falls to the ground dying.

...we have the following sequence:

*Me:* I roll a success. My sword slices through my opponent's genitals. He screams like a freshly minted eunich, and then falls to the ground dying.

(I like groinshots... sue me).

Anyway, where am I going with this?

The point is that in our Thursday night campaign, any character could - off camera - purchase any item whatsoever, including custom-designed items and spells cast upon the person, wherever we were. I stated my opinion that the only way this would be possible would be if there were a chain of huge magical superstores that sold magical swords like golf superstores sell golf clubs. (I also envisaged that poisons and potions would be sold in nicely labelled jars with colour coded lids much like you get racks of Schwartz herbs and spices at your local supermarket). I suggested that this chain of superstores was called Joe's Adventure Barn, and would often state that my character was going to Joe's to pick up some stuff.

At no point did any other participant, either GM or player, dispute what I said. Equally, at no point did any other participant offer any other alternative explanation as to where or how any of the characters (i.e. either mine or their's) were obtaining these items.

At all times the only narrative explanation was the one offered by myself. I think it's reasonable therefore to claim that my narrative wins, simply by virtue of the fact that all other possible narratives stayed at home.

So there *was* a chain called Joe's Adventure Barn, and it *was* where we bought and sold our stuff.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> SECOND EDIT:  Going back over this thread, I am also struck by the observation that "Magic Walmart" or similar terms are considered offensive (as "slaps" to their game style) only by people who deny the existence of "Magic Walmarts".  Rather as though I said my game had no gumwizzwams, and the only people who were offended were those who thought gumwizzwams didn't exist.  Food for thought.




You might want to go over the thread again.  I never said whether or not I handwave shopping or whether or not I have one stop shopping in my campaign.  I don't believe Nellisir did either.

I have said that I find the idea of a single large store located conveniently and easily accessable by just about anyone to be present in a  very small number of campaigns.  Granted, it's not mythical, just legendary.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> You might want to go over the thread again.  I never said whether or not I handwave shopping or whether or not I have one stop shopping in my campaign.  I don't believe Nellisir did either.




I rather think that there might be two camps of people offended then:

(1)  Those who read the rules, determined that easy sale was the default, and are miffed that others apparently take "slaps" at that default, and

(2)  Those who read the rules, determined that easy sale was not the default, and are miffed that others apparently believe that to be the default.



> Granted, it's not mythical, just legendary.




What actual information do you base that conclusion on?


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What actual information do you base that conclusion on?



Transportation costs, for one thing.

Wal-Mart is successful because it saves money by buying and shipping items in bulk, establishes itself where the land is cheap, and relies on its customers' willingness to travel a distance to get there.

In a Mideval world transportation costs would be much higher, both on the buying and the selling side. Teleportation, though fast, is costly. Goods would be shipped there by land, which would take a while. Travel routes would likely not be as safe as they are in the US, so there is that cost. Similarly, there would be the associated costs of protecting the Magical Wal-Mart; so many valuable items inventoried at one central location is a tempting target for anyone; you'd have a bevy of thieves, both mundane and magical, attempting to make off with the treasure within.

There would also be costs associated with the people who want to buy items at this Magical Wal-Mart. For an average member of society, it would take much longer to travel a distance than it does now; even traveling across a moderately-sized city could take all day for one on foot; this Wal-Mart couldn't rely on a large number of customers from the population, or sell to a very large demographic. It would have to be more of a specialty store than a bulk store. Which is precisely not what Wal-Mart is.

So while it would be possible for conditions to exist that would encourage a Magical Wal-Mart's existance, each of those conditions themselves would be extraordinary. Legendary, perhaps?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Transportation costs, for one thing.




Assumes that this isn't handwaved/ignored, which, in light of many other aspects of the game, is probably not a fair assumption.

Please note, I am not asking for the logical reasons that a MagicMart wouldn't exist, I am asking where Hussar draws the conclusion that such contrivances are so rare _in actual campaigns_ as to be "legendary".

There is no good source of data, to my knowledge, from which such conclusions may be drawn.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Transportation costs, for one thing.




Yeah, but if you're going to start applying logic to a typical D&D fantasy world, it all falls apart anyway.

Put simply, there's far too much money and not enough inflation.

(And that's before you consider the fact that in D&D, gold is only a semi-precious metal).

In one of our campaigns, using (I believe) published adventures, my hippy Ranger had accumulted enough gold pieces by about 7th level to buy 37 town houses in Waterdeep. (He didn't, that's just what I worked out enroute to his motivations in life totally crumbling - he ended up going to Joe's and spending 25k gps on a magic bow and another 10k gps on some kind of mega arrow of undead slaying).

What's the motivation for anything, when there's huge wealth just lying around in holes in the ground? Why work 50 years building up a business only to see your nephew make that much money in single dungeon crawl?

Sure, you stand a damn good chance of getting killed if you head down a dungeon. But then again, you stand a damn good chance of dying of disease if you stay around in town. And who'd be a soldier on silver pieces a day when for the same risk as a few battles, you could makes sureself several tens of thousands of GPs on a private expedition?


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2007)

Purely anecdotal.  True.  Although, looking at published campaign worlds, the idea of magic walmarts are pretty much a myth.  Other than perhaps Planescape,  there are vanishingly small numbers of places where you can simply walk in and buy magic items. 

Looking at Sasserine - a pretty decent example - I find:


4 curio shops (not listed what they sell
1 Magic Light shop
1 Minor Magic shop
4 magic shop
1 Arcanists guild
1 black market

So, we have scattered throughout the city, about a dozen places where magic can be bought and sold (if you include the curio shops).  So, yup, you have stores that sell magic.  And, certainly, DM's could hand wave shopping.  Does that mean that Sasserine is an example of Magic Walmartism?  I hardly think so.  It's a reflection of the core demographics listed in the DMG, but, that's not the issue.

We have no main, easily accessable store where you can buy any magic item.  So, yes, I'm thinking the literal "Magic Walmart" is an internet myth.  Sure, there might be a few people out there that have them, but, it certainly isn't reflected in published settings.

Honestly though, I'm not sure why you cannot see that Walmart is meant to be perjorative.  Given the rather large number of negative connotations that come with the concept, it's pretty hard to think that it's a completely neutral term.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jun 29, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> In one of our campaigns, using (I believe) published adventures, my hippy Ranger had accumulted enough gold pieces by about 7th level to buy 37 town houses in Waterdeep. (He didn't, that's just what I worked out enroute to his motivations in life totally crumbling - he ended up going to Joe's and spending 25k gps on a magic bow and another 10k gps on some kind of mega arrow of undead slaying).



35k is somewhat over the wealth by level guidelines for 7th level. The system expects 19k.

All D&D PCs are fantastically wealthy compared to the average peasant. I would suggest that a character whose motivation is to strike it rich then settle down isn't going to work long term. In fact, he won't work beyond the first adventure. As a player you have a responsibility to come up with motivations to go on adventures, whether the desire to do good, defeat a great evil, or thrillseeking.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Purely anecdotal.  True.  Although, looking at published campaign worlds, the idea of magic walmarts are pretty much a myth.  Other than perhaps Planescape,  there are vanishingly small numbers of places where you can simply walk in and buy magic items.




Spelljammer, I think, makes the myth much less of a myth.  Since Spelljammer tied together Faerun, Oerth, and Ansalon, you could presumably find Arcane on every official D&D world (except Athlas) in 2e anyway, which means that, from an "official" standpoint, MagicMarts were pretty widespread.  I've heard on this thread about Dragonmarked Houses and Red Wizards setting up MagicMarts in Eberron and Faerun.

_You absolutely may be right_ -- everyone who ever used a MagicMart might have chimed in on this thread.  That might be it.  But I don't think that we can say how common MagicMarts are with any degree of certainty.

You're thinking the literal "Magic Walmart" is an internet myth, but that requires you to disbelieve or ignore each and every claim to such on this thread (and others).



> Honestly though, I'm not sure why you cannot see that Walmart is meant to be perjorative.  Given the rather large number of negative connotations that come with the concept, it's pretty hard to think that it's a completely neutral term.




Admittedly, I prefer "MagicMart" to "Walmart".  But I believe that when people say "Magical Walmart" they are trying to denote that the concept reminds them of Walmart, and ruins the sense of immersion for them.  Just as, when I say "Pokemount" I mean to imply that the flavour of the 3.X paladin's mount reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon, which ruins the sense of immersion for me.

That doesn't mean that people who feel differently suck because they don't think the same way I do.  Different strokes for different folks.

RC


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

RC said:
			
		

> Assumes that this isn't handwaved/ignored, which, in light of many other aspects of the game, is probably not a fair assumption.



Oh, I handwave a good deal myself; notably exactly which shops the PCs might buy particular magic items. I was simply suggesting realities that would make the in-game existence of a Magical Wal-Mart legendary. Those realities may be subconsciously followed so as to make the existance of a large warehouse full of reasonably-priced magic rare in terms of actual campaigns.



> There is no good source of data, to my knowledge, from which such conclusions may be drawn.



Considering that the results of any poll made would be disputed because any definition suggested for "Magical Wal-Mart" will be rejected by the opposition, I'd have to agree.



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Yeah, but if you're going to start applying logic to a typical D&D fantasy world, it all falls apart anyway.



He asked for reasons, I suggest a few. Like I said, I handwave quite a bit of the item-purchasing anyway.



> Put simply, there's far too much money and not enough inflation.



Inflation only occurs when there is a increase in the money supply, net of goods and services produced. So what if there is a lot of gold, as long as that supply of gold stays fairly consistent? The important thing is relative pricing: if a sword costs 5gp, does it make sense that a head of cabbage costs 20? The relative prices in the PHB seem reasonably well proportioned, certainly considering the abstraction that D&D economics is.



> What's the motivation for anything, when there's huge wealth just lying around in holes in the ground? Why work 50 years building up a business only to see your nephew make that much money in single dungeon crawl?



I always figured it was because the PCs were extraordinary. The PCs might struggle through a dungeon, but it would be certain-death for 98% of the population. A 2% probability of success might make a lifetime of relatively safe labor more attractive, considering that the lifetime is likely to be much, much longer.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> He asked for reasons, I suggest a few. Like I said, I handwave quite a bit of the item-purchasing anyway.





Actually, he asked for what _information_ the conclusion that MagicMarts were legendary (presumably more than Very Rare on the old 1e Monster Frequencies?   ) in actual games was based on.  

That's very different than asking for a line of reasoning why MagicMarts might be rare or nonexistent within a campaign world.


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

So I started with a reasonable explanation of why it would be rare in-game, and suggested that if those reasons were by-and-large followed, it would then become rare in actual games.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> So I started with a reasonable explanation of why it would be rare in-game, and suggested that if those reasons were by-and-large followed, it would then become rare in actual games.




Sure.  But that's a mighty big "if".


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Inflation only occurs when there is a increase in the money supply, net of goods and services produced. So what if there is a lot of gold, as long as that supply of gold stays fairly consistent?




But if I take gold that's been buried in a hole in the ground for the last 1000 years and then introduce it into the economy, that is a big increase in the money supply, just as if a modern-day ruler prints a load of money.



			
				Felix said:
			
		

> The important thing is relative pricing




In a modern economy based on _money_, where money is an abstract concept used to measure varying levels of wealth and backed by confidence in legal and economic systems, true.

But in a primitive economy based on _coins_, where coins are a standard, measured quanitity of a rare and valuable material and have only value only by virtue of being constructed of a rare and valuable material, no.

i.e. in the modern day world I will happily sell you an ounce of gold for three one hundred dollar paper notes backed by the US government. But in a primative world, if you want me to sell you an ounce of gold you're going to have to give me a coin or coins which contain an ounce of gold.

Of course, all of the above only applies if you're looking for _*external*_ logic, and I'm probably making a pedantic argument. If you merely (as I do) want your settings to be _*internally*_ consistent, then yeah, broadly speaking you're right: relative prices are fine.

Although having said that, it would be more realistic, and much more atmospheric, to me if a gold coin was a very large sum of money (a year's wage for a peasant say), as used to be the case in our world. Cheap gold just doesn't seem right. If I was GMing a D&D game I'd be tempted to just divide both prices and incomes by a factor of ten at least.

I think part of the problem in the modern world, is that we are used to our standard units of currency being relatively worthless, with the averaging people earning many hundreds of them per week. Maybe the designers of D&D are making their prices fit that mindset.

Just as an aside, I had a search around and found a good site for comparing old and new UK prices (i.e. working out inflation).

http://measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/

For example, £1 in 1300AD is now worth £374.

(Although you have to take that with a pinch of salt due to the huge changes in the relative values of goods and labour and the fairer distribution of money).


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

No: *IF* is a really big "if". 

Think of the demographic breakdown to see if that "if" is reasonable.

There's a split in the population concerning the availability of magic items in general. Those who strictly allow the DMG wealth-by-level guidelines, and those who limit the available items. Anyone who limits the availability of items in general is unlikely to have a reasonably-priced Magic Warehouse, so we can safely put that demographic aside.

So you have left folks whose PCs are equipped according to the DMG. Another division will be those DMs who supply their PCs' wealth-by-level with loot out of the dungeons, but don't let the PCs buy much.

A further division will be DMs who want their campaign world to have a very Mideval Europe feel; Ye Olde Shoppes will be much more common in these campaigns than Magical Discount Warehouses.

Fourthly, DMs who insist on a low-magic world (one where though the PCs may be equipped according to the DMG, magic items are rare in the world) will be unlikely to include a Magical Wal-Mart.

Campaigns which emphasize that magical items are heirlooms which have been around a long time will be less likely to have Magical Wal-Marts, because there will not be a current magic-item producing industry.

Finally, DMs who scale down the size of their cities: this may be due to a smaller populations; having the population spread out over more land; having the world being made up of islands instead of continents. The absence of metropolises will decrease the likelihood of the Magical Wal-Mart.

--------

I believe I ruled out a fairly large portion of campaigns just now, though I understand I haven't all.

What do we have left? We have campaigns which don't limit possession of or access to magical items, don't intensionally model Mideval Europe closely, have a moderate-to-high level of magic present in the world, have a thriving magic-item production commerce, and have large metropolises. Add to that the campaigns in which DMs place a Magical Wal-Mart purposefully, perhaps for its seeming contradictions, and you have the demographic that remains that needs be tested against the transactions cost assumptions I made.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> No: *IF* is a really big "if".





 


I'm not questioning your reasoning; I'm questioning how many DMs follow your reasoning.  Not that horribly long ago, on another "MagicMart" type thread, it was suggested by some that Eberron was a world based on the logical extension of D&D.  While I disagree with the premise that Eberron is the _only such possible_ world, it was interesting to note how many on that thread defended the concept of MagicMarts or Magic Walmarts as the logical extension of the core rules assumptions.

It could be that my memory is playing tricks on me (Crom knows that happens often enough these days!     ) but it seems as though there as several people on this thread denying the existence of the same thing they viewed as a logical extension of the rules on that thread.

I'll have to see if I am still subscribed to that thread, and link.  I could be mistaken.


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But if I take gold that's been buried in a hole in the ground for the last 1000 years and then introduce it into the economy, that is a big increase in the money supply, just as if a modern-day ruler prints a load of money.



It's only significant if the amount of wealth found is large compared to the total wealth of the country.

If you're talking about a big country with hundreds of thousands of people, several large cities, and a well supplied army, 10,000gp might mean a whole lot to an individual, but have less of an effect on the aggregate economy than you expect.



> In a modern economy based on _money_, where money is an abstract concept used to measure varying levels of wealth and backed by confidence in legal and economic systems, true.
> 
> But in a primitive economy based on _coins_, where coins are a standard, measured quanitity of a rare and valuable material and have only value only by virtue of being constructed of a rare and valuable material, no.



It makes no difference if we're talking about fiat money or specie; they function identically with regard to relative prices.

Assume that two tribes meet and buy and sell things with pearls. A deer will feed a family for a week, and a fish will feed a family for a day. Everything else equal, you would expect the deer to cost 7 times as many pearls as a fish. Personal preference, storage facilities, cooking facilities, size and weight of the food may change that relationship, but if the deer provides 7 times the utility as the fish, then the deer will cost 7 times as many pearls. This relationship is unaffected if there are 1000 pearls as the money supply, or 100,000.

Besides reducing transportation cost (easier to transport $10,000 than $10,000 worth of gold), the biggest difference between fiat money and specie is the reliance upon the law to enforce the payment of promissory notes; a significant difference is not in the economic function of the currency.



> Although having said that, it would be more realistic, and much more atmospheric, to me if a gold coin was a very large sum of money (a year's wage for a peasant say), as used to be the case in our world.



I make all the prices based off of silver pieces instead of gold. So a sword that costs 10gp would cost in my campaign 10sp, or 1gp. This is merely for flavor, and here I agree with you on the atmosphere.


----------



## maddman75 (Jun 29, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> The point is that in our Thursday night campaign, any character could - off camera - purchase any item whatsoever, including custom-designed items and spells cast upon the person, wherever we were. I stated my opinion that the only way this would be possible would be if there were a chain of huge magical superstores that sold magical swords like golf superstores sell golf clubs. (I also envisaged that poisons and potions would be sold in nicely labelled jars with colour coded lids much like you get racks of Schwartz herbs and spices at your local supermarket). I suggested that this chain of superstores was called Joe's Adventure Barn, and would often state that my character was going to Joe's to pick up some stuff.




If you don't stop with the Wal-Mart analogies I'm going to start having underpaid magic shop workers try to push an extended warranty any time they buy a sword and make them do Dex checks to get the child-proof caps off their healing potions.

And when my players start throwing dice at me it will be ALL YOUR FAULT!


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Not that horribly long ago, on another "MagicMart" type thread, it was suggested by some that Eberron was a world based on the logical extension of D&D.  While I disagree with the premise that Eberron is the _only such possible_ world, it was interesting to note how many on that thread defended the concept of MagicMarts or Magic Walmarts as the logical extension of the core rules assumptions.
> 
> It could be that my memory is playing tricks on me (Crom knows that happens often enough these days!     ) but it seems as though there as several people on this thread denying the existence of the same thing they viewed as a logical extension of the rules on that thread.
> 
> I'll have to see if I am still subscribed to that thread, and link.  I could be mistaken.



I am only moderately familiar with Eberron, but I believe that the assumption is that there is a copious amount of low-grade magic present, with high-level magic being fairly rare. If you define a Magical Wal-Mart as a large box warehouse store that makes every item in the DMG available, Eberron still doesn't do that. 

There may be stores that sell many reasonably-priced items derived from Prestidigitation, but claiming that Eberron is a logical extension of the rule set and that Magical Wal-Marts is not a logical extension is not necessarily a contradictory stance.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Besides reducing transportation cost (easier to transport $10,000 than $10,000 worth of gold), the biggest difference between fiat money and specie is the reliance upon the law to enforce the payment of promissory notes; a significant difference is not in the economic function of the currency.




Well I think that's kind of my point. When we talk about money we're using a modern mindset that doesn't fit a primative economy.

You could say there are three stages an economy can go through. (I'm making my own terms up by the way):

Stage One - Barter Economy: I will swap you a valuable item I have that you need (food say) for a valuable item that you have that I need (some cloth say). The problem with a barter economy is that it isn't very liquid in that it relies of me finding someone who has what I need who also happens to need what I've got.

Stage Two - Coin Economy: We will agree to use a particular portable and long-lasting substance whose quantity available is reasonably fixed as a standard item to barter. Gold, say. So I can swap my food for some gold you have and then later swap some gold for some cloth. This removes the need to pair up producers. However, it only works if I'm happy to swap gold for food today knowing that my gold won't be halved in price by tomorrow.

Stage Three - Money Economy: Now we agree to have a concept of money, represented by abstract tokens. I'm happy to swap my food for some otherwise meaningless bits of paper because I have enough faith in the future of civilisation (i.e. the government and the rule of law) to believe that tomorrow I will be able to swap those bits of paper for some cloth.

The key thing here being that a government can't just print more gold. Gold's rarity is intrinsic; it would stay rare even if the government fell and anarchy reigned. Whereas the paper currency would then be nothing more than arse-wiping material.  




			
				Felix said:
			
		

> I make all the prices based off of silver pieces instead of gold. So a sword that costs 10gp would cost in my campaign 10sp, or 1gp. This is merely for flavor, and here I agree with you on the atmosphere.




Nice to know I'm not the only one.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

maddman75 said:
			
		

> If you don't stop with the Wal-Mart analogies I'm going to start having underpaid magic shop workers try to push an extended warranty any time they buy a sword and make them do Dex checks to get the child-proof caps off their healing potions.




Don't forget, then, to have the magic item fail the day after the warantee is up.    

"You face the ruins of fabled Shanthopal, where once long ago magical artisans create many strange and wondrous things.  Then, one day, a race of blue-skinned giants set up shop.  Calling themselves the Arcane, they opened a MagicMart.  All who entered their doors were greeted by a lowly kobold worker, who had but a few coppers in his pouch.  Soon, the Arcane MagicMart was able to undercut the local artisans.  Folk flocked to the MagicMart to save a silver piece or two.  But, Lo!  That money they saved put the magical artisans out of business, and it was the magical artisans who supplied the gold to the coffers of the Prince, and who brought traders from far and wide.  

"While the MagicMart brought traders as well, the money they spent was taken far away, and to strange places, by the Arcane.  When the Prince tried to tax the MagicMart, the Arcane threatened to remove Shanthopal's only remaining industry.  At long last, the townsfolk who had, through poverty, agreed to work at a kobold's wages sought to band together, and by so doing force the Arcane to give tnem better pay and benefits.

"But the Arcane were not deterred.  They simply closed that MagicMart, and opened a new one a thousand leagues away, where the ruins of another city now sprawl.

"And so it came to pass that once-shining Shanthopal fell into decay, and then ruin.  Still, hardy bands of adventurers stop here from time to time, to search the streets and the once-stocked aisles of the MagicMart for what may by chance have been left behind, and to struggle with the kobolds and debased humans who now make the ruins their home.

"Your party has assembled on the outskirts of the ruined city.  You hope that, through courage, intelligence, and luck, you may yet roll back a profit from this once-proud place."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> The key thing here being that a government can't just print more gold. Gold's rarity is intrinsic; it would stay rare even if the government fell and anarchy reigned. Whereas the paper currency would then be nothing more than arse-wiping material.





Until a bunch of collectors come along, anyway.    

In North America, witness Confederate dollars.


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Well I think that's kind of my point. When we talk about money we're using a modern mindset that doesn't fit a primative economy.



I thought your point was that there was simply "too much" of it. So a sword costs 15gp, and its real-world analog would have cost the equivalent of 5sp. So what? It merely means that there's more gold present in the setting than existed in Europe. Changing this only changes the flavor: it has nothing to do with the economic function of the money or the "modern mindset", the definition of which I'm still unaware.



> The key thing here being that a government can't just print more gold.



Of course governments can "print" more gold. They did this historically by making coins out of alloys instead of pure gold. To some extent this was a virtue because of how soft gold is. But governments in coin economies can debase their currency as easily as governments today.



> Gold's rarity is intrinsic



Its rarity is relative to the location, not the metal itself: it was rare in Spain. It didn't exist in Virginia. It was "common" in California. And neither is gold's value intrinsic: its value is based off of an assumption that other people will be willing to trade goods and services for a shiny metal, much like diamonds are valuable because men believe (justifiably?) that women won't marry them unless presented with a suitably big rock.


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "While the MagicMart brought traders as well, the money they spent was taken far away, and to strange places, by the Arcane."



You forgot to add, "... to dirty for'n parts, swarmin with backward for'ners, damn their eyes. I shore hates me some for'ners, thems not bein from aroun' here and whatnot."


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> You forgot to add, "... to dirty for'n parts, swarmin with backward for'ners, damn their eyes. I shore hates me some for'ners, thems not bein from aroun' here and whatnot."




Isn't that what "a thousand leagues away" means?

Or, in premodern times, "fifty miles away"?


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Isn't that what "a thousand leagues away" means?



It doesn't portray the same level of hatred of those who are different from you. It's like racism, but with maps!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> It doesn't portray the same level of hatred of those who are different from you. It's like racism, but with maps!




I believe that term is "Nationalism".


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I believe that term is "Nationalism".



Jingoism would be more appropriate, I think. But I flatter myself that "racism, but with maps" has a certain... je ne sais qua.

And nationalism, and to an extent jingoism, aren't as pejoratively loaded as *hushed whisper*... _racism_. Which was the general idea.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 29, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> But if I take gold that's been buried in a hole in the ground for the last 1000 years and then introduce it into the economy, that is a big increase in the money supply, *just as if a modern-day ruler prints a load of money*.



Off-topic:

That's not how money is created in modern times. Money is created when governments borrow fiat money through a financial system that that has no limit to borrowing because the money is not a commodity. Because modern financial systems count both money on deposit and money that is loaned at the full amount, instead of the actual amount in the vault, money is "created." This lessens the value of each unit of money, therefore creating inflation. This inflation is a tax levied on the economy by the government. 

Ex: if you have $100, and inflation reduces the value of that $100 by 10%, that means you can only buy $90 dollars worth of goods with that $100 . . . essentially government caused inflation has taken $10 from you as a tax.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jun 29, 2007)

Felix said:
			
		

> Besides reducing transportation cost (easier to transport $10,000 than $10,000 worth of gold), the biggest difference between fiat money and specie is the reliance upon the law to enforce the payment of promissory notes; a significant difference is not in the economic function of the currency.



The biggest difference is in how financial institutions operate. Fiat money allows unlimited borrowing by government which is what fuels modern day money-supply expansion and the resulting inflation.


----------



## Slife (Jun 29, 2007)

Here's a way to make gold actually have intrinsic worth.

You know those magic items with costs in gold pieces?  Half of that cost is actual gold, which is automagically tied into the intrinsic aura of the magical item.


----------



## Felix (Jun 29, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> The biggest difference is in how financial institutions operate. Fiat money allows unlimited borrowing by government which is what fuels modern day money-supply expansion and the resulting inflation.



The difference is the scale to which it may be done, not the theory. The same can be done with specie, though at a slower and likely smaller rate.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jun 29, 2007)

It would be like thinking that because you move at exactly the same distance/day when travelling over a given terrain type, that *all terrain of a given type is identical* - another instance of the hazards of viewing the DnD rules as a simulation engine.  There's no reason that a market price for an item in the rules should tell you anything about the mechanism for buying the item.  The details about how items are purchased and such are not in the rules AFAIK - nor are all the potential variables (same as the situation for overland travel).  Such details would be required to make a sensible (IMO) comparison between Wallmart and DnD.  Then again, since the "Wallmart" thing is usually a battle in the edition war, then the "sensible" part is optional.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jun 30, 2007)

An interesting point about economies was raised by Jonny Nexus.

 IMO the DnD world is halfway between stage 1 and stage 2. Drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, coin economy would work for items under 200gp. Items above that line would be in the barter system.

 This arbitrary line would change the feel of most games, having heroes seek out master craftsmen and artificers to create legendary items, trading in whatever stuff they looted from the battlefield.

In a way my current game is set up that way, perhaps I will actually formalize it to that level. This would even out the weirdness of massively expensive items and cart loads of GP. Of course treasure listings would have to be downgraded on available coin as most of the riches would be tied up in items instead of coin.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Spelljammer, I think, makes the myth much less of a myth.  Since Spelljammer tied together Faerun, Oerth, and Ansalon, you could presumably find Arcane on every official D&D world (except Athlas) in 2e anyway, which means that, from an "official" standpoint, MagicMarts were pretty widespread.  I've heard on this thread about Dragonmarked Houses and Red Wizards setting up MagicMarts in Eberron and Faerun.
> *snip*




I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about 3e.  

You might want to reread what was written about the Red Wizards and the House Cannith.  I never denied that magic items are for sale, only that the idea that you have a one stop shop for magic items is an internet myth.  I never played Spelljammer, so I have no information about that setting, but, there is a large difference between one stop shops and Red Wizard shops.




> Admittedly, I prefer "MagicMart" to "Walmart".  But I believe that when people say "Magical Walmart" they are trying to denote that the concept reminds them of Walmart, and ruins the sense of immersion for them.  Just as, when I say "Pokemount" I mean to imply that the flavour of the 3.X paladin's mount reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon, which ruins the sense of immersion for me.
> 
> That doesn't mean that people who feel differently suck because they don't think the same way I do.  Different strokes for different folks.
> 
> RC




In other words, Walmart carries all sorts of negative baggage and is often used in a derogatory wrongbadfun way.  Just like calling a paladin's mount a pokemount is a wrongbadfun post comparing a childish anime to the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about 3e.




I thought we were talking about D&D.  I suppose that might be why you see some things as a slap that I don't?



> In other words, Walmart carries all sorts of negative baggage and is often used in a derogatory wrongbadfun way.  Just like calling a paladin's mount a pokemount is a wrongbadfun post comparing a childish anime to the game.




No, not at all what I was saying.

If I say "X has associations _to me_ that make it not fun _for me_" that is not the same as saying that "X has associations _to me_ that make it not fun _for me_, _*therefore you should not use X either*_".

It seems to me that you view the first statements as equal to the second statement, and hence as "a derogatory wrongbadfun" usage.

I say that when I say "Pokemount" I mean to imply that the flavour of the 3.X paladin's mount reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon, which ruins the sense of immersion for me.  You seem to believe that means that when I say "Pokemount" I mean to imply that the flavour of the 3.X paladin's mount reminds me a bit too much of Pokemon, which ruins the sense of immersion for me _*therefore you should not use the paladin's mount as written either*_".

I don't think that way at all.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2007)

So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable to use a term you know the listener will consider derogatory so long as you don't consider it to be so.

Good luck with that.  

See, while I believe you when you say that, I find it pretty difficult to believe that you would not consider the chance that people would see comparing something they agree with to a childish and immature cartoon and get riled up about it.  There is just the off chance that people would see such a comparison in a negative light.  If it was simply that you don't like the flavour of a paladin's mount, why not say it directly?  Why use a term you know will cause people to misunderstand your point.  And you know that it will be misunderstood after the first time you used it.  The first one might be free, but, why continue to use a term when you know that people will see it as derogatory?

In other words, why use vague, imprecise language that you know will be misinterpreted when precise and neutral terms are available?  If "Magic Walmart" was the only way to describe being able to buy and sell magic items in a campaign, then fine, but, there are a number of other ways to describe it, ranging from "magic shop" (which lacks the political connotations) to actually explaining in detail how magic is bought and sold in a campaign.  Why use "pokemount" when Paladin's Mount is only 6 characters longer?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 30, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable to use a term you know the listener will consider derogatory so long as you don't consider it to be so.




Not at all, although to get into a close discussion of this particular topic, we would have to drag in words that we actually _know_ the listener will consider derogatory.  

What I am saying is that in having a conversation, you ought to be able to assume some level of maturity on the part of the participants, rather than having to skirt and parse each word as its spoken in case some phrase you view as descriptive will instead be considered derogatory.  Moreover, I am saying that the listener has some responsibility to try to view what he is listening to in the light it is intended, rather than simply whatever best matches his mood/expectation at the time.

"Pokemount" is not in the class of several dozen terms that I would not use on EN World nor in real life.

If you think it is, good luck with that!   

EDIT:  For clarification, that last line is meant to be cheeky, not insulting.  The main point stands, though.  How many posters have been criticized for failing to include a YMMV, IMHO, or AFAIK in their posts, when it was nonetheless clear that they were talking about their opinions?  If I say "WallMagics Suck!" (and, in some contexts, let me be clear, I think that WallMagics do _not_ suck), then that is clearly a statement of opinion, not some statement of universal truth that must be adhered to by all lest they engage in wrongbadfun.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 30, 2007)

Some of these phrases have been so integrated with edition wars over the years that it's difficult not to see an implied "edition X sucks" in these statements. Pokemount is one, because when 3.5 came out that was one of the terms that seemed to be invented by 3.5 haters to emphasize how much 3.5 sucked. So then people start to fall onto the defensive as soon as they see some of these, simply because they are so often associated with edition wars.

I think its a geek thing. We love our camps.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Jun 30, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> p137, Community Wealth and Populations:
> "Anything having a price under that limit [GP Limit] is most likely available, wheter it be mundane or magical."
> Quasqueton



Ooo.  Anything?  It says anything.  I understand what anything is.  Neat...
Magic items is a thing is it not?


----------



## Warren Okuma (Jun 30, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 35k is somewhat over the wealth by level guidelines for 7th level. The system expects 19k.
> 
> All D&D PCs are fantastically wealthy compared to the average peasant. I would suggest that a character whose motivation is to strike it rich then settle down isn't going to work long term. In fact, he won't work beyond the first adventure. As a player you have a responsibility to come up with motivations to go on adventures, whether the desire to do good, defeat a great evil, or thrillseeking.



Greed is a funny thing.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Jun 30, 2007)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Well I think that's kind of my point. When we talk about money we're using a modern mindset that doesn't fit a primative economy.
> 
> You could say there are three stages an economy can go through. (I'm making my own terms up by the way):
> 
> ...



Stage Four - Worlds made by writers that do not understand economics or do not even pretend that their game engine stimulates reality.  Generally it's worlds that have magic and can somehow turn lead into gold or have the correct epic feats that eschew material components combined with fabricate.


----------



## Warren Okuma (Jun 30, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Off-topic:
> 
> That's not how money is created in modern times. Money is created when governments borrow fiat money through a financial system that that has no limit to borrowing because the money is not a commodity. Because modern financial systems count both money on deposit and money that is loaned at the full amount, instead of the actual amount in the vault, money is "created." This lessens the value of each unit of money, therefore creating inflation. This inflation is a tax levied on the economy by the government.
> 
> Ex: if you have $100, and inflation reduces the value of that $100 by 10%, that means you can only buy $90 dollars worth of goods with that $100 . . . essentially government caused inflation has taken $10 from you as a tax.



Ah, but DnD is not real.  It doesn't even pretend to have a sane economic system.  Adventurers dumping tons of gold, doesn't cause inflation.  There is no supply and demand, not much anyway.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 1, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Going back over this thread, I am also struck by the observation that "Magic Walmart" or similar terms are considered offensive (as "slaps" to their game style) only by people who deny the existence of "Magic Walmarts".




<sigh>
No, I don't.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Some of these phrases have been so integrated with edition wars over the years that it's difficult not to see an implied "edition X sucks" in these statements. Pokemount is one, because when 3.5 came out that was one of the terms that seemed to be invented by 3.5 haters to emphasize how much 3.5 sucked. So then people start to fall onto the defensive as soon as they see some of these, simply because they are so often associated with edition wars.
> 
> I think its a geek thing. We love our camps.




QFT.  When a particular term gets used frequently in a negative context, it is pretty disingenuous to claim innocence after the fact.  "Oh, I know that many, many people have used the term pokemount to mean that 3.5 sucks, but, hey, that's not what I mean." falls pretty flat.  (insert whichever term fits for pokemount)

On a complete tangent, this is why arguing authorial intent is pretty much discredited in any serious discussion on literature.  What the author intends is irrelavent to meaning.  The only meaning that matters is the meaning derived by the audience since we can never really know someone else's intent.  Even if the author stands up and says, "Hey, I mean THIS", it doesn't matter since the audience may interpret it differently.

In other words, as I stated before, if you have the choice of using a vague shorthand that carries negative connotations, don't be surprised when people react.  If you want to say something, be specific.  Add those extra six letters and avoid misinterpretation.


----------



## Slife (Jul 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> On a complete tangent, this is why arguing authorial intent is pretty much discredited in any serious discussion on literature.  What the author intends is irrelavent to meaning.  The only meaning that matters is the meaning derived by the audience since we can never really know someone else's intent.  Even if the author stands up and says, "Hey, I mean THIS", it doesn't matter since the audience may interpret it differently.



Mods, I'd like to report this man for insulting me, my family, my ethnicity, and my religion.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> "Oh, I know that many, many people have used the term pokemount to mean that 3.5 sucks, but, hey, that's not what I mean."



For clarity, if I use the term "pokemount" it is to imply the 3.5 paladin's mount sucks, not the whole game itself.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Even if the author stands up and says, "Hey, I mean THIS", it doesn't matter since the audience may interpret it differently.




One of the most surreal experiences in my life was taking a creative writing workshop in college, and hearing my story explained and analyzed by the other students.  It's funny, in a freaky kind of way.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Jul 1, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> One of the most surreal experiences in my life was taking a creative writing workshop in college, and hearing my story explained and analyzed by the other students.  It's funny, in a freaky kind of way.




Did you also have the rule that you weren't allowed to say anything for the several minutes they took to discuss it?

I had that with a comedy SF story (in the UFO conspiriciana sub-genre) that I'd taken to my non-SF writing group.

They spent several minutes discussing whether or not the people of Earth in my story were aware that aliens from UFOs were colonising the Earth (which they weren't, obviously... I mean that's the whole point of the conspiracy genre, isn't it?) and eventually concluded that my use of the phrase "They say the truth is out there" in my blurb indicated that the aliens were completely in the open with everyone knowing that aliens were among them.

(i.e. They concluded that the phrase "the truth is out there" means "the truth is known" as opposed to what it actually means, "there's is a truth, but it is being hidden from us").

And everytime I tried to say something, I was politely told that I couldn't speak.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable to use a term you know the listener will consider derogatory so long as you don't consider it to be so.
> 
> Good luck with that.




Where you are missing the boat here because really anything anyone says can be offensive to someone so you really pulling a strawman there. The bottom line is you are suppose to consider context not just jump to conclusions. I could easily say that I find your earlier dismissal of cartoons as childish anime insulting but I understand why you said it in the context of the post and the thread. I too dislike the "pokemount" it is an aspect of the edition which amounts to little more than designer handwaving that I find to be lazy and unimaginative. Just like I find the notion that because city X has a population of Y means that I can buy a Holy Avenger there. Never in my campaign...ever.


----------



## Blue (Jul 1, 2007)

Just to give a real-life example, one game I play in is in the FR, and if we're in a big city for a long period (several weeks or more) of time we can basically find or commission anything we're looking for.

If we're there for a short time or it's a small place, it's a different story.

The Realms is supposed to be high magic (take Calimishan, with lots of magical "luxuries").  A very active large community in most places (take Amn and Cormyr) mean that both there are people who cater to it for huge profit plus the adventurers themselves flooding the market with loot they aren't interested in.

Think general stores during the American gold rush that charged orders of magnitude more.  Compare the returns for a week of making magic items vs. a week of profession or craft skill.  Item crafting is much more lucrative.  And if an item crafter has gotten up to the minimum caster level where they can take the feats (say, 5th for craft wondrous), then they know how to get XP.  So helping the militia clear out a wild boar or such is a piddling amount of XP for a 5th level character - but since each XP works out to be 12.5gp in profit in a world where that's a lot of money to non-adventurers, well...  let's just say that if the economy provides a demand for magic items, selling a supply of them is a very quick and relatively painless way toward becoming well off.

As a real life example of a low-magic game, the game I run is lower then standard wealth.  Potions can be found many places, especially temples like to have someone who can make cures because they always bring in big donations and there is a steady demand, plus alchemists who also make other items (acid, alch. fire, etc).  Scroll shops are rare but finding someone to make one isn't hard since every 1st level wizard gets the feat.  Above that you're really using gather information checks to either track down a small random list of what's in the market and/or what people have and isn't for sale but might be for the right price, or different gather information checks to find some you can commission an item from with the appropriate feat and then wait for it to be done.

High magic exists, and "magic wal-marts" may not be literally what happens, but is basically the concept that if a place can sell items that size, it includes magic items.  It's not that there is a single store, but more that it's a commodity that can be purchased.

Good luck,
=Blue(23)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Where you are missing the boat here because really anything anyone says can be offensive to someone so you really pulling a strawman there. The bottom line is you are suppose to consider context not just jump to conclusions. I could easily say that I find your earlier dismissal of cartoons as childish anime insulting but I understand why you said it in the context of the post and the thread. I too dislike the "pokemount" it is an aspect of the edition which amounts to little more than designer handwaving that I find to be lazy and unimaginative. Just like I find the notion that because city X has a population of Y means that I can buy a Holy Avenger there. Never in my campaign...ever.




Hrm, speaking of straw men.  Holy Avenger 120, 630 gp.  Maximum gp limit for ANY city is 100k gp.  So, yeah, you're right, you can't find a Holy Avenger on the shelf of any city by RAW.  Yet, people feel the need to specifically state this like they are somehow departing from RAW, as if the RAW would allow this behavior in the first place.  Just like stating "No Magic WalMarts" as if magic walmarts were somehow the standard dictated by RAW.

As far as dismissing the paladin's mount, I go the other way.  I think of the paladin's mount as tangible proof of the divine in the paladin.  Not only is this holy warrior a warrior of a god, but his god actually sends a servant down from the heavens to carry him into the battle.  I remember a very old cartoon called Hercules where Hercules would open the front of his magic belt and flash a signal to Mount Olympus.  That would cause the Pegasus to descend from the heavens to carry Hercules into battle with whatever monster the evil Daedelus had brought up.  

To me, that's the flavour of the 3.5 paladin's mount.  Comparing it to a small yellow ratlike creature that shoots lightning bolts and lives in a ball, with no connection whatsover to the divine, seems very dismissive and unimaginative to me.  But, that's the point.  People are using pokemount specifically to get a reaction.  It's effectively Godwinning the discussion, since it closes down any meaningful discourse.

Given the years of editions wars, is it really surprising that I would see something like "Magic Walmart" with all its negative connotations as yet another cheap edition shot?  It's a vague term that doesn't actually fit with the RAW at all and only serves to take wrongbadfun shots at how other people game.  

You don't have magic shops?  Great!  No worries.  But, the idea of centralized magic shops isn't part of RAW, nor is it assumed in most published settings (with notable exceptions).  Comparing the Byzantine politics of the Houses in Eberron to Walmart is not constructive.  It's reductive and frankly, wrong.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 1, 2007)

See there you go with you don't have magic shops where exactly have I posted that I don't have magic shops? I simply don't allow players to flip open the DMG point and click and bingo they have bought one. You want to buy a +2 Greatsword sure you might be able to find one or you could definetly commision one and come back in a few weeks when its done. You want to have someone add keen to it at some point fine also. If you are willing to be without it several different occasion for long enough periods of time then with enough money it might eventually be a +2 Keen Shocking Burst Greatsword of Wounding. But you won't ever be able to walk into a store and buy a +2 Keen Shocking Burst Greatsword of Wounding IMC. If someone else is comfortable with selling items like those off the shelf more power to them.
As far as your 100,000gp comment is concerned.
If you want to sell a Robe of the Archmagi off the shelves more power to you after all its only 75,000gp so a big enough city and your good to go according to the rules. To me a Robe of the Archmagi is way too rare and special an item to be able to pick one up at Jim's Curious Goods on the corner Cheap Street and Weaksauce Avenue in Waterdeep.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 1, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> For clarity, if I use the term "pokemount" it is to imply the 3.5 paladin's mount sucks, not the whole game itself.




Exactly.  And my belief that the 3.5 paladin's mount sucks does not equate to a belief that those who think differently must also suck.  It is only if you believe that one must enjoy or not enjoy equally all parts of the whole where a compaint about such a minor part of the rule system becomes a complaint about the rule system itself.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 1, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> People are using pokemount specifically to get a reaction.  It's effectively Godwinning the discussion, since it closes down any meaningful discourse.




Please tell me by what rational means you determine how the use of the term "pokemount" closes doen any meaningful discourse.  I've never noticed that effect.  I've seen terms like anime, Tolkienesque, MagicMart, and pokemount on thread after thread, and I've never seen them close down meaningful discourse. 



> Given the years of editions wars, is it really surprising that I would see something like "Magic Walmart" with all its negative connotations as yet another cheap edition shot?




I believe that the term comes originally from discussions of 2e, and something similar appears in the _DM's Option:  High Level Handbook_.  I know I've brought this up before.  I know several examples have been brought up before that are specifically 2e examples (such as the Arcane in Spelljammer, and Planescape).  How does one thereby conclude that this topic relates to 3.X specifically?  AFAIK, MagicMarts, Magic Shops, and Magic Artisans are issues that have been around longer than 1e.


----------



## Slife (Jul 1, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> As far as your 100,000gp comment is concerned.
> If you want to sell a Robe of the Archmagi off the shelves more power to you after all its only 75,000gp so a big enough city and your good to go according to the rules. To me a Robe of the Archmagi is way too rare and special an item to be able to pick one up at Jim's Curious Goods on the corner Cheap Street and Weaksauce Avenue in Waterdeep.



Think of the Robe of the Archmagi as something like one of Babe Ruth's jerseys, or Elvis' jumpsuit.  Sure, in a really big city you can find someone who can buy it for you, but it isn't just off the shelf.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 1, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> Think of the Robe of the Archmagi as something like one of Babe Ruth's jerseys, or Elvis' jumpsuit.  Sure, in a really big city you can find someone who can buy it for you, but it isn't just off the shelf.



I would be happy to think of it that way if the Babe's jersey allowed me to play like him lol.


----------



## IceFractal (Jul 1, 2007)

First off, I notice that most people against "Magic-Item Marts" seem to be assuming that it's unreasonable to buy things for the base price, as if that were the warehouse price, or the MSRP.  IMO, that's the average price - sometimes the item is hard to get and you pay more than that, sometimes you can find it easily and you pay less.  Even if Wizards usually overcharge people, the price listed in the book has that overcharge factored in.


Secondly, buying a Robe of the Archmagi in Waterdeep.  That makes perfect sense.  No, it's not sitting on a shelf in a store, but think about it: Most likely, a powerful Wizard owns that robe.  Now where would such a Wizard live?  Quite possibly, in the largest and most magically powerful city around.  Would that Wizard be willing to sell it?  Well, it's entirely possible - Wizards are always experimenting with new things - the key to immortality, for instance.  Things like that tend to be expensive to research.  If selling a robe he doesn't use much anymore since retiring can help him reach immortality, why not do it?


Third - the creation costs are not necessarily universal.  Those are for people who want to learn a little crafting lore while still pursuing other goals (like adventuring).  So they learn a highly inefficient but simple method of enchantment.  Meanwhile, people willing to devote their lives to the craft might well be crafting items with much less.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 1, 2007)

Quasqueton said:
			
		

> p137, Community Wealth and Populations:
> "Anything having a price under that limit [GP Limit] is most likely available, wheter it be mundane or magical."





Hmm.. "...most likely available..."

 In other words not neccessarily available...

So the Robe of the Archmagi, while fitting the community wealth GP limit would technically be avalable.. it probably is not due to its unigue and rare nature.

So 'no magic marts'... so called to specify the difference between a one-stop shop retail outlet with items sitting on shelves from a 'magic store' run by an eccentric mage who may be willing to craft items on request... is RAW.

Cool.

Regarding offensive terminology...check my sig.  Remember that it is not just the posters responsiblity to attempt to be clear and precise in his/her language.. but the reader should also pay attention to context and resist the urge to apply your own opinon filter to someone else's words.


After all, 'magic mart' is facially less offensive than 'childish anime'


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jul 2, 2007)

I had a player ask me for a "portable merchant", a la the djinni in Hordes of the Underdark. In effect, a "Poke-mart".


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 2, 2007)

Er, not to be rude, but you guys do know Waterdeep has the following right? 
a) a *regular* population of over 1 million (during the height of the trading/dry season, it hits over 3 million)

b) it is depicted as one of the places as to where EPIC characters could actually be found (WOTC actually has Epic Guidelines for the Guild Wizard of Waterdeep PrC),

No offense, but yeah, I do think an Robe of the Archmage should be easily bought in there. 

I mean, by the time a person can afford the robe of the archmage, (which is 19th level btw), they have planar travel well in hand and should have no problem getting one ANYWAY.

Similarly, the +2 Keen Shocking Burst Greatsword of Wounding is a weapon that is only affordable to 20th level characters. Again, if you reach 20th level, I certainly think you should have no trouble finding such a weapon.

To the detractors, please actually use examples that are relevant. Hyperbole actually weakens your arguments against the "magic mart"


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 2, 2007)

Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary and review exactly what Hyperbole means because I was specifically referring to my campaign which the posts do state. If you want to sell robes of the archmagi and +2 keen shocking burst greatswords of wounding in aisle 5 of your little magic shop of horrors more power to you, that just not the flavor I am looking for IMC. But I was referring to my campaign so unless you are a player in it, your attempt to label how I run my game seems a bit misguided at best.


----------



## Felix (Jul 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If I say "WallMagics Suck!" (and, in some contexts, let me be clear, I think that WallMagics do not suck), then that is clearly a statement of opinion, not some statement of universal truth that must be adhered to by all lest they engage in wrongbadfun.



Clearly you have not met some of the posters on teh intarweb.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please tell me by what rational means you determine how the use of the term "pokemount" closes doen any meaningful discourse.  I've never noticed that effect.




Actually I think that happened right here in this thread for a couple of pages.  (Almost) everyone on both sides suddenly went on the defensive and it took well over a page to get back to where we were before the term got used.

Insults are strange things.  Someone up thread said this portion of the discussion was a straw man because anything can end up being an insult.  I agree and disagree with that statement.  I agree that anything might be used and percieved as an insult.  I disagree that it is a straw man and that this is actually the heart of the entire discussion.

When someone feels they have been insulted (intentionally or not) people have a tendancy to put up a wall and become very defensive or very aggresive.  Either way the conversation has taken a severe detour and may not ever recover.  Even if it does recover the coversation will never be the same as it was before.

Many people have given many reasons why Magic Mart can and has been percieved to be an insult.  I have no problem giving people one free pass on the term.  Maybe they didn't realise that some view it as an elitist insult on play style.  After that though I can only determine that if they continue to use the phrase that they intend it to be an insult of play style and that the insults are intended.

Just take a look up thread in the discussion of if Shadowfax functions as a Paladin's Mount.  Even though one poster explained how Shadowfax does fit the functionality of a Paladin's Mount other posters came and refused to apply the derogitory title of Pokemount to Gandalf's horse.

It's the exact same thing with Magic Mart.  I don't see that name being any better than Pokemount.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 2, 2007)

(And when I talk about that '1 free pass' I'm not speaking of discussions of the term itself.  Heck, I use Pokemount twice in the above post.  Discussions of the terms are different - I don't see how you can have a meaningful discussion of the term without using said term.  Discussions of buying magic items and one person keeps using the term Magic Mart - then there will be an issue.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 2, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Actually I think that happened right here in this thread for a couple of pages.  (Almost) everyone on both sides suddenly went on the defensive and it took well over a page to get back to where we were before the term got used.




I don't buy that.

What I see as having happened is that (1) OP said Magic Walmarts were a myth, (2) Magic Walmarts were demonstrated to not be a myth, in either a metaphorical or actual sense, (3) People then tried to claim that Magic Walmarts were extremely rare, (4) It was demonstrated that there was no evidence thereof, and then (4) Rather than accept that the OP was in error, people then claimed that Magic Walmart as a term should not be used, either because it was inexact (no matter what the user might think) or insulting (again, no matter what the user might think).

IMHO, an unwillingness to accept that Magic Walmarts _do exist_, regardless of what evidence is presented, derailed this thread.  Not the use of the term (which would have derailed it from Post One were that the case).

IMHO.  AFAIK.  YMMV.

RC


----------



## AllisterH (Jul 2, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Perhaps you should pick up a dictionary and review exactly what Hyperbole means because I was specifically referring to my campaign which the posts do state. If you want to sell robes of the archmagi and +2 keen shocking burst greatswords of wounding in aisle 5 of your little magic shop of horrors more power to you, that just not the flavor I am looking for IMC. But I was referring to my campaign so unless you are a player in it, your attempt to label how I run my game seems a bit misguided at best.




My point, which I stand by, is that by RAW, by the time a person can afford Robes of the archmagi and a +2 keen shocking burst greatsword, they have enough personal power to simply go anywhere in the planes and get anything they want. 

I would argue that the City of Brass run by the djinn would have these on sale and frankly, by that pt in time, your players can easily make runs to the city of brass ANYWAY.

Furthermore, using Waterdeep as an example is simply horrendous.
1. The city, as I mentioned, has a * normal* population of about 1 million. At the height of the caravan season, this reaches 3 million.

2. It is infested with portals to the outer planes.

3. It is a place where the assumption is that Epic wizards actually live. (The Guild Wizard PrC was one of the few PrC from Magic of Faerun which has been officially expanded to epic levels).

Yeah, I do think Waterdeep sells robes of the archmage and frankly, it would be kind of weird that it doesn't.

Another factor I think that gets ignored was mentioned on another thread. Magic items don't seem subject to the passage of time. Most campaign worlds are OLD worlds in that civilizations which were advanced enough to have magic items existed for thousands of years. 

As noted in that other thread, if you live in many parts of Europe, you can't even dig a hole without finding an artifact from 1000 years ago to say nothing of even further back in time. If a +1 magic sword doesn't rust or only rusts at a rate 1/100 of fast as a normal sword, eventually, depending on how old your campaign world is, you're going to have an excess of +1 swords.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 2, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (1) OP said Magic Walmarts were a myth, (2) Magic Walmarts were demonstrated to not be a myth, in either a metaphorical or actual sense, (3) People then tried to claim that Magic Walmarts were extremely rare, (4) It was demonstrated that there was no evidence thereof, and then (4) Rather than accept that the OP was in error, people then claimed that Magic Walmart as a term should not be used, either because it was inexact (no matter what the user might think) or insulting (again, no matter what the user might think).



To be fair to Quasqueton, he does say in the main body of post #1 that he has encountered something like a Magic Wal-Mart twice (presumably in the literal sense). His thread title is somewhat misleading, as he himself conceded, as his point is that they are very, very rare rather than a myth.

He then goes on to say that given this rarity 


			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> So why does this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick? If a DM was trying to entice me to his game by saying it was low magic because there are no Magic-Walmarts, I'd have laugh. "So, it's just like Forgotten Realms, then?"



So from post #1 the discussion has been about whether 'Magic Wal-Mart' is a useful term.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please tell me by what rational means you determine how the use of the term "pokemount" closes doen any meaningful discourse.  I've never noticed that effect.  I've seen terms like anime, Tolkienesque, MagicMart, and pokemount on thread after thread, and I've never seen them close down meaningful discourse.




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.  

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:



> I simply don't allow players to flip open the DMG point and click and bingo they have bought one.




Now, we have magic shopping being equated with video gamey.  And not in a good way.    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.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Really?  Whenever Tolkien gets a mention in a thread, we spend fifteen pages arguing minor details or discussing authorial intent.




Which has what to do with Pokemounts or Magic Walmarts?



> 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".




Despite the fact that you are sure "we could pick out examples of actual Magic Walmarts"?



> they are certainly not assumed by RAW




So what?



> Many campaign settings also do not assume this either.




Again, so what?



> 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.




So, you think that the presence of Magic Walmarts in campaigns is roughly as common as M16s?  Despite the fact that several posters here have already confirmed them as being far more common?



> So, "No Magic Walmarts" doesn't really tell me anything about your setting, other than "My setting adheres to RAW."




No, because the RAW neither assumes nor doesn't assume Magic Walmarts.  The wording of the RAW is equally valid for either assumption.



> 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.




So can discussing using APs and prewritten modules.  Would you care to stop discussing WLD? 



> Now, we have magic shopping being equated with video gamey.  And not in a good way.    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.




"I simply don't allow players to flip open the DMG point and click and bingo they have bought one." sounds more like Amazon.Com to me (a MagicMart comparison) than a video game comparison.  Yes, I think you are being far too sensitive.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 3, 2007)

> "I simply don't allow players to flip open the DMG point and click and bingo they have bought one." sounds more like Amazon.Com to me (a MagicMart comparison) than a video game comparison. Yes, I think you are being far too sensative.




And I think you're being deliberately argumentative.  Having yanked my chain earlier in the thread, you feel the need to continue to do so.

You seem to imply that just because you don't mean something to be insulting, no one can ever take umbrage from what you say.  As I said before, good luck with that.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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".




I'd be curious to find out exactly under what circumstances you _would_ think the term had descriptive value.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 3, 2007)

The illustration of a wizard with a shopping cart examining a magic wand (presumably) from a box of wands marked "Sale!" and a container of staves in the background on pg 21 of the 2nd Edition supplement DM Option: High-Level Campaigns is the one true depiction of a magic shop. The illustration of Regdar and Tordek trying on magic boots on pages 76 and 77 of the Magic Item Compendium is so dungeonpunk.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> And I think you're being deliberately argumentative.  Having yanked my chain earlier in the thread, you feel the need to continue to do so.




I don't play many video games (fewer than 1 a year average), so "point & click" might have some significance that I am missing.  But it seems more like one-stop-shopping to me than it seems video-gamey.  Perhaps ShadyDM could clarify what he meant?



> You seem to imply that just because you don't mean something to be insulting, no one can ever take umbrage from what you say.  As I said before, good luck with that.




No.  I am saying (not implying) that the reader has the responsibility to attempt to read as the writer intended.  I am also saying that this constant "worry that you might offend someone with your words, so use the blandest possible descriptors" is potentially damaging to both language and culture.  

There is a limit to political correctness, a point where it ceases to be a tool and becomes a burden.  Where that point is, of course, is open to debate.  I just think that, when you cannot discuss a _*game*_ for fear of being accused of "wrongbadfun phrases" that you are far, far, over that point.

YMMV, and obviously does.

EDIT:  I am still curious to find out exactly under what circumstances you would think the term had descriptive value.  The easiest way to examine the question is to day IF this THEN it has value.  We can then (hopefully) determine whether "this" is met, or is an impossible standard, and can then determine whether the position that it has value or not is a rational one.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Please tell me by what rational means you determine how the use of the term "pokemount" closes doen any meaningful discourse.  I've never noticed that effect.  I've seen terms like anime, Tolkienesque, MagicMart, and pokemount on thread after thread, and I've never seen them close down meaningful discourse.




I think you're fooling yourself on this one, RC. These loaded terms nearly always trigger a reaction that is detrimental to the discussion at hand. It may not "close" the discussion per se, but it does change its tone and the expectations/reactions of the participants significantly. 

In my experience, these loaded terms would be better off the table completely.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> In my experience, these loaded terms would be better off the table completely.




Agreed.  Any of the listed terms might be said/written/included for completely innocent reasons.  The user of the term might not even be aware that the other side considers it "bad".  Once it is known what either side cosiders to be a loaded/insulting/"bad" term it's up to both sides to try and stay away from them; otherwise the conversation is going to have problems.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think you're fooling yourself on this one, RC.




I'll certainly agree with Hussar that, if you begin to discuss, say, the minutia of Tolkein's work, that the discussion becomes derailed along that topic because people have an interest in it.  This is similar to the way that mentioning Howard's _The Hour of the Dragon_ caused a few posts to be about the novel rather than MagicMarts in D&D.

But if the term "Magic Walmart" automatically made what followed essentially useless, then this entire thread, beyond the first post, would be essentially useless.

But if the question is, does the term "Magic Walmart" or its derivatives have descriptive value, then that is a different question than "is that descriptive value outweighed by negative connotations?"  

IMHO, at least.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Any of the listed terms might be said/written/included for completely innocent reasons.  The user of the term might not even be aware that the other side considers it "bad".  Once it is known what either side cosiders to be a loaded/insulting/"bad" term it's up to both sides to try and stay away from them; otherwise the conversation is going to have problems.




Well, that'll rather instantly make anyone who dislikes the current paladin's mount have a harder time expressing that dislike.  They won't be able to say that it reminds them of....well, anything, because we remove the terms pokemount, anime, pokemon, etc.  That will certainly make things more comfortable for some.  

Then we can also make sure that we remove the terms that might mean the same thing (after all, they might be taken in the same way).  So, not only will we remove "railroad" and "railroady" as a description of an adventure, but "linear", "limiting", and "limited" as well.

We will also, I feel sure, remove any "slaps" against earlier editions.  Indeed, since anything that can identify the edition spoken about might cause an edition war or be considered "bad" we should remove all reference to anything edition-specific.  

The term "wrongbadfun" is about as offensive as any term on this board.  IMHO, at least.  It'll have to go.  So will any statement about preferences, because they might be conceived of as criticism against opposing preferences.

Mentioning Tolkein can derail threads.  So, too, can mentioning other authors and/or media.  Better not mention them anymore.  Or video games.

The conversation won't have problems because it won't exist.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'll certainly agree with Hussar that, if you begin to discuss, say, the minutia of Tolkein's work, that the discussion becomes derailed along that topic because people have an interest in it.  This is similar to the way that mentioning Howard's _The Hour of the Dragon_ caused a few posts to be about the novel rather than MagicMarts in D&D.
> 
> But if the term "Magic Walmart" automatically made what followed essentially useless, then this entire thread, beyond the first post, would be essentially useless.




I think you're making a shortcut here between elements that have a connection to the topic and bring something to it with their share of sidetracks and sub-topics and the use of specific terms that carry a a shortcut, opinion-loaded semantic to them. That's the latter I'm discussing, not the former. Let's not put apples and oranges in the same basket here.



> But if the question is, does the term "Magic Walmart" or its derivatives have descriptive value, then that is a different question than "is that descriptive value outweighed by negative connotations?"
> 
> IMHO, at least.




I think what matters, when I write it, is not what "I" think I cover with the use of the loaded term, but what other people discussing and responding to it are likely to think when they read/hear such a word. In other words, how I define it does not matter, because I understand what I mean from the start. What matters is what I want others to understand. If I know that some word or another is likely to trigger some negative reaction because it would be misunderstood, then I just don't use it and try to use alternate means of explanation. 

Either you don't know what reactions these words trigger, and you may be surprised by the reaction the first time you use it, or you know what reaction they trigger, and in this case, you either use it and aren't surprised if what you say is completely misunderstood, or you don't to actually try to convey the meaning of what you're really trying to say, don't you think?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> IMHO, an unwillingness to accept that Magic Walmarts _do exist_, regardless of what evidence is presented, derailed this thread.  Not the use of the term (which would have derailed it from Post One were that the case).




It's hard to tell what the original intent of the OP was - but my feeling when I reread it is that the "magic wallmart myth" was used as a criticism for standard magic level DnD.  What he was saying is that standard magic level DnD doesn't have magic wallmarts.  The _existence_ of magic wallmarts in _someone's_ campaign is largely irrelevant to this original point.  IME making irrelevant statements after other's people's statements can often be construed as a refutation - though reading carefully can dispel that so I understand your decision to be clear about what you're saying.  But IMO the bottom line is that this line of reasoning doesn't actually refute (and hardly addresses) the OP.  

I think it's likely that by the "magic wallmart myth", the OP meant, not only the central store as you define it - but also that such a store was a standard part of 3E campaigns and that the rules almost mandated it (eg. comments about Greyhawk et. al.).  That definition seems implicit in the first post.  Otherwise the OP becomes something like "nowhere, anywhere, ever, has there ever been a polka-dotted dragon" - which is pointless and uninteresting (and most likely wrong).  I really don't think that's what the OP was getting at.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Either you don't know what reactions these words trigger, and you may be surprised by the reaction the first time you use it, or you know what reaction they trigger, and in this case, you either use it and aren't surprised if what you say is completely misunderstood, or you don't to actually try to convey the meaning of what you're really trying to say, don't you think?




There is a difference between reaction and meaning, which are conflated here.

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.

Of course, some of the very same people who are offended by apparent "slaps" against one edition engage in the same sort of behaviour relating to other editions.  Myself, I rather enjoy the Byzantine Gygaxian prose of the 1e DMG, but I can certainly understand that others find it distasteful...even, in some cases, where they may otherwise enjoy the system.  In this particular case, the adage about folks in glass houses certainly applies.

In short, I think that there are a great many people who know what "pokemount" and "MagicMart" both denote and connote without adding the further connotations that "therefore the game sucks", "therefore if you like the game, you suck" and/or "therefore if you like that (potential) aspect of the game you suck".  I would hazard to say that most people don't add those additional connotations to these terms.  And, while I cannot guarantee that I am right in so thinking, I certainly _hope and believe_ that I am right in so thinking.


RC


----------



## Ourph (Jul 3, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I think you're fooling yourself on this one, RC. These loaded terms nearly always trigger a reaction that is detrimental to the discussion at hand.



But is that detrimental reaction the responsibility of the original poster or the one reacting?  You use the phrase "these loaded terms" as if everyone understands what they are.  To me, Magic Wal-mart seems like a fairly banal way of describing a common method of approaching magic item purchases.  Maybe it's just that I don't seem to have the same knee-jerk Wal-mart hate that some people do, but it just never seemed that significant to me (until this thread).  Neither does the term "video game" if used in any sort of reasonable context.  Some folks can't seem to prevent themselves from over-reacting when they hear certain buzzwords no matter what the context, but that doesn't mean every use of those buzzwords is incendiary or inappropriate.



> In my experience, these loaded terms would be better off the table completely.



For every buzzword you take off the table, the hypersensitive "wrongbadfun" police will find another word to get upset about.  The problem isn't the words; it's the reaction.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think it's likely that by the "magic wallmart myth", the OP meant, not only the central store as you define it - but also that such a store was a standard part of 3E campaigns and that the rules almost mandated it (eg. comments about Greyhawk et. al.).  That definition seems implicit in the first post.




This is similar to the Standard Wealth Per Level Guidelines.  Nowhere in the text does it say that you have to follow those guidelines; I have become convinced by the arguments of others that they are provided to help you determine the relative value of CR/EL in the game.  

Nonetheless, that is not the only possible interpretation, nor is "The RAW does not mandate MagicMarts" the only possible interpretation of the written word.  I agree that it is _the best possible interpretation_ but that doesn't mean that _it is what the vast majority *or even the majority at all*_ understand when they read the rules.

I think this is very similar to the OP's thread about why we had such different experiences with 1e.  We read the rules through a "reader filter" that causes us to interpret them in different ways.  When a poster says "This campaign has no Magic Walmarts", I take it to mean that _that poster does believe that Magic Walmarts are normative, either through his experience or through his understanding of the RAW_.  The fact that people argued in this thread that the RAW leads to Magic Walmarts tends to bolster this belief IMHO.

OTOH, my belief that the RAW should not be intended to imply MagicMarts (whether or not I think it does to some readers) shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of MagicMarts for those who like them.  As I said earlier, I can easily imagine settings in which MagicMarts (as I define them) make sense and would add to the flavour of the setting.

If the question asked by the OP is, "Does the RAW mandate Magic Walmarts" then the answer is No (or at least, Not Necessarily   ).

Frankly, though, I wish that the OP would please rephrase the question so that we clearly know what is being asked.

 

RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> You use the phrase "these loaded terms" as if everyone understands what they are.




I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.  I think the person who "inadvertently" uses the loaded term should probably recognize that his reader is ascribing all sorts of meaning to it, and spend a little effort to correct those impressions.  I certainly think that's more productive than changing the subject to how the reader "reads poorly" or whatever.  Such a response is argumentative.  It also pretends some sort of ignorance of human nature - if I knew you guys better I could probably find loaded words that everyone would have a hard time not ascribing meaning to.  If I'm going to claim to be the smart one who reads carefully and writes carefully, maybe I should just am actually trying to _communicate_ to other people and make an effort to do so on their terms, and rather than criticise their definitions of words, or the connotations, maybe it's just simpler to break out the thesaurus.  I'm sure that a possible response is to craft some example out of a ridiculous extreme where someone takes offense to the word "the" - but I think non-Vulcan's can probably get the gist of what I mean.  If "magic wallmart" does actually have a meaning, why not use that mean in it's place?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 3, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Neither does the term "video game" if used in any sort of reasonable context.



The two terms have similar problems. They are both loaded with negative connotations and both imprecise. The latter is my major issue with both. When one says that D&D is like a video game, the reader has to ask - which one? Pong? Super Mario Bros? World of Warcraft? If the writer merely means that it's easy to return from death in D&D, wouldn't it be better to say so?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I think the truth is somewhere in the middle.




See, the thing is, I think that non-Vulcans can get the gist of "MagicMart" and "pokemount", too.

I'm not claiming that the use of the terms is "inadvertent" at all.  They are the _bon mot_ for what is meant.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The problem isn't the words; it's the reaction.




I half agree.  I think the reaction (from the person who didn't use the term) is only half of it.  If the person who used the term doesn't stop using it (for that discussion) then that denotes (to me) a complete disregard for a balanced coversation and the other persons opinions.

One may not understand where negative conotations for Magic WalMart and Pokimount come from.  Unless you are discussing the term itself it doesn't matter where those negative feelings come from - they exist and that is the important thing.  

If I let someone know that I felt a term was a loaded statement and that it carried an elitest attitude to me and then the other person kept using it, I would feel that person had no regard for me and felt that my opinion was worthless.  After all they kept using a term that I had told them I felt wasn't neutral to the conversation.  If the other person "obviously" feels that my opinions are irrelavent I'm not going to be very invested in the rest of the conversation and it will go nowhere.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> If the writer merely means that it's easy to return from death in D&D, wouldn't it be better to say so?





Except, quite often, that is what the writer says:  "I find the ease with which one can return from the dead too video-gamey" and "I find the ease with which one can return from the dead not to my taste, because it reminds me too much of certain video games" are both understood (by most, I think) to mean exactly the same thing, and are both equally likely (I think) to be taken as offensive.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Nonetheless, that is not the only possible interpretation, nor is "The RAW does not mandate MagicMarts" the only possible interpretation of the written word.  I agree that it is _the best possible interpretation_ but that doesn't mean that _it is what the vast majority *or even the majority at all*_ understand when they read the rules.




In this case my language is a little stronger because there's actually a lack of anything to interpret.  Just because people argue a connection between the rules and magic wallmarts doesn't mean that their logic is sound.  It's one thing to filter what you're reading, it's another thing to mistakenly ascribe a belief to something that you read - though granted, it's a continuum.  Were the RAW to be vague about how governments in a fantasy world are constructed, I might be willing to construe the use of the word "government" to mean "representative democracy" in the same way that I would assume "market price" mean "wallmart".  But IMO that's not even a filter of what's written - it is a virtually complete fabrication on the part of the reader.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As I said earlier, I can easily imagine settings in which MagicMarts (as I define them) make sense and would add to the flavour of the setting.




I agree completely.  However, I've often used "video game" in not an entirely unkind way but yet got really negative reactions.  I think it's a natural part of language that words have certain connotations.  My goal generally is to be more precise about what I'm saying and avoid these words if I know they cause problems (because they're not all that well-defined either).



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If the question asked by the OP is, "Does the RAW mandate Magic Walmarts" then the answer is No (or at least, Not Necessarily   ).




Actually, I think the most literal interpretation is "is it really necessary to claim that lack of magic marts are 'low magic' when it's probably just 'average magic'  Here is my evidence for why the absence of magic marts are a campaign norm..."  That this issue is a core issue in the edition wars, and that "3E RAW leads to magic marts" is more of a context that exists outside of the OP itself, but is probably the context for many people participating in the thread.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> They are the _bon mot_ for what is meant.




I have no idea what this means.  I'm sure there are perfectly good English words to describe the concept, there's no reason to resort to Elvish.    I will postpone taking offense until the matter is cleared up.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> If I let someone know that I felt a term was a loaded statement and that it carried an elitest attitude to me and then the other person kept using it, I would feel that person had no regard for me and felt that my opinion was worthless.




If you felt a term was a loaded statement, could you tell the other person _why_ you felt it was a loaded statement?

Moreover, demanding that the other person refrain from using the terminology that they are comfortable with can easily be taken as an elitist attitude in and of itself.  It's one thing if I feel that "flixlebix" best describes the 3.5 monk, it is another if you demand that I cease to use the term.  The demand to cease using the term clearly requires that I grant you superior status in the conversation -- I must abide by your choice of terminology, regardless of what I think, or I have no regard for you and feel that your opinion is worthless.

Again, I think it is that attitude which is the greater problem, as well as being more elitist, and should be corrected rather than condoned.

YMMV, though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I have no idea what this means.  I'm sure there are perfectly good English words to describe the concept, there's no reason to resort to Elvish.    I will postpone taking offense until the matter is cleared up.




"Bon mot" is an English term (stolen from the French, literally meaning "good word").  Apparently, according to dictionary.com, it means "witticism".  I intended to mean "the perfect word, a term or phrase that encapsulates an idea and expresses it both concisely and correctly".


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> The demand to cease using the term clearly requires that I grant you superior status in the conversation




Actually, it implicit recognizes that your ability to think of synonyms is greater than his ability to hear the word/phrase and not be offended.  The other person needs your help to not be offended, therefore you are superior.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, that'll rather instantly make anyone who dislikes the current paladin's mount have a harder time expressing that dislike.




To me there is a world of difference between saying

"I hate the Pokemount"

and

"I hate that the current Paladin's Mount remind me of that kid's show with the little yellow thing that lives in a ball with it's popping in and out of existance all the time."

The first strikes me as someone that has heard a buzzword and is repeating it.  I would get the impression that they haven't fully thought about the issue.  I could very easily be wrong.  Maybe they have written a 20+ page thoughtful document on the topic but I have no way of knowing that.

If someone told me the second statement I at least know a little more about it (they know where the Pokimon half of the name comes from - which even nowadays I've met people who knew the name Pokemon but that was it) and a little bit of why they don't like it.

If someone told me "I hate the Pokemount" I would ask "why" so it doesn't even save them any time/words/breath in the explanation.  To me there is no purpose in using the term Pokemount exept for hot-button pushing.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> "Bon mot" is an English term (stolen from the French, literally meaning "good word").




Hmmm.  "Good word" literally means "good word" in English, professor.  Thanks for the update though.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you felt a term was a loaded statement, could you tell the other person _why_ you felt it was a loaded statement?




Yes, and I do believe that is part of the requirement in having a balanced conversation once the term gets used.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Maybe they have written a 20+ page thoughtful document on the topic but I have no way of knowing that.




 

It wasn't 20 pages.  Or, at least, it wasn't _just me_ for 20 pages.

 

 



> If someone told me "I hate the Pokemount" I would ask "why" so it doesn't even save them any time/words/breath in the explanation.  To me there is no purpose in using the term Pokemount exept for hot-button pushing.




If that person were in converstation with you alone, that might be true.  However, when someone writes "I hate pokemounts" I understand (or believe that I understand) exactly what they are saying, and I believe that most people reading that understand (or believe that they understand) what is being said as well.  

Moreover, if you then ask "Why?", the odds that "because it reminds me of Pokemon" is going to satisfy you if you find the term itself offensive seems (to me) slim indeed.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  "Good word" literally means "good word" in English, professor.  Thanks for the update though.




I didn't realize that you were kidding about the Elvish.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Yes, and I do believe that is part of the requirement in having a balanced conversation once the term gets used.




OK, then, why do you find these terms offensive:

Pokemount
MagicMart


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I didn't realize that you were kidding about the Elvish.




It was a bon farce.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> The first strikes me as someone that has heard a buzzword and is repeating it.  I would get the impression that they haven't fully thought about the issue.  I could very easily be wrong.  Maybe they have written a 20+ page thoughtful document on the topic but I have no way of knowing that.



It seems to me that you are then letting things other people have done color your interpretation of what this poster is saying.  Forcing the person you are conversing with to be responsible for other people's poor behavior isn't fair.  I would argue that your behavior is what needs modifying, not theirs.



> If someone told me "I hate the Pokemount" I would ask "why" so it doesn't even save them any time/words/breath in the explanation.  To me there is no purpose in using the term Pokemount exept for hot-button pushing.




You are assuming that the term Pokemount is used in a vacuum and without context.  If you were reading the word on the 3rd page of a thread and the term was perfectly explained by the context of the previous two pages, would it become more purposeful?  If it became more purposeful would it become less offensive?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 3, 2007)

RC said:
			
		

> the reader has the responsibility to attempt to read as the writer intended.




100% of the history of all written and oral communication would entirely disagree with you.

The writer has the responsibility to make sure their intention is communicated effectively to as many people as possible. If they fail at this task, then they are not a very good writer.

If "MagicMarts" doesn't communicate to the reader what you want it to communicate, it is bad communication, and should be eliminated with prejudice as detrimental to the entire point of written communication, which is to convey the writer's ideas in a way the reader can understand.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> It was a bon farce.




 

Beautiful.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, then, why do you find these terms offensive:
> 
> Pokemount
> MagicMart




They've both been fairly well covered up thread but you have asked for my own personal interpretation of the two. (And the gauntlet has been dropped - I can't refuse that).

Both terms are simple single use phrases that in-and-fof themselves have no real meaning - and I don't just mean lack of an official dictionary definition.

Pokemount is a term that was coined to compare the ability of the Paladin's Mount to that of an aspect of an animated TV show.  The animated TV in question is fairly obviously targeted to children, and like many children's TV shows appears to be guilty of existing soley for the purpose of it's marketing potential (I will admit that while I have seen sequences of episodes but I will admit I have never seen an entire episode).  The sequences I have seen appeared to be cheaply made and the couple of climaxes to the episode I have seen appeared to be cop-outs (no clever thought out resolution to the apparent problem at hand).  Based on these experiences the comparison to the show makes the anyone that uses the RAW childish (young children's show), cheap (the shows are not well made) and simple-minded (simple writing).

3.5 is the first addition to have this style of mount for the paladin and this leads to many people using it as attack at 3.5.  I've seen it many, many times in various edition war threads.

To add to these connotations there are also multiple occurances of people saying that some situations are not similar to the Pokemon situation.  Just upthread when Shadowfax was said to be a Pokemount (summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed) and people came out saying that it wasn't that situation at all.  I myself think it's a valid comparison and good source to use if you want to change the flavor of the ability; but when it was suggested as an alternative flavor use the idea was shot down handedly.  This conveyed to me an attitude of "how dare we suggest Shadowfax is a Pokemount" and this comes across to me as an elitist attitude.  

MagicMart:  Wal-Mart has some controvercy attached to it.  It doesn't matter at this point if those controversies are justafied or not - they exist.  Wal-Mart has a reputation (negative and posative, deserved or not) for cheap products, cheaply made products, bulk purchases, all stores being the same (at least all the stores of a certain size being the same as chain stores usually do), bullying smaller stores, bulllying suppliers, not being kind to its work force, overseas labor problems and not caring for the customer.

To add to this the earlier additions of D&D that had the cartoon of the wizard buying the wand off te shelf doesn't help matters any.

Referring to the purchase of magic items as Magic Mart or Magic Wal-Mart carries with it (in my view) the connotations of it being bland (all stores the same), impersonal (how often do you get the same cashier?) and having no 'magic' in magical item (chain stores).  The media isn't Wal-Mart's friend (constant reporting on the controversies) which leaves a bad sense of Wal-Mart in the back of a lot of people's heads (and yes, I do sometimes shop there, last night in fact).

The entire Magic Mart aspect has a certain Edition Wars slant to it as well.  3.X is the first (to my knowledge) to embrace the idea of buying and selling magic items.  As the paladin's mount above this lends the purchase of magic items to be a fairly common shot at 3.X and has been used in multiple Edition War threads.  Even earlier editions (in my mind) made this style out to be a 'lesser' and 'more junvenile' style of play.  The cartoon I mentioned earlier  is obviously (to me) an attack on that style of play and so this bring an elitist attitude to the concept.

I'm going to be going on vacation (to Origins) in a couple of hours here (meeting up with a friend and we will heading there tomorrow) shortly.  I don't own a laptop so I won't be able to easily have a back and forth but I hope this sheds some light on where I'm coming from with these two terms and where I honestly believe others are coming from as well.  I'll continue to comment while I have the time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What do you mean you hate dogs?  And what, exactly, do you have against Nebraska?

It is true that the writer has the responsibility to communicate effectively with his target audience (which is not always "as many people as possible").  However, effective communication is, and always has been, communicating in such a way that a listener/reader who takes the responsibility of attempting to understand the speaker/writer can do so (or nearly do so).  The days of believing that the reader/listener is a passive being, and that full responsibility falls upon the writer/speaker are long gone.  Communication is a dynamic, multi-party process.



> If "MagicMarts" doesn't communicate to the reader what you want it to communicate, it is bad communication




There is scant indication that this is the case, though, which has already been addressed:

There is a difference between reaction and meaning, which are conflated here.

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.​
Moreover, if it is true that if one feels that a term iss a loaded statement, part of the requirement in having a balanced conversation once the term gets used is to be able to tell the other person why one felt it was a loaded statement, that it has taken so long for _anyone_ to explain why "pokemount" or "MagicMart" are considered offensive seems to indicate to me very strongly that the idea that they are offensive is itself irrational.

This is not unlike my question to Hussar about MagicMart as a descriptive term.  If MagicMart is not viable as a descriptive term, under what circumstances would MagicMart be viable as a descriptive term?

This is simply, IMHO, a case of moving goalposts.  No matter what, these terms are "offensive", "mythical", "legendary", or "not descriptive".

Ourph put it far more concisely than I when he said "For every buzzword you take off the table, the hypersensitive "wrongbadfun" police will find another word to get upset about. The problem isn't the words; it's the reaction."


RC


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> It wasn't 20 pages.  Or, at least, it wasn't _just me_ for 20 pages.




 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Moreover, if you then ask "Why?", the odds that "because it reminds me of Pokemon" is going to satisfy you if you find the term itself offensive seems (to me) slim indeed.



Exactly.  My responce would be 'what aspect of it that remind you of Pokemon don't you like.'I think i get this from my father who has a degree in psychology but I find it helps a conversation a lot if we can get to what people mean and not just what they say.

For me, it isn't so much that I find Pokemount or MagicMart offensive but that the elitist (as I percieve them) connotations of these terms is what sets me on edge.  

I'd be willing to bet that the person who uses the term Pokemount dosn't like the aspect of the mount popping in an dout of existance.  But I want to confirm that.  Maybe it's that they alwas see this white and red ball flaoting around, maybe they see the mount having a lightning bolt for a tail.  Each of these are similar but slightly different.  The more I know where they are coming from and the more they know where I am coming from the more likely we can find a common ground and have a meaningful conversation.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo, thanks for taking up the gauntlet, and hope you enjoy Origins.



			
				Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Both terms are simple single use phrases that in-and-fof themselves have no real meaning - and I don't just mean lack of an official dictionary definition.




I think that this has been adequately refuted ad infinitum ad nauseum.



> Pokemount is a term that was coined to compare the ability of the Paladin's Mount to that of an aspect of an animated TV show.




Agreed.  And it is further agreed that Pokemon is targetted at children, and cheaply made, and exists for marketting.  However, I don't understand how you jump from that to 

Based on these experiences the comparison to the show makes the anyone that uses the RAW childish (young children's show), cheap (the shows are not well made) and simple-minded (simple writing).​
You seem to be suggesting that if one views the 3.5 paladin's mount as having a strong point of similarity (that the speaker/writer obviously finds distasteful) then it must (1) share all points of simillarity, i.e., be virtually identical in all aspects, and (2) that the speaker/writer must be unable to determine the difference between his/her own tastes and a universal sense of what is good or not.

In other words:

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.​
That the listener/reader equates one point of similarity as meaning all points must be similar, and that, therefore, the statement/term must be a personal attack is, frankly, irrational.  It is like saying that if you don't like David Carradine's original _Kung Fu_, it is rational to find the monk class insulting. 

Or, as you said, 

To add to these connotations there are also multiple occurances of people saying that some situations are not similar to the Pokemon situation.  Just upthread when Shadowfax was said to be a Pokemount (summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed) and people came out saying that it wasn't that situation at all.​
but, this shouldn't surprise us at all because it was never the "summoned when needed, arrives when summoned, not there when not needed" aspect that people objected to.  It is more the "instantaneous/other dimensional/can get to anywhere" aspect that people object to (IMHO and IME).  Moreover, it is an example of how the listener/reader in this case refuted the idea that one point of similarity means that all points must be similar.  

Far from being "how dare we suggest Shadowfax is a Pokemount", it is merely "you are misunderstanding the term as we use it" -- often, I note, with specifics attached as to what the term means and how it does/does not apply.



> 3.5 is the first addition to have this style of mount for the paladin and this leads to many people using it as attack at 3.5.  I've seen it many, many times in various edition war threads.




If you change this to 

3.5 is the first addition to have this style of mount for the paladin and this leads to many people pointing it out as an example of where they are dissatisfied with 3.5.  I've seen it many, many times in various edition war threads.​
I would agree with you.

However, this still leaves open the question of why _anyone's_ not liking _part_ (or even _all_) of 3.5 would be offensive to you.  

I could point-by-point your reasons for finding MagicMart offensive, but since there is a great deal of repetition, I will not do so now.  The only major thing to add here is that, while 3.X may be the first edition to "officially" embrace buying and selling magic items, 2e is at the very least schitzophrenic on this topic.  The first (and, at this point, the best) official MagicMarts belong to 2e, not 3e.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> I'd be willing to bet that the person who uses the term Pokemount dosn't like the aspect of the mount popping in an dout of existance.  But I want to confirm that.  Maybe it's that they alwas see this white and red ball flaoting around, maybe they see the mount having a lightning bolt for a tail.  Each of these are similar but slightly different.  The more I know where they are coming from and the more they know where I am coming from the more likely we can find a common ground and have a meaningful conversation.




I think, deep down, it has to do with what sorts of fantasy resonate with you.  Sometimes, a writer or a DM or a game system can reach past grown-up logic and evoke a portion of the "magical" logic of childhood.  I think, for example, that Stephen King is particularly good at this.  Many of his situations seem plausible not because they are, but because when we were children we believed them to be.  The same, for me, with Tolkein.  They take strands of our folk subconscious, as well as the links between language and meaning, and make things that are frankly implausible seem to make sense at the time.

Depending upon our makeup, different things can ruin that suspension of disbelief.  For some people, that includes pokemounts.  For others it doesn't.  For some, pokemounts _enhance_ the experience.

Hence, different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Agreed.  And it is further agreed that Pokemon is targetted at children, and cheaply made, and exists for marketting.  However, I don't understand how you jump from that to
> 
> Based on these experiences the comparison to the show makes the anyone that uses the RAW childish (young children's show), cheap (the shows are not well made) and simple-minded (simple writing).​




Because I honestly feel that whoever coined the term (besides being congratulated on being a good enough word-smith to coin a term that has lasted this long) that if they wanted to highlight posative aspect of the ability they wouldn't have chosen a (as agreed between us at least) cheaply and poorly made cartoon for comparison.

Maybe Shadowfaxian (maybe not instantly but it didn't very long for him to show up) or maybe like a Final Fantasy summons spell.  FF Mount, maybe?

When I first read the term Pokemount I "knew" that it was being used an insult.  Obviously I couldn't know for sure without reading the rest of the post but the term instantly hit me as an insult style term for the reasons listed above.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> OK, then, why do you find these terms offensive:
> 
> Pokemount
> MagicMart




I don't find them offensive (not that you asked me).  However, some terms do raise a red flag to me that I'm dealing with a partisan person in an edition war thread and I have a tendency to lower my expectation of having a civil conversation when I see them.

"Magic Wallmart" IMO is much more foolish than "MagicMart" (which is a fine term IMO).  "Wallmart" is almost totally useless when taken literally.  The issue certainly isn't that someone has a store in their campaign world named "wallmart".  And there's no real identifying characteristic of wallmart, as opposed to Sears or whatever that indicates why that word was used.  The reason it is used IMO is because it's a snide jab - it doesn't really make any sense to me otherwise.  IMO MagicMart is perfectly fine - and doesn't introduce a distracting and poorly-applied analogy to a real-world store.

Pokemount is similarly confusing and inflammatory.  There's no reason AFAIK that the 3.5E Paladin Mount is any more similar to Pokemon than it is Summon Monster V, mechanics wise.  But it's not called "Summon Monster Mount" because, like "Magic Wallmart", the analogy has connotations that goes beyond the simple reading of the rules.  As pointed out above, "Pokemon" was chosen intentionally as a jab because of things that have no obvious connection to the 3.5 rule.

So if someone calls you an "ogre", we can probably weasel our way to some sort of explanation, based on an rational examination of body hair and size issues.  This sort of thing is especially easy to do on the internet where I can make all kinds of ridiculous statements without have to look anyone on the eye and tell them that I seriously don't get why "ogre" is insulting.  Just because I can construct some theoretical crazy person that can take offense to my use of the word "carrot" doesn't mean that it makes sense for me to call people ogres and act like I don't know what's going on or that their reaction is not my problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Because I honestly feel that whoever coined the term (besides being congratulated on being a good enough word-smith to coin a term that has lasted this long) that if they wanted to highlight posative aspect of the ability they wouldn't have chosen a (as agreed between us at least) cheaply and poorly made cartoon for comparison.




Except, of course, that we can both agree that the term pokemount conveys a distaste for aspects of the 3.5 paladin's mount.  That isn't in question.  And, expressing distaste is certainly the same thing as insulting the thing one expresses distaste for (or close enough).

What is in question is why, when you  first read the term Pokemount, you "knew" that it was being used an insult _to you the reader_ (as opposed to merely showing distaste for/insulting the specific aspects of the 3.5 paladin's mount the term was intended to show distaste for)?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't find them offensive (not that you asked me).  However, some terms do raise a red flag to me that I'm dealing with a partisan person in an edition war thread and I have a tendency to lower my expectation of having a civil conversation when I see them.




While there are many improvements from 3.0 to 3.5, I fully admit that I don't think this was one of them, nor (for example) what they did with weapon sizes and creature spaces.  OTOH, I don't expect my personal tastes to be universal.



> "Magic Wallmart" IMO is much more foolish than "MagicMart" (which is a fine term IMO).




Thank you.

In either case, though, the connotation is of a modern mercantile establishment within the game.  I very much doubt that Walmart was picked for other connotations than the extremely good odds that nearly everyone hearing the term would know what a Walmart was.  If Zellers was as successful, or the term had been coined a few decades earlier, it might have been Magic Zellers or Magic Sears & Roebuck.



> Pokemount is similarly confusing and inflammatory.  There's no reason AFAIK that the 3.5E Paladin Mount is any more similar to Pokemon than it is Summon Monster V, mechanics wise.  But it's not called "Summon Monster Mount" because, like "Magic Wallmart", the analogy has connotations that goes beyond the simple reading of the rules.




Might you be willing to accept that it violates certain conventions of fantasy that some of us have grown up with?  It is one thing to have a magician conjure up creatures from other planes of existence; it is another to imagine Childe Roland doing the same.  It depends, I imagine, on what your formulative views of "paladins" are.  The more something defies your formulative conventions, the more it tampers with your suspension of disbelief, and, therefore, the more likely you are to find it distasteful.  

I think this is part of the reason why some people are begining to seek non-magical versions of some classes (such as the ranger).

Also, may I note, the paladin's mount is a class ability, whereas the spell is not (and players who find it distasteful have plenty of alternatives supplied in the rules).



> So if someone calls you an "ogre", we can probably weasel our way to some sort of explanation, based on an rational examination of body hair and size issues.  This sort of thing is especially easy to do on the internet where I can make all kinds of ridiculous statements without have to look anyone on the eye and tell them that I seriously don't get why "ogre" is insulting.




If you are a 3.5 paladin's special mount, and you find the term "pokemount" insulting, then I officially apologize.

Otherwise, I hope you can appreciate the difference between someone expressing distaste with you as an individual and expressing distaste with a game mechanic/flavour text.

(IOW, once again, 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.)


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> When I first read the term Pokemount I "knew" that it was being used an insult.  Obviously I couldn't know for sure without reading the rest of the post but the term instantly hit me as an insult style term for the reasons listed above.




In fact, some people will use French in place of English simply because of nuance - NOT because the literal definition of the French clarifies anything, but instead because of the entirely historical connotations of the word/phrase and the subtle change in meaning.  The whole point of using such words/phrases is to communicate subtle meaning.  Valid use, IMO, does not constitute being able to insult someone and then claim to be misunderstood because of vagueries in language.

Pokemount can fairly be defined as "3.5 paladin mount rules with negative connotations" and there are such definitions of words already.  The definition does not exlusively follow from the definitions of "Pokemon" and "mount", but to claim that it must be the case IMO is poorly understanding the nature of language.

There are certain words that are insulting to certain people simply because of context whereas the original latin meaning of such words has no such negative connotation.  It would be insenstive of me to redefine it, ignore the connotations and history of the word, using it over and over, and then tell someone that they're not reading properly for failing to ignore the connotations of the word.  In fact I would say most writing would be incomprehesible without taking into account non-literal meaning.  Admittedly such things are imprecise, and the potential exists for people to misunderstand each other.  Anyone who doesn't get what I'm saying is a nut job, and by nut job I mean an honorable citizen who works in a nut factory.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> Valid use, IMO, does not constitute being able to insult someone and then claim to be misunderstood because of vagueries in language.
> 
> Pokemount can fairly be defined as "3.5 paladin mount rules with negative connotations"




Please explain how you go from understanding that (A) Pokemount has negative connotations to the 3.5 paladin mount rules (I agree) to (B) insulting someone (I disagree).  Unless someone personally equates themselves with the 3.5 paladin mount rules (writer thereof, perhaps?) I am missing the logical connection between the two.

Obviously, I am an honorable citizen who works in a nut factory, because there's something missing between A and B.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you are a 3.5 paladin's special mount, and you find the term "pokemount" insulting, then I officially apologize.




The distinction between talking about a person and talking about an idea was not an important part of my analogy.  I think you misunderstood my analogy by making much of the least important part.  I could return the favor by pointing out that you're in no position to official apologize in this context - but doing so would similarly miss the point of what you were saying.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> What is in question is why, when you  first read the term Pokemount, you "knew" that it was being used an insult _to you the reader_ (as opposed to merely showing distaste for/insulting the specific aspects of the 3.5 paladin's mount the term was intended to show distaste for)?




Because the prefix of "poke-" conveys to me that the user has a juvenile view of whatever is being 'poke'ed; that it is not very well constructed.  

Since it is juvenile (and thus 'below them') then it is an insult.

I will admit, I couldn't have possibly "known" that it was an insult.  But if someone had come up to me and asked what I thought of the term "Pokemount" I would have replied that it sounded like an elitist insult; because of the Poke- prefix.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> For me, it isn't so much that I find Pokemount or MagicMart offensive but that the elitist (as I percieve them) connotations of these terms is what sets me on edge.




OK, here we have something that can perhaps be worked with.  Neither term is directly offensive (or, at least, is not intended to convey distaste of the reader).  I can agree with that.

Both terms have elitist connotations......

As far as elitism is concerned:

(A)  Anyone naturally finds games that they like to be "better" than games that they do not like.  Also, modifications that allow you to enjoy your game more naturally seem "superior" to the unmodified game.  This is a personal thing, and should not be seen as universal, but

(B)  There can be a message overall that the modified game is _universally_ better than the unmodified game, in that the players/DM took the time and care to craft the game to actually fit their group/playstyle.  This can certainly mean that they think that not doing so leads to a "lesser" game.​
I'll certainly agree that (B) can be a problem, although I am not convinced that "pokemount" conveys (B).  Or, for that matter, that not using "loaded terms" has any effect whatsoever on conveying or not conveying (B).

However, that is the most solid argument I've heard thus far against so-called "loaded terms".  If anyone cared to expand on it, I am always open to having my mind changed (though it isn't always easily accomplished!     ).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> The distinction between talking about a person and talking about an idea was not an important part of my analogy.  I think you misunderstood my analogy by making much of the least important part.  I could return the favor by pointing out that you're in no position to official apologize in this context - but doing so would similarly miss the point of what you were saying.




I can see that insulting a person would be insulting.

I do not see that expressing distaste about a game mechanic/flavour text is insulting to a person.  Unless you are the person who created that game mechanic/flavour text.

The distinction between insulting a person and expressing distaste for an idea is a significant problem in your analogy, IMHO.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 3, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> Because the prefix of "poke-" conveys to me that the user has a juvenile view of whatever is being 'poke'ed; that it is not very well constructed.




I don't get that at all.  

I am not being deliberately obtuse, either.

I understand that Pokemon is a kid's cartoon.  I understand that there are some real points of similarity between "poket monsters" and the 3.5 paladin's mount.  If those points of similarity were part of an epic, five-part film series made for mature audiences, that I really, really loved, it would certainly conjure a different mental image when using the D&D mechanic.......but it still would seem out of place for Childe Roland, Sir Lancelot, or any of the other "paladin" type characters from folklore or classic fantasy.

So, yes, a portion of the problem with the D&D mechanic (for me) is that it conjures up a silly mental image (though, if it doesn't for you, that doesn't make you somehow silly or juvenile, nor should it be considered to do so).  A much larger portion, though, is that it violates genre conventions.  (Again, if you're using a different genre, that shouldn't bother you.)

I still fail to see where "I find monks silly in a European-flavoured game" becomes "and I therefore find you silly for playing one".

Maybe it's just me.   

EDIT:  Unless you think that when someone says "pokemount" they mean that the 3.5 paladin's mount is _objectively silly_, (elistist point B from the post upthread) in which case I understand your point.  I don't think that the term implies that, though.


----------



## missstella (Jul 3, 2007)

My.  There is like 9 pages of discussion over the term pokemount.    I'd never even heard the term before.  But then I'm not online much.  

*sulks back into the corner and eavesdrops on the conversation*


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 3, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I don't play many video games (fewer than 1 a year average), so "point & click" might have some significance that I am missing.  But it seems more like one-stop-shopping to me than it seems video-gamey.  Perhaps ShadyDM could clarify what he meant?




What I was refering to is people in this post who claimed that they can as players open up the dmg and pick stuff from the list that they want to buy and DMs who said they basically allow it nothing more nothing less. It actually has nothing to do with Amazon where I do actually shop online or video games which I did play for quite a long time.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 4, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> But is that detrimental reaction the responsibility of the original poster or the one reacting?




My point is that the responsibility ultimately does not matter. Do you want to be the virtuous one who's right in the conversation, or do you want to actually share a conversation? That's the only meaningful choice you've got in the matter.

If you want to pinpoint responsibilities, whether you are right or wrong in the matter, the discussion itself comes to a stale. If however you want to really exchange opinions, you try to understand where the other person's coming from and you avoid terms that may be misunderstood.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 4, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> ... If however you want to really exchange opinions, you try to understand where the other person's coming from and you avoid terms that may be misunderstood.




Or, given that a particular poster may not be aware that the term being used is 'less clear' than intended, perhaps all involved should try to understand where the other person is coming from and avoid assuming that your 'reader filter' view is what the poster intended?

As the saying goes, when you AssUMe....

After all, ten pages of posts dedicated to the sidetracks of the OP's question is a bit excessive...even for EnWorld. The last thread I participated in that went this long was/is the Meta-Troll   {which is due for a re-emergence me-thinks  }

The worst part is that there may be individual posts buried under the landslide of fuss over politically correct terminology that actually addresses the underlying problem facing the OP and others..... but digging them out would require a new thread that does not carry over the sidetracks of this one.



And, *missstella* ...welcome to the boards!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Moreover, demanding that the other person refrain from using the terminology that they are comfortable with can easily be taken as an elitist attitude in and of itself.



It's not a demand. It's a recommendation.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 4, 2007)

*Doug McCrae*, Personally I don't read 'eliminated with prejudice' as a recommendation... in the military world those words have an interesting connotation...




			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The writer has the responsibility to make sure their intention is communicated effectively to as many people as possible. If they fail at this task, then they are not a very good writer.
> 
> If "MagicMarts" doesn't communicate to the reader what you want it to communicate, it is bad communication, and should be *eliminated with prejudice* as detrimental to the entire point of written communication, which is to convey the writer's ideas in a way the reader can understand.




Of course, the above quote could be dissected for insults if I were to bother, as it directly states that those writers who fail at communicating effectively through the use of bad communication, such as misleading terms such as 'MagicMarts', are not good writers. Therefore I am not a good writer since I have used the term 'MagicMarts' in my posts.

Knee jerk reaction: Who is KM to say who is a good writer? Oi.. he must have an elitist attitude and I should be insulted!

Proper reaction: KM is attempting to discussing how communication can be dampened through the use of imprecise or misleading terms that often carry a weight of reader perception. This is not a world of hours crafting a carefully prepared and reviewed speech...its hammering out a response at midnight when you really should be asleep. Give the other guy a break and step away from your own prejudices for a moment.


YMMV... etc,


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> I don't find them offensive (not that you asked me).  However, some terms do raise a red flag to me that I'm dealing with a partisan person in an edition war thread and I have a tendency to lower my expectation of having a civil conversation when I see them.
> 
> "Magic Wallmart" IMO is much more foolish than "MagicMart" (which is a fine term IMO).  "Wallmart" is almost totally useless when taken literally.  The issue certainly isn't that someone has a store in their campaign world named "wallmart".  And there's no real identifying characteristic of wallmart, as opposed to Sears or whatever that indicates why that word was used.  The reason it is used IMO is because it's a snide jab - it doesn't really make any sense to me otherwise.  IMO MagicMart is perfectly fine - and doesn't introduce a distracting and poorly-applied analogy to a real-world store.
> 
> ...




Which is a much better way of saying what I've been trying to say for 9 pages.  Thank you.  Well done that man/woman.  



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I can see that insulting a person would be insulting.
> 
> I do not see that expressing distaste about a game mechanic/flavour text is insulting to a person.  Unless you are the person who created that game mechanic/flavour text.
> 
> The distinction between insulting a person and expressing distaste for an idea is a significant problem in your analogy, IMHO.




Ok, let's look at it this way.  By adding the "poke" prefix you are setting up a connection between Pokemon and whatever you added to the prefix to.  Pokemon is a children's cartoon - marketted as such and the games as well.  The implication here is that any element with the "poke" prefix is also a children's thing, and, as such, only appeals to those whose tastes are the same as a child's.  Or, to put it another way, anyone who likes the "poke whatever" lacks maturity - his or her tastes are equivalent to a child's.

In the same way, if I add Tolkienesque to something, the implication is that anyone who likes it is more mature since Tolkien is geared for a more mature audience.  

By using hot button words like these, you are not simply expressing a distaste for an idea.  You are saying, effectively, that anyone who disagrees with you must like the very thing you hold in distaste.  There is a world of difference from saying "I think that the 3.5 paladin mount's mechanics are very poorly done and take away from the game" and "The pokemount is bad."


----------



## Hussar (Jul 4, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> *Doug McCrae*, Personally I don't read 'eliminated with prejudice' as a recommendation... in the military world those words have an interesting connotation...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But, there is a difference here.  KM is not using vague terms to describe his opinion and then expressing shock when people misinterpret what he says.  He's directly saying that good writers write effectively.  You can disagree with that, fine, but, there's no misinterpretation here.

When someone uses vague language that is chock full of connotations, it's not surprising when they get misinterpreted.  Expecting someone to actually attempt to present their point of view in a clear manner is hardly the same as giving someone a free pass whenever they decide to start chucking out loaded terms.

No one is saying that you shouldn't present an opinion.  No one is saying that you shouldn't do so in as strong a manner as you feel warranted.  What is being said here is that using sloppy shorthand, hot button terms is a bad idea.  Say what you mean without relying on whatever buzz word happens to be floating around and we can have meaningful conversations.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Which is a much better way of saying what I've been trying to say for 9 pages.  Thank you.  Well done that man/woman.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No the word Pokemount denotes an individuals dislike for lazy/weak game design and does not in any way refelect on the people playing the game. The rest of this stuff about how its offensive to people who use the 3.5 paladins mount is uneeded embellishment on your part to try in win an argument nothing more. I don't like the Pokemount I think the person who decided to change the rules in this manner did a crappy job yet I still use it when I play 3.5 DnD therefore by your logic I have insulted myself right LOL.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, let's look at it this way.  By adding the "poke" prefix you are setting up a connection between Pokemon and whatever you added to the prefix to.  Pokemon is a children's cartoon - marketted as such and the games as well.




Agreed



> The implication here is that any element with the "poke" prefix is also a children's thing, and, as such, only appeals to those whose tastes are the same as a child's.




No.  There is no such implication.



> Or, to put it another way, anyone who likes the "poke whatever" lacks maturity - his or her tastes are equivalent to a child's.




Again, there is no such implication.



> In the same way, if I add Tolkienesque to something, the implication is that anyone who likes it is more mature since Tolkien is geared for a more mature audience.




And, again, there is no such implication.  Tolkienesque is a style.  IMC, I use some Tolkienesque elements, some Howardesque elements, and some Burroughsesque elements.  Tolkien is a more mature writer than either Howard or Burroughs (IMHO, at least), but that doesn't mean that the _elements_ I use from each of these authors are more or less mature than each other.  



> By using hot button words like these, you are not simply expressing a distaste for an idea.  You are saying, effectively, that anyone who disagrees with you must like the very thing you hold in distaste.




If I say, "I think this sucks" and you say "I do not think this sucks" that implies that you may (and probably do) like the thing that I hold in distaste.  But, as I have said for several posts now, there is no connection between you liking something I don't and you sucking.  I like liver.  Lots of folks hold liver in distaste.  That doesn't mean that they hold me in distaste for liking liver.



> There is a world of difference from saying "I think that the 3.5 paladin mount's mechanics are very poorly done and take away from the game" and "The pokemount is bad."




What, exactly, is the difference between "I think that the 3.5 paladin mount's mechanics are very poorly done and take away from the game" and "I think the pokemount is bad"?  Apart, of course, for the second statement containing some clue as to why I think the 3.5 paladin's mount mechanics are poorly done and take away from the game?

And when are you going to tell me under what circumstances MagicMart would have value as a descriptive term?

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, there is a difference here.  KM is not using vague terms to describe his opinion and then expressing shock when people misinterpret what he says.




Please tell me how a term qualifies as "vague" or "descriptive" to you.

Or else please stop using these loaded phrases.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 4, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> When someone uses vague language that is chock full of connotations, it's not surprising when they get misinterpreted.




 Like American English perhaps... the largest collection of buzzwords and shorthand filled with connotations that few people have been bothered with mastering?    


I agree that the use of vague buzzwords and sloppy shorthand conflicts with the intent of reasoned debate, and in a debate class or professional circumstance where stuff like this matters I could see the equivilent of a 10 page sidetrack. However, on the 'net its my opinion that most discussion/argument come from a refusal to step aside from ones owns view of the world.

For instance, "The implication here is that any element with the "poke" prefix is also a children's thing, and, as such, only appeals to those whose tastes are the same as a child's. "

 Poke-x has no such implication for me and therefore is simply a shorthand for the slightly distasteful handling of 3.5 Paladin Mounts. 

The next step in your chain.. "anyone who likes the 'poke whatever' lacks maturity " is, IMHO, also a stretch. There are many great things that are targeted towards kids. The book "The Phantom Tollbooth" is one such wonder that I love to be able to read to my daughter.  
 Interestingly enough, that book would be good reading for those embroiled in this discussion as the entire book is crammed with vague buzzwords that lead to nonsensical stuff... like the 'Whether Man'... 

So, in your opionion the fact that this childs book appeals to me means that I lack maturity.... and somehow this means the games I run are wrongbadfun?  eh, nevermind...

Sorry Jack. Your posting on a board that caters to a dresses up version of Make Believe and, if mature enough to admit it, everyone here would agree that thier inner child enjoys this hobby of ours.

And as a side note, you do realize that Tolkien's best sellers were targeted towards children?
Unless you happen to run a Screwtape Letteresque game.. that would be interesting.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> And as a side note, you do realize that Tolkien's best sellers were targeted towards children?
> Unless you happen to run a Screwtape Letteresque game.. that would be interesting.




You're thinking of Lewis.    

Although, _The Hobbit_ and _Roverandom_ were definitely written for children, and LotR is a sequel to a children's book.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 4, 2007)

I always get the two authors mixed up


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 4, 2007)

> No one is saying that you shouldn't do so in as strong a manner as you feel warranted. What is being said here is that using sloppy shorthand, hot button terms is a bad idea. Say what you mean without relying on whatever buzz word happens to be floating around and we can have meaningful conversations.




I am reminded of a thread where "great, clomping nerds" and "setting porn" were both construed as negative, even though they weren't necessarily viewed as such by everyone. Certainly a lot of time was spent in semantics jousting in that convo. Those terms were perhaps not the best for giving an actual discussion, but they were perfect for inspiring a bold reaction.

Turns out, MagicMarts and Pokemounts fall into the same category: they agitate. Why they do, how they do, and whether the audience is correct in allowing them to is entirely irrelevant. They do. The wise communicator would not use them unless their intent was to agitate, just as the wise writer would not use "great, clomping nerds," or "setting porn" unless they wanted to agitate.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I am reminded of a thread where "great, clomping nerds" and "setting porn" were both construed as negative, even though they weren't necessarily viewed as such by everyone. Certainly a lot of time was spent in semantics jousting in that convo. Those terms were perhaps not the best for giving an actual discussion, but they were perfect for inspiring a bold reaction.





Again, hopefully you can see the difference between a statement aimed at a person "You are a great clomping nerd" and a statement aimed at an idea or object "That's just setting porn".

People (often rightly) feel offended by remarks aimed _at them_, whereas while they might feel offended by remarks aimed at _an idea_ (depending upon how strongly they identify with that idea) it certainly isn't _rational_.

Which is why, in that thread, people specifically objected to "great clomping nerds" but in general only objected to "setting porn" in terms of the question at hand:  What is the value of setting (esp. as opposed to plot) in a role-playing game?

Another straw man, and one which has already been exhaustively dealt with upthread.

RC


----------



## Squire James (Jul 4, 2007)

That term "straw man" is a loaded term.  Don't use it. 

As Maud'dib may put it, he who can destroy a conversation has control of a conversion...


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 4, 2007)

Squire James said:
			
		

> As Muad'dib may put it, he who can destroy a conversation has control of a conversion...



Certainly, but then again, what is the purpose of a conversation? Controlling it, or exchanging ideas with other people who have different views than yourself?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 4, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Certainly, but then again, what is the purpose of a conversation? Controlling it, or exchanging ideas with other people who have different views than yourself?




This is the internet.  Do you really have to ask?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 4, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Certainly, but then again, what is the purpose of a conversation? Controlling it, or exchanging ideas with other people who have different views than yourself?




Given that a certain side of this conversation seems to have a vested interest in controlling the terminology of others, or preventing them from expressing different views (i.e., "pokemounts are childish" if they hold that view), I'd say that the purpose of a conversation very much depends upon who you ask.

IOW, I read Squire James' comment as being directed against the "wrongbadfun police".


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 4, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Given that a certain side of this conversation seems to have a vested interest in controlling the terminology of others, or preventing them from expressing different views (i.e., "pokemounts are childish" if they hold that view), I'd say that the purpose of a conversation very much depends upon who you ask.




I think that, the Internet being the Internet, it is impossible to control the terminology used by others, and much less to prevent them from using some words or others. That does not mean, however, that there is no merit in discussing the matter and promoting a sort of awareness as to what the words might mean for different people and the necessity on message boards to word an argument cautiously to convey the meaning we want to convey. 

The key here, I think, is awareness, and the will to actually acknowledge that other people don't understand the same words the same way we are, and further, that it doesn't make them "wrong" in the context of a particular conversation, which stresses the importance of understanding the others points of view to then word our own arguments using a terminology that reaches a maximum level of understanding between each and everyone involved in the conversation.

IOW, it isn't to me about censure. It's about empathy.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Given that a certain side of this conversation seems to have a vested interest in controlling the terminology of others, or preventing them from expressing different views (i.e., "pokemounts are childish" if they hold that view), I'd say that the purpose of a conversation very much depends upon who you ask.
> 
> IOW, I read Squire James' comment as being directed against the "wrongbadfun police".




Ummmm, no.  Please stop misquoting me.

I never said that you cannot disagree with an idea.  What I am saying is that using loaded terminology is a bad idea.  You can certainly use that terminology, but, then, don't complain when you are misunderstood.  

Or, to put it another way, I have no problem with the idea of "great clomping nerdism".  Therefore, you shouldn't either.  It's simply a descriptive term which denotes an overreliance on detail over substance.  You should entirely ignore the connotations contained within the sentence since that's not what I mean.

See how it works?  Wow, I can say anything and then pooh pooh people's reactions.

Oh, you asked when magic Walmarts would have descriptive value.  IMO, never.  It's simply too loaded a term to use with any value.  I suppose if you had a campaign in which the company Walmart actually existed and sold magic items, then it might be fine, since it actually exists as a concrete idea.  However, as a descriptive term, it's vague and without any real value other than to agitate.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> For instance, "The implication here is that any element with the "poke" prefix is also a children's thing, and, as such, only appeals to those whose tastes are the same as a child's. "
> 
> Poke-x has no such implication for me and therefore is simply a shorthand for the slightly distasteful handling of 3.5 Paladin Mounts.




The point that you seem to be missing here though is that it doesn't matter that you don't find the term antagonistic.  Of course you don't, you're the one using it, assuming you're not trolling.  I would hope that people would use terms that they don't personally find insulting.  That makes sense.  The point is, OTHER people find the term distasteful and see it as a wrongbadfun attack on how they game.  If someone likes how 3.5 handles the paladin's mount and sees other people comparing it to something that is intended for children, then they can easily think that you are comparing their tastes to that of a child's.  Not many people appreciate being told their tastes are childish.



> The next step in your chain.. "anyone who likes the 'poke whatever' lacks maturity " is, IMHO, also a stretch. There are many great things that are targeted towards kids. The book "The Phantom Tollbooth" is one such wonder that I love to be able to read to my daughter.
> Interestingly enough, that book would be good reading for those embroiled in this discussion as the entire book is crammed with vague buzzwords that lead to nonsensical stuff... like the 'Whether Man'...
> 
> So, in your opionion the fact that this childs book appeals to me means that I lack maturity.... and somehow this means the games I run are wrongbadfun?  eh, nevermind...
> ...




"Whether man" has no connotative meaning.  Therefore it cannot really be taken as insulting or anything else.  Saying that a paladin't mount is a Murkle won't raise any feathers simply because the word has no connotative associations.  I adore LOTS of children's literature.  

I would point out that someone who likes Pokemon would likely be simply confused by the idea of Pokemount.  You are using it, in your own words, to show distaste.  But, to someone who likes Pokemon, that term would not mean what you think it means.  It would be showing appreciation.  "Wow, you think that a paladin is like a character from Pokemon?  Hey, that's a cool idea!"

So, again, your use of buzzwords simply confuses meaning.  To someone who likes the mechanics but doesn't like Pokemon, you come off as condescending.  To someone who likes Pokemon and likes the mechanic, you come off as complimentary.  To someone who doesn't like the mechanic but likes Pokemon, you come off as antagonistic since you are saying that Pokemon is bad.  Only to those who think like you, don't like the mechanic and don't like Pokemon does your meaning come clear.

So, you have four potential audiences, three of which will mistake your meaning and the only one that understands you agrees with you in the first place.  That's not exactly effective communication.


----------



## NilesB (Jul 5, 2007)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> One may not understand where negative conotations for Magic WalMart and Pokimount come from.  Unless you are discussing the term itself it doesn't matter where those negative feelings come from - they exist and that is the important thing.



The negative connotations come from the people who coined the terms, they were conceived as pejoratives.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 5, 2007)

NilesB said:
			
		

> The negative connotations come from the people who coined the terms, they were conceived as pejoratives.




I have to agree. They're right up there in the same bracket with such deliberate perjoratives as "3etard" (one which still irritates me to no end), terms coined specifically to insult people who like certain things but in such a way that they can be disingenuously passed off as "jokes" after the fact. Deliberate insults followed by claims of attempted humor are anything but humorous and, IMHO, doubly insulting.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 5, 2007)

I don't think there is a more loaded term being used in this thread than wrongbadfun, its the messageboard equivalent of playing the race card to win an argument. OMG he said I have wrongbad fun!!!! Um no, he said the game designer did a crappy job, nice try thanks for playing.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Well, that'll rather instantly make anyone who dislikes the current paladin's mount have a harder time expressing that dislike.  They won't be able to say that it reminds them of....well, anything, because we remove the terms pokemount, anime, pokemon, etc.  That will certainly make things more comfortable for some.



It would seem there's a certain Ministry of Truth mindset at work here that would like to do that very thing . . .


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 5, 2007)

Squire James said:
			
		

> That term "straw man" is a loaded term.  Don't use it.
> 
> As Maud'dib may put it, he who can destroy a conversation has control of a conversion...



Dood! I just started re-reading _Dune_ again!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Ummmm, no.  Please stop misquoting me.




Odd.  The post you clipped that from has no quote from you, incorrect or otherwise.

Please stop implying that I am misquoting you.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> It would seem there's a certain Ministry of Truth mindset at work here that would like to do that very thing . . .




No kidding.



			
				Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I don't think there is a more loaded term being used in this thread than wrongbadfun, its the messageboard equivalent of playing the race card to win an argument. OMG he said I have wrongbad fun!!!! Um no, he said the game designer did a crappy job, nice try thanks for playing.




No kidding.

Or how about the "You're misquoting me" card used on a post that doesn't quote you?

Or how about the "insulting the 3.5 paladin's mount is equivilent to insulting other posters" card (i.e., pokemount is like 3etard)?

Straw men, and all answered ad infinitum ad nauseum upthread.

And _still_, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "MagicMart" valuable as a descriptive term.  Wonder why?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 5, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> And _still_, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "MagicMart" valuable as a descriptive term.  Wonder why?



'Magic Wal-Mart' is the term under discussion.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> 'Magic Wal-Mart' is the term under discussion.




Semantics.  And still, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "Magic Wal-Mart" valuable as a descriptive term, either.  Wonder why?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 5, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I don't think there is a more loaded term being used in this thread than wrongbadfun, its the messageboard equivalent of playing the race card to win an argument.



I'm not a wrongbadfunist, some of my best friends ride pokemounts!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 5, 2007)

Going back to the original post for a moment, if I might.



			
				Quasqueton said:
			
		

> Whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (or Magimarts, etc.). This kind of statement makes no sense.




It is interesting to note that on one hand, the OP opines that the phrase is widely used, and presumably understands what is meant by the phrase, yet on the other hand that it also makes no sense.



> The setting suggested in the core rules has no "Magic-Walmarts". Greyhawk has no Magic-Walmarts. I'm not real familiar with Eberron or Forgotten Realms, but I don't think they have Magic-Walmart-style stores either.




Examination of the core rules and various settings has shown that the "best reading" says they do not mandate Magic-Walmarts.  However, it is nonetheless quite easy to read the core rules (and some settings) and conclude that they do have Magic-Walmarts.  How these sections read depend very much upon the "filter" applies by the reader.  The Magic Item Compendium suggests that, if a player asks you if he can buy any particular magic item, that you say Yes.  No gp limit is mentioned.  It is very easy to read these rules differently than they were, perhaps, intended.



> The only times I've ever heard of anything like a Magic-Walmart in a D&D campaign, it was in a 1984 Dragon magazine, and when I played one game session with a new DM around 1991. Both of those were aberrations from the norm.




Those who believe that Magic-Walmarts are a 3e phenomenon, please take note.  In 1984, 1e was the norm.  In 1991, the game du jour was 2e.



> So, saying your preference/setting is low magic "with no Magic-Walmarts" is like saying your preference/setting is low power -- no god killing PCs. 99% of everyone's preference and setting qualifies as low magic if the definition is "no Magic-Walmarts."




This doesn't follow.  Quasqueton offers scant (if any) evidence of what the norm is, and has another thread devoted to the question of why what seemed like the norm in 1e for various people is so widely diverse.  There is no reason whatsoever to assume that, merely because Quasqueton's experience includes few Magic-Walmarts, that the average experience is the same.  Moreover, we have commentary from several people on this thread that contradict Quasqueton's experience.  Even Quasqueton's experience, unless he has played with over 100 DMs, precludes his conclusion that 99% of everyone's preference and setting qualifies as low magic if the definition is "no Magic-Walmarts."

Therefore, we must conclude that this premise is false.



> Is "high magic" defined by the existence of Magic-Walmarts? If so, there are very, very few high magic settings. Other than the two strange situations I mention above, I've never seen or heard of any.




While the inclusion of object X might make a setting high magic, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X is mandatory to make a setting high magic.  While the inclusion of object X might be a component of a high magic setting, it doesn't follow that the inclusion of object X automatically makes a setting high magic.

We can safely say that "high magic" is not defined by the existence of Magic-Walmarts.  

Moreover, this is reinforced by the observation that whenever someone talks about a preference for, or a setting is, low magic, they always comment, "there are no Magic-Walmarts" (which must be taken as a bit of hyperbole).  If someone equated high magic to the inclusion of Magic-Walmarts, they would not need additional clarification



> So why does this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick? If a DM was trying to entice me to his game by saying it was low magic because there are no Magic-Walmarts, I'd have laugh. "So, it's just like Forgotten Realms, then?"




Clearly, this phrase and comparison exist as a measuring stick because there is not a strict correlation between low magic and no Magic-Walmarts.  One can have high magic without Magic-Walmarts, and one can arguably have low magic with Magic-Walmarts.

RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 5, 2007)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> As the saying goes, when you AssUMe....




Ironically, I'd have to assume I know the last part of this expression.  Not a strong case for why non-literal issues in communication are significant.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Semantics.  And still, I note, no answer to what criteria would have to be met to claim "Magic Wal-Mart" valuable as a descriptive term, either.  Wonder why?




I did answer this.  None.  There is no criteria which would make magic walmart valuable as a descriptive term.  Why is that hard to believe?  That a politically loaded word with negative connotations is a bad phrase to use when describing something seems pretty self evident.

Of course, reading what is written would help as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> There is no criteria which would make magic walmart valuable as a descriptive term.




Thank you for making that crystal clear.  I didn't want to _assume_ an answer earlier, as you've already accused me of misquoting you when I wasn't quoting you.  

I myself would argue that the criteria which would make X valuable as a descriptive terms would be the same as the criteria which would make Y valuable as a descriptive term, regardless of what X and Y are.  Of course, I think a thing is a descriptive term or not regardless about how one actually feels about it.  I also tend to think that the value of a descriptive term is inherently based upon how well understood that term is.  I certainly wouldn't argue that a descriptive term has no value based on connotations (political, derogatory, or otherwise).  Connotative meanings _add value_ to descriptive terms.

"Bonehead" may be derogatory, but has value as a descrptive term, for instance, because it is easily understood by almost everyone.  Conversely, a term like "liberal" (which has both political and sometimes derogatory denotation/connotation) has lost some descriptive value not because of these denotations/connotations, but because the widely disparate modern useage has prevented it from being as easily understood by society as a whole.

Claiming that you understand what is meant by a term, while at the same time claiming that the term has no descriptive value, is exactly equivilent to claiming that you don't know what huzzuwits are, but you know that you don't like them.  It is a rational contradiction.

You say the term has no value as a descriptive term, and could have no value under any criteria.  You then say "That a politically loaded word with negative connotations is a bad phrase to use when describing something seems pretty self evident."  

This makes it clear that the criteria for Magic Walmart being a valuable descriptive term, far from being none, is that it somehow loses all "political" and "negative connotations".  In other words, it is not the _term_ you are objecting to per se, it is instead the _meaning of the term_ you are objecting to.  One should not say what "Magic Walmart" or "Pokemount" mean.  And that, my friend, is an attempt to control the content of conversation.  

As Gentlegamer said, "It would seem there's a certain Ministry of Truth mindset at work here that would like to do that very thing . . ."

RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2007)

> "Bonehead" may be derogatory, but has value as a descrptive term, for instance, because it is easily understood by almost everyone. Conversely, a term like "liberal" (which has both political and sometimes derogatory denotation/connotation) has lost some descriptive value not because of these denotations/connotations, but because the widely disparate modern useage has prevented it from being as easily understood by society as a whole.




It's also possible that the terms come to mean different things for different speakers, and the loss of value is not in the usage per se, but in different interpretations of the word in different cultural milieu. If I say "fag," as an American, I'll be meaning something quite a bit apart from if I say it as a Brit, after all. And if I'm a Brit speaking to an American, I'll have two choices once I realize the terms have different (both legitimate) meanings: continue to use the term, be often misunderstood, and insist that I have every right to use the term, that it is accurate, and that others should make the effort to understand me. OR, speak in such a way that my language will be understood -- often by using a different term. Perhaps I will loose some of the zingy punch of calling my smokestick a fag, but I will gain an understanding of the content of my message. And if that's not my goal, maybe I'm only talking to hear my own voice after all, and not to actually convey some meaning to those who listen.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

KM,

You again conflate a term that is derogatory to a person with a term derogatory to an idea.

This has been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum.

In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone.  The only thing in large dispute at this point is whether or not a term derogatory to an idea is automatically derogatory toward anyone who might like that idea.

RC


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 6, 2007)

I believe post #394 sums it all up quite well, nicely done RC!


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2007)

> You again conflate a term that is derogatory to a person with a term derogatory to an idea.




The derogatory doesn't matter. What matters is that it's not nearly as well understood as you think it is. Derogatory toward a person or an idea merely exacerbates the situation, and in that case, it doesn't matter whether it's a person or an idea, it is derogatory and that will make individuals defensive and close off much meaningful conversation. If I call someone's ideas idiotic tripe, if I imply that smart, relevant people don't have those ideas, so the speaker must not be one of those.

The same thing occurs if someone in Atlanta asks me "What kind of Coke do you want?" Everyone in Atlanta may know what that means, heck, maybe everyone in a 100-mile radius around the entire state of Georgia knows what that means, but ask someone from North Dakota that, and you won't get your point across very well. That's not derogatory, but it isn't the most effective means of communication, especially if I keep insisting that I get to use Coke as catch-all reference for carbonated beverages while I'm on vacation in the Theodore Roosevelt National Park. If it *was* derogatory, or even just perceived as such, that would just create MORE barriers to conversation.

Turns out, more than a handful of people consider *Magic Wal-Mart* to be derogatory, so insisting you need to use the phrase in the face of people who are going to get offended is basically saying "I don't care about communicating effectively, I care about using the language I want to use." It's well within your rights, but a spade's a spade: you're not talking with someone at that point, you're just talking at them.



> In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone. The only thing in large dispute at this point is whether or not a term derogatory to an idea is automatically derogatory toward anyone who might like that idea.




Hahahahaha. That you can assume, with how long this thread has gone on, that Magic Walmart and Pokemount have definitions that are anywhere close to accepted, and that it can actually be decided by sane discussion whether or not the reader should or should not take them as derogatory makes me think that you are bafflingly Quixotic about this thread, and perhaps about language in general.

But good luck with this exercise in herding cats. I'm sure whatever conclusion you reach, nothing will change, people will still be offended by these terms, and you will continue to tell them they should not be, because you didn't mean it _like that_. C'est le vive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But good luck with this exercise in herding cats. I'm sure whatever conclusion you reach, nothing will change, people will still be offended by these terms, and you will continue to tell them they should not be, because you didn't mean it _like that_. C'est le vive.




As you well know, I am capable of changing my mind in the light of a good argument.

However, it is also clear that you failed to understand my argument.  There is no "I didn't mean it _like that_".  I grant that the phrase is derogatory toward the idea.  What I do not grant, and do not accept, is that a _phrase which is derogatory toward an idea should be considered derogatory toward people_.

Moreover, since it is clear that it is _the idea conveyed_ which is objected to, altering terminology in this case wouldn't serve to further conversation.  It would serve to shut it down.

Answer the points I've made, and I'll respond.  Continue to repeat points that have been answered _ad infinitum ad nauseum_, and you'll need somebody else to fill your dance card.  I will note that the two times you _did_ convince me to change my mind it was because you eventually _answered the points raised_.

I wish you luck.

RC


----------



## Hussar (Jul 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Thank you for making that crystal clear.  I didn't want to _assume_ an answer earlier, as you've already accused me of misquoting you when I wasn't quoting you.
> 
> *snip for blah blah blah*
> 
> RC




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.  



> Given that a certain side of this conversation seems to have a vested interest in controlling the terminology of others, or preventing them from expressing different views (i.e., "pokemounts are childish" if they hold that view), I'd say that the purpose of a conversation very much depends upon who you ask.




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.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 6, 2007)

I think that this thread pretty much demonstrates that "Magic Walmart" is a useless term, because debating the offensiveness or non-offensiveness of the term has entirely taken over the thread. Which is pretty much also what happens when someone says "pokemount" or any of the other, loaded terms that get bandied about. The discussion screeches to a halt while everyone goes off on a seven page tangent about what the terms means, whether it is offensive or not, and how, even if it _might_ be offensive, _they_ were just using it in a non-offending way and so on.

Which pretty much occludes the actual nature of the issue which is this: what level of commodification of magic is appropriate, and has anyone actually gamed in a campaign in which magic was treated as being available in a similar way to the goods in a discount department store?

But instead everyone is arguing over whether dismissive and (as originally conceived) derisive terms are or are not dismissive and derisive.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> 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.




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:



			
				Husar said:
			
		

> There is no criteria which would make magic walmart valuable as a descriptive term. Why is that hard to believe? That a politically loaded word with negative connotations is a bad phrase to use when describing something seems pretty self evident.




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.



> Are you claiming that this wasn't directed at me?  If you are, then who was this directed at?




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.



> 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.




"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, 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.




So far, rational.  But what is it about the term that you are therefore objecting to?  Let's see:



> 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.




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.


----------



## NilesB (Jul 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone.



It is understood to mean a level of magic item availability upon which the speaker heaps bile and contempt. It in no way communicates how available magic items must be before the speaker expresses this contempt.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think that this thread pretty much demonstrates that "Magic Walmart" is a useless term, because debating the offensiveness or non-offensiveness of the term has entirely taken over the thread. Which is pretty much also what happens when someone says "pokemount" or any of the other, loaded terms that get bandied about.




I think it says more about the nature of the Interweb than about the terms themselves.  And, of course, it says something about people's unwillingness to examine (or even have people post) ideas that are contrary to their own.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

NilesB said:
			
		

> It is understood to mean a level of magic item availability upon which the speaker heaps bile and contempt. It in no way communicates how available magic items must be before the speaker expresses this contempt.




In any event, it is clear that the terms (Magic Walmart, Pokemount) are understood (or largely understood) by nearly everyone.  You seem to discern heaps of bile and contempt that are, IMHO, largely fictional (IME, it is more generally basic distaste)...but you certainly get the gist of what is being said.

It is equally clear that the text in the 3.X DMGs is not so well understood.

So, which is the problem in terms of clarity of language?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 6, 2007)

I think the 3.x DMG is very well written. The tone is often of the form 'You can do things this way or that way. If you do things this way, consider the ramifications X,Y and Z.' In other words it doesn't say this is how things are, it makes it clear that different options are available but choosing any one of those options has certain consequences, commits one to certain other options, and so forth. Perfect for a game that can be played in different ways - for example high magic or low magic.

A GM describing a campaign otoh has already decided how things are. He needs to communicate that state of affairs to his players, or potential players, as clearly and succinctly as possible. This requires a different, more precise, form of language.

Which brings us back to post #1. Quasqueton's point is that saying 'My game has no magic Wal-Marts' communicates very little, as one wouldn't normally expect literal magic Wal-Marts. It's like saying 'My game has no atomic weaponry' - true but pretty uninformative.

It's become apparent from this thread though that the above description is even more useless than Quasqueton thought as the writer might be referring to metaphorical magic Wal-Marts. Or literal. The reader has no way of knowing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think the 3.x DMG is very well written.




The number of posters in various threads who interpret various bits in different ways notwithstanding.  The fact that these interpretations are often, though at odds, viable interpretations of what is written notwithstanding.

It isn't a mess, but neither is it as clear as it could be.



> Which brings us back to post #1. Quasqueton's point is that saying 'My game has no magic Wal-Marts' communicates very little, as one wouldn't normally expect literal magic Wal-Marts. It's like saying 'My game has no atomic weaponry' - true but pretty uninformative.




Answered ad infinitum ad nauseum upthread.


RC


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 6, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I think it says more about the nature of the Interweb than about the terms themselves.  And, of course, it says something about people's unwillingness to examine (or even have people post) ideas that are contrary to their own.




I am simply not seeing how using terms that are _guaranteed_ to offend others, and were originally intended as dismissive and derisive insults helps others "examine ideas contrary to their own".

If you want people to examine your ideas, don't use obnoxious terminology when advancing them.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 6, 2007)

Yet it seems to be only a vocal minority who are offended by these terms. Specifically the self proclaimed wrongbadfun victims who are screaming from the rooftops about how offended they are by these terms. I have little doubt that the vast majority of players understand that if I say there will not be magic walmarts or magicmarts in my game they know exactly what I mean. Same deal with pokemount I find it mindboggling that anyone but the designer could be personally offended if I say I don't like the pokemount its crappy/lazy game design.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 6, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Same deal with pokemount I find it mindboggling that anyone but the designer could be personally offended if I say I don't like the pokemount its crappy/lazy game design.




A lot of people like _Farscape_. A lot of others don't. Those that want to offend people who like _Farscape_ say "oh, it's that show with the muppets". Using your argument, no one should ever get annoyed that the show they like is dismissed by derisively calling it "that show with the muppets". Only the prop designers should feel slighted.

But the _intent_ is to be insulting, and so it is. Similarly, when someone talks about 3.5, people who _intend_ to be insulting say "oh, that version with the pokemounts", and dismiss the edition in a derisive manner and, by implication, dismiss the opinions of those who like it. Once you understand this, then you will understand why these are entirely useless terms. Saying "no magic Walmarts" is contentless for the most part, and basically says little more than "anyone who plays different from me is a munchkin".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> A lot of people like _Farscape_. A lot of others don't. Those that want to offend people who like _Farscape_ say "oh, it's that show with the muppets". Using your argument, no one should ever get annoyed that the show they like is dismissed by derisively calling it "that show with the muppets". Only the prop designers should feel slighted.




Whether you like it or not, Farscape _is_ a show with muppets.  _Labyrinth_ and _Dark Crystal_ are movies with muppets that I quite like.  That anyone should be offended (even the prop designers, in this case) by "oh, it's that show with the muppets" makes no sense. 



> dismiss the edition in a derisive manner and, by implication, dismiss the opinions of those who like it.




Answered ad infinitum ad nauseum upthread.

You are correct in saying, in effect, that if you hate muppets, I will probably dismiss my opinion that muppets are cool.  That this somehow equates to dismissing or denegrating me overall, though, makes no sense.

That I demand that you not dismiss my opinion that "muppets are cool", though, is a clear and obvious problem.  

Here again we have evidence that it is not the term, but the meaning of the term, which is being objected to.  And the meaning is, clearly, that some people don't like what you like.  The only people that are guaranteed to be offended are those who have no desire to hear that others hold differing opinions from their own.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 6, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> A lot of people like _Farscape_. A lot of others don't. Those that want to offend people who like _Farscape_ say "oh, it's that show with the muppets". Using your argument, no one should ever get annoyed that the show they like is dismissed by derisively calling it "that show with the muppets". Only the prop designers should feel slighted.
> 
> But the _intent_ is to be insulting, and so it is. Similarly, when someone talks about 3.5, people who _intend_ to be insulting say "oh, that version with the pokemounts", and dismiss the edition in a derisive manner and, by implication, dismiss the opinions of those who like it. Once you understand this, then you will understand why these are entirely useless terms. Saying "no magic Walmarts" is contentless for the most part, and basically says little more than "anyone who plays different from me is a munchkin".




Trying to reason with a brick wall is foolish on my part. If you want to be insulted by these or any other term I am sure you can find a way but that doesn't make the term insulting only the baggage you are adding in about munchkinism and edition wars adds insult. Things which aren't commonly accepted as meaning of the term but it sure does seem to float your boat to imply otherwise.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jul 6, 2007)

What I've been seeing here. .  and what it seems RC is trying to rail against . . .is that certain individuals are internalizing waaaay too much; taking statements that are meant to give a clue into a particular idea as somehow applying to THEM instead of the IDEA.  Cripes, I know few people who I game with who don't know exactly what I mean when I say "magic Walmart" or "magic mart".  None of them (and even the ones who admit to using that approach) are offended by it.  Its a phrase that gets the idea across in most circles.  Thinking that this somehow means someone is having "wrongbadfun" if their campaign contains an element similar to this seems to indicate a lack of ability to differentiate between their games and themselves.

A healthy dose of the ability to laugh at oneself would end this whole debate right here.

But, I must admit, you all must have amazing Fort and Will saves to continue this thing for so long . . . that, plus a Ring of Stubborness or two to go around.

YMMV


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Midknightsun said:
			
		

> But, I must admit, you all must have amazing Fort and Will saves to continue this thing for so long . . . that, plus a Ring of Stubborness or two to go around.




I use a Cloak of Stubborness.  I need those Ring slots.  

And, yes, you get _exactly_ what I am saying.

RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2007)

> certain individuals are internalizing waaaay too much;




Welcome to the human race, where my subjective experience always trumps your intentions.



> I know few people who I game with who don't know exactly what I mean when I say "magic Walmart" or "magic mart"...Its a phrase that gets the idea across in most circles.




Yours does too, I guess.

Funny how that works, and how when you assume that a definition you hold is necessarily a definition that others should hold, how _they don't_. (CF: "Coke")

Seriously, it doesn't matter what it's offensive *too*. It matters that it is messy communication that has the ADDED burden of being perceived by some as derogatory, encouraging it's messiness. If you don't WANT to be understood, fine, but it's not someone else's fault that you keep using a messy term.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Seriously, it doesn't matter what it's offensive *too*. It matters that it is messy communication that has the ADDED burden of being perceived by some as derogatory, encouraging it's messiness. If you don't WANT to be understood, fine, but it's not someone else's fault that you keep using a messy term.




Ad infinitum, ad nausuem upthread.

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?

The fact is that very, very few people have problems understanding these terms, and none whatsoever of the very vocal minority claiming that they are unclear makes a claim to not understand them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Welcome to the human race, where my subjective experience always trumps your intentions.




BTW, I would say that a large part of maturity is recognizing that our experiences are subjective, and making the attempt to understand the POV of others.  The claim that "I shouldn't have to attempt to understand your POV" is, while technically true, tantamount saying to "I shouldn't have to grow up".

IMHO, this is a stance that should be (when possible) corrected rather than catered to.  

YMMV.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2007)

> BTW, I would say that a large part of maturity is recognizing that our experiences are subjective, and making the attempt to understand the POV of others. The claim that "I shouldn't have to attempt to understand your POV" is, while technically true, tantamount saying to "I shouldn't have to grow up".
> 
> IMHO, this is a stance that should be (when possible) corrected rather than catered to.




Welcome to the human race, where your subjective opinion on what constitutes this vaguely-defined "maturity" is worth entirely the value of the paper it's written down upon, perhaps less because now it has writing on it.

Sorry, it's still the obligation of the one who wants to communicate their ideas to, y'know, try to do that, as effectively as possible. Denial of that little principle just leads to semantics debates and misunderstandings galore. Which, if you're fine with that, have fun. Me, I'd rather change what I'm saying so that they know what I mean then insist that they're being too immature or too sensitive to truly understand me. But then, I'm interested in exchanging ideas, not in having people listen to me or preserving my pet neologisms.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jul 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Welcome to the human race, where my subjective experience always trumps your intentions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Always statement are generally a very bad idea, (btw all experience is subjective) . . . and yes, it is an issue of perception, but most human beings that function moderately well in society don't automatically assume the most negative connotation possible and internalize it.  In my field we call that a half step away from neurosis.  That's not a function of humanity, its a disfunction.

Never said you had to hold a given definition.  I defend your right to hold whatever definition you want, no matter how silly it may seem to me, on any word or phrase you want, though of course the extreme of this could become complicated, as is often the case in any exercise where one takes the consequences out to the most hyperbolic ends of the spectrum.  

I do hold onto my right to use a phrase that is derogatory to a (very small) subset of a (also small) subset of people, and after explaining where I am coming from to said people.  Once i've clarified my intent, the rest is largely the listener's burden to bear, especially in a situation such as this.  I mean the initial  "Hey, what'd you mean by that?"  is expected and encouraged.  The continual outrage and nitpicking would seem to indicate some tenderness on the part of the complainer that goes beyond the phrase and or buzzward itself, and into baggage that the speaker should not have to be ever wary of agitating in some potentially over sensitive reader.  

I have no such issue with buzzwords as long as intent is clarified, and yet manage to remain a member in good standing of the human race. . . . other than those speeding tickets, but you see me and the local police just have different experiences with speed despite my best intentions. . . .


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Welcome to the human race, where your subjective opinion on what constitutes this vaguely-defined "maturity" is worth entirely the value of the paper it's written down upon, perhaps less because now it has writing on it.
> 
> Sorry, it's still the obligation of the one who wants to communicate their ideas to, y'know, try to do that, as effectively as possible. Denial of that little principle just leads to semantics debates and misunderstandings galore. Which, if you're fine with that, have fun. Me, I'd rather change what I'm saying so that they know what I mean then insist that they're being too immature or too sensitive to truly understand me. But then, I'm interested in exchanging ideas, not in having people listen to me or preserving my pet neologisms.




Answered upthread ad infinitum ad nauseum.

Once again, you conflate what is communicated with how you feel about what is communicated.  And then you attempt to prevent the initial communication that raises feelings you do not like.  This isn't a complaint against the _term_, but against _what the term is intended to communicate_.

EDIT:  Very nice response, Midknightsun.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2007)

> I do hold onto my right to use a phrase that is derogatory to a (very small) subset of a (also small) subset of people, and after explaining where I am coming from to said people.




That subset is also your audience, however. It's not like the term pops up in TV sitcoms.



> Once i've clarified my intent, the rest is largely the listener's burden to bear, especially in a situation such as this.




If an intent needs to be clarified, then it wasn't properly expressed in the first place. Much better to actually express something well in the initial conversation and avoid having to spiral into 10-page semantics discussions, no?



			
				RC said:
			
		

> Once again, you conflate what is communicated with how you feel about what is communicated.




Once again, if your communication doesn't make me feel the way you want me to feel about it, then it is poorly communicated. Those words are meant to conjure images in my head. If those don't match yours, they're not the right words to use between us. 



> And then you attempt to prevent the initial communication that raises feelings you do not like. This isn't a complaint against the term, but against what the term is intended to communicate.




I don't know what you're complaining about, really, but I know I'm complaining about the term itself. Because it doesn't effectively convey the ideas in it. If it *did* effectively convey those ideas, we wouldn't be still discussing the ramifications of the term in a 10-page semantic argument.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If an intent needs to be clarified, then it wasn't properly expressed in the first place. Much better to actually express something well in the initial conversation and avoid having to spiral into 10-page semantics discussions, no?




Answered upthread, ad infinitum ad nauseum.

No.  Because this isn't a 10-page semantics discussion.  There is very little to do with semantics in the last 10 pages.  Trying to force someone to say what you want them to say (or not say what you don't want them to say) has nothing to do with terminlogy.  The actual semantics part of this thread would be lucky to be _ten posts_ long.



> Once again, if your communication doesn't make me feel the way you want me to feel about it, then it is poorly communicated.




Only if making you feel this way or that way is the point of the communication.



> I don't know what you're complaining about, really, but I know I'm complaining about the term itself. Because it doesn't effectively convey the ideas in it. If it *did* effectively convey those ideas, we wouldn't be still discussing the ramifications of the term in a 10-page semantic argument.




Ad infinitum, ad nausuem upthread.

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?

The fact is that very, very few people have problems understanding these terms, and none whatsoever of the very vocal minority claiming that they are unclear makes a claim to not understand them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 6, 2007)

Well, it's Friday and work is done.  I'm sure there'll be a lot here the next time that I check in, and if someone has actually said something different from "I'm offended, but I don't want to admit that I'm offended therefore it's about language clarity" I'll answer.

If you post something that can be answered by cut & pasting the ad infinitum ad nauseum (and thus far unanswered) responses to the same point, made over and over upthread, don't be surprised if you need to get someone else to fill out your dance card, though.


----------



## Midknightsun (Jul 6, 2007)

> If an intent needs to be clarified, then it wasn't properly expressed in the first place. Much better to actually express something well in the initial conversation and avoid having to spiral into 10-page semantics discussions, no?




Communication is a messy business, and its often amazing sometimes how words can fail to completely convey ideas in a vacuum of singularity.  Its also a dynamic process that requires a string of these amazing little things to get a point across, and even then sometimes with misunderstanding.  People are different, and I accept that not everyone will know where i'm coming from right away on a variety of issues or even terms.  That's why we clarify. It is a far more common result of communication than the type of word efficiency you are suggesting, and I believe, a more profitable one in the long run, as you are more likely to learn the various underpinnings of others intentions through further communication.  

Like i said before, I've had no issues (except here, apparently) where my intentions were grossly misread.  Uber efficiency in communication is not a requirement as long as the intention is made clear.  To echo RC, a bit of understanding and maturity leads to asking "why?" not merely blazing out your hatred of a word or phrase and blaming all of it on the speaker.



> That subset is also your audience, however. It's not like the term pops up in TV sitcoms




No, only some disagree with the term under discussion, and to what degree and what exact portion is largely up for debate.  This was my indirect way of saying "hey, its a game, try to lighten up".

This whole semantics-thread-argument is itself an extreme and hyperbolic example of a process that generally happens just fine in a few brief moments, when people are actually trying to understand each other, but has been complicated by stubborness --which is amounting to a largely unprofitable "nuh uh"-- "uh huh" volley back and forth.  So I'm going to just leave and occasionally watch this abomination of a thread linger on as long as you need it so you get your much desired last word in, and therefore, "win" by manner of persistence, despite what entreaties have been made to help show you that the word/phrase is, as I said before, being internalized far too much and is not intended as a personal slight.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 6, 2007)

*...curse my inability to drop it and my boredom here at work!*



> Trying to force someone to say what you want them to say (or not say what you don't want them to say) has nothing to do with terminlogy.




...right, because trying to force someone to do anything is really what's going on at all anywhere in this thread.

The way I read it, the OP had a complaint about a term, it was discussed for a while, and gradually transformed into several people (call them the Martians) saying that the OP has the wrong definition for the term, a point which was challenged by others saying they totally understood what the OP was talking about (call them the Anti-Martians), and it wasn't what these Martians are saying the term means. Many of these Anti-Martians supported the OP's position that the term doesn't work for what it wants to work for. The Martians disagreed, claiming that the Anti-Martians were just being hyper-sensitive (the giant "taking offense" strawman).

I, as an Anti-Martian, believe the term doesn't work for what it is intended for. I don't care about the reasons for this (though I do believe to assume it is because everyone who is against the term is taking needless offense is disingenuous). All I care about is that the term does not work as it is intended to work. I don't want to fix things so that it can work as the Martians intend. Rather, I point out the flaws in the word, including a needlessly subjective definition that the OP obviously didn't understand. 

And your defense, as a Martian, is "You're _really_ emotionally damaged by the phrase, you're trying to control my words, we're not talking about definitions any more." 

It doesn't matter how I feel or what motives I truly have. All that really matters is if the word is useful for the purposes of comment. My rational, educated answer, is "No." Why? Because it doesn't convey the message it means to. My evidence? The first post, plus everyone saying "I don't mean _that_!"

Sure, a reasonable person can disagree with me and say that the meaning is clear, but they'd really have to demonstrate that this thread didn't just start off with a conversation about how the OP's definition of the term was wrong from some angles and accurate from others to convince me of that. 



> Only if making you feel this way or that way is the point of the communication.




The intent of the communication doesn't matter. How the communication is _received_ does. If the point of communication isn't to cause someone to receive some meaning, it's just parrot-talk. 



> 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.




#1: You're wrong. I don't need to evolve myself to propose a theory of evolution, I don't need to eat a maggot to question their tastiness, and I don't need to be unclear myself to say that the term is unclear. 

#2: I am arguing that Magic Walmart means significantly different things to enough of the intended audience to render it more useless than other, competing, more efficient, more specific terms. Such as "easily buying magic items."



> 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?




The whole "offensive" tangent is entirely pointless. What makes the term less clear than "easily buying magic items" should be fairly evident: It's more ambiguous. Offense or not really only describes how hard it is to get to a clear definition of the term that all can understand. 



> Answered upthread, ad infinitum ad nauseum.




The fact that you don't see the problem with this statement, is the problem with this statement.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 6, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I, as an Anti-Martian, believe the term doesn't work for what it is intended for. I don't care about the reasons for this (though I do believe to assume it is because everyone who is against the term is taking needless offense is disingenuous). All I care about is that the term does not work as it is intended to work. I don't want to fix things so that it can work as the Martians intend. Rather, I point out the flaws in the word, including a needlessly subjective definition that the OP obviously didn't understand.
> 
> And your defense, as a Martian, is "You're _really_ emotionally damaged by the phrase, you're trying to control my words, we're not talking about definitions any more."
> 
> It doesn't matter how I feel or what motives I truly have. All that really matters is if the word is useful for the purposes of comment. My rational, educated answer, is "No." Why? Because it doesn't convey the message it means to. My evidence? The first post, plus everyone saying "I don't mean _that_!"




I think you have a skewed view of the "anti-Martian" stance in this thread.  It seems to me that the discussion can be summarized as such:

pro-M:  I find the word "martian" to be useful shorthand.  If you don't find it to be so, you don't have to use it.
anti-M:  The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should ever use it.
pro-M: Why shouldn't I use it, if I find that it works fine for me?
anti-M: The word "martian" is purposefully inflammatory, if you use it you are accusing others of having wrongbadfun.  Therefore, nobody should use it.
pro-M: I'm not using it to insult anyone, I'm using it as shorthand.  Please explain how it is insulting.
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should use it.
pro-M:  How does that answer the previous question?
anti-M: The word "martian" is purposefully inflammatory, if you use it you are accusing others of having wrongbadfun.  Therefore, nobody should use it.
pro-M: How does that answer the previous question?
anti-M: The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should use it.

As RC puts it, "ad infinitum, ad nauseum".

At least, that's how it looks from my POV.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> I think you have a skewed view of the "anti-Martian" stance in this thread.  It seems to me that the discussion can be summarized as such:
> 
> pro-M:  I find the word "martian" to be useful shorthand.  If you don't find it to be so, you don't have to use it.
> anti-M:  The word "martian" is confusing and vague, therefore nobody should ever use it.
> ...




That sums it up, with one major exception:  You cannot, from a rational viewpoint, both fail to understand a word and argue that it is purposefully inflammatory.  The anti-M view is that these mutually contradictory things should somehow both be true.

Not to mention the viewpoint that "Therefore, nobody should use it" being coupled with "I'm not trying to tell people what they shouldn't use".

Thankfully, most people can see the contradictions in the anti-M position right away, or at the very least understand them once they are pointed out.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> That sums it up, with one major exception:  You cannot, from a rational viewpoint, both fail to understand a word and argue that it is purposefully inflammatory.  The anti-M view is that these mutually contradictory things should somehow both be true.



Ah, but what if the position is:

'Magic Wal-Marts' can be used in either a literal or parodic sense. If literal then it is near useless, if parodic then it is unnecessarily inflammatory. The fact that it has more than one sense makes it hard to understand.

That's not a contradiction.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter how I feel or what motives I truly have. All that really matters is if the word is useful for the purposes of comment. My rational, educated answer, is "No." Why? Because it doesn't convey the message it means to. My evidence? The first post, plus everyone saying "I don't mean _that_!"





Ad infinitum, ad nausuem upthread.

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?

The fact is that very, very few people have problems understanding these terms, and none whatsoever of the very vocal minority claiming that they are unclear makes a claim to not understand them.

By your reasoning, "hit dice" is not a useful term for comment so long as every time you say "hit dice" I demand that what you really mean is that you hit people with dice.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 7, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> pro-M: Why shouldn't I use it, if I find that it works fine for me?



When one is attempting to communicate it's not just a matter of 'I' and 'me'.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> pro-M: I'm not using it to insult anyone, I'm using it as shorthand.  Please explain how it is insulting.



It's not insulting exactly but it's unnecessarily inflamatory. There are better phrases available to say what you mean. Why not use those instead?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Ah, but what if the position is:
> 
> 'Magic Wal-Marts' can be used in either a literal or parodic sense. If literal then it is near useless, if parodic then it is unnecessarily inflammatory. The fact that it has more than one sense makes it hard to understand.
> 
> That's not a contradiction.




Doug, thank you for being the first person to actually attempt to answer the opposition, as opposed to merely saying "nuh uh" ad infinitum ad nauseum.  Unfortunately, these points have been answered upthread long ago.

In order to be useless in a literal sense, then no one would have to know what is meant by Magic Walmart.  As has been noted, this phrase is used in conversations regularly, and seldom do people claim to be unable to understand what is meant.  Indeed, of the very vocal minority railing against the term, no one has yet claimed to not understand what the term means in either a literal or a pardoic sense.

Are you claiming that you do not understand what Magic Walmart means in a literal sense?

The idea that the phrase is unecessarily inflammatory has also been answered ad infinitum ad nauseum upthread.  I'll quote Midknightsun:

yes, it is an issue of perception, but most human beings that function moderately well in society don't automatically assume the most negative connotation possible and internalize it. In my field we call that a half step away from neurosis. That's not a function of humanity, its a disfunction.​


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's not insulting exactly but it's unnecessarily inflamatory. There are better phrases available to say what you mean. Why not use those instead?




Example these better phrases, please.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Ourph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




In this case, the phrase should almost certainly be understood to mean "Why shouldn't I use it, if I find that it works for me _in communicating with my target audience_?"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Doug McCrae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





May I take it, then, that nothing immediately springs to mind?


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 7, 2007)

First off, I don't think I can adequately describe my amusement at and opinion of this thread without getting a warning from a mod.  Suffice to say, I'm not laughing with you.

Words and phrases come with emotional and contextual meanings beyond their literal definitions.  You don't get to use a loaded term and then complain when someone takes offense.  The mods here have proven it over and over.

The term "magic wal-mart" is a loaded term.  You can shout "nuh-uh" all you want, but it is. There are other, less loaded terms to use, ie magic shop (or shoppe, if you want to be cute), magic store, magic mall (though that's not very positive, really), arcane emporium, divine depot....  I doubt anyone in this thread has ever described a serious campaign of theirs as possessing or being in the nature of a "magic wal-mart" without some provocation to do so (sugh as this thread) and an inclination (stated or unconcious) to go against the grain.



			
				Midknightsun said:
			
		

> yes, it is an issue of perception, but most human beings that function moderately well in society don't automatically assume the most negative connotation possible and internalize it. In my field we call that a half step away from neurosis. That's not a function of humanity, its a disfunction.



This is true for most words, but some words are negative.  If I call someone a half-wit troll, it's not a compliment.  Similarly, if I mock, ridicule, insult, demean, dismiss, or otherwise denigrate something of your creation, which you have invested time and effort into and are proud of, it's not neurotic or disfunctional to take offense.  It might not be the -correct- response, depending on the context (ie, creative criticism vs simple criticism), but it's understandable and normal.

Finally...the fact that I can recognize a term as loaded, derogatory, offensive, rude, or dismissive in no way indicates my personal opinion of that term, not does it indicate that I take the term personally - no matter how useful it is to your hyperbole to say otherwise.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Example these better phrases, please.



Exampled above (and not just in my post), "ad infinitum ad nauseum".


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 7, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> This is true for most words, but some words are negative.  If I call someone a half-wit troll, it's not a compliment.  Similarly, if I mock, ridicule, insult, demean, dismiss, or otherwise denigrate something of your creation, which you have invested time and effort into and are proud of, it's not neurotic or disfunctional to take offense.  It might not be the -correct- response, depending on the context (ie, creative criticism vs simple criticism), but it's understandable and normal.




I quite agree.

But thats not what is being discussed. The apparently offensive terms are shorthand for mechanics based on popularly known, shall I say iconic, symbols in RL. 
Somehow the negative connotations that certain readers apply to the popularly known/iconic whatevers get translated into a direct insult to that reader. 


magic outlet, magic shoppe, magic stand, Bob's Bargain Barn, Magic Mart, Divine Depot etc... 
What are the difference? Simple. Its the readers application of negative connotations. A dislike of the RL Wallmart of Home Depot, or simply outlet centers can lead to the erroneous translation of the term into a personal attack.

Otay, Magic Mart is offensive to a group of people on this board. Lets add that to the 'polite board usage' notes.


Based on the latin foundation of the word, _denigrate_ is offensive to a group of people... lets add that one as well as a 'Do not use'

What other words shall we add to the Intellifilter?

My first suggestion is "ad infinitum ad nauseum".. . cause the term sickens me




> ...don't automatically assume the most negative connotation possible and internalize it.




Best advise I have ever heard.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 7, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Trying to reason with a brick wall is foolish on my part. If you want to be insulted by these or any other term I am sure you can find a way but that doesn't make the term insulting only the baggage you are adding in about munchkinism and edition wars adds insult. Things which aren't commonly accepted as meaning of the term but it sure does seem to float your boat to imply otherwise.




What you are not understanding is that the _original intent_ of terms such as "Magic Walmart" and "Pokemount" _was exactly_ to convey what you term as "baggage". They were conceived of, and used, as insults by the same people who liked to throw about phrases like "3etard". I am not _adding_ the baggage, I am recognizing that those words come part and parcel with it, and that such baggage was _intended_ by the initial creators and users of the terms. The pretend innocence you and RC put on when you try to argue that they _don't_ either demonstrates that you are disingenuous, or you have been sheltered in a gaming closet for the last five years.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Exampled above (and not just in my post), "ad infinitum ad nauseum".




So, I am to understand that magic shop, magic shoppe, magic store, magic mall, arcane emporium, and divine depot all convey the same meaning as Magic Walmart, correct?

I am also to understand that these terms are inoffensive, right?

Yet, at the same time, I am to understand that "Words and phrases come with emotional and contextual meanings beyond their literal definitions."  So, if any of the above phrases convey the same meaning as Magic Walmart, surely they must convey also the same emotional and contextual meaning, no?

Or is it the emotional and contextual meaning that is the problem?

IOW, I am not allowed to dismiss Pokemounts so lightly, because if "I mock, ridicule, insult, demean, dismiss, or otherwise denigrate something of your creation, which you have invested time and effort into and are proud of, it's not neurotic or disfunctional to take offense."

You cannot (rationally) say that two terms have the same meaning, but one term is preferable because it has a different meaning.  Hence, it is the meaning that you are actually railing against.

Some people don't like Magic Walmarts.  Some people don't like Pokemounts.  They certainly do have the right to dismiss these as game mechanics, as you have the right to dismiss THAC0 or whatever it is you don't like.  

There is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and dismissing people. 

(Going back to the OP for a moment; if no one actually uses Magic Walmarts, as the OP contends, then who is it who has invested time and effort into and is proud of these Magic Walmarts, and who therefore takes offense at the term?)

RC


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and dismissing people.



And there is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and _the whole game itself_. I suspect this is the root of their "hurt feelings" on the matter.


> (Going back to the OP for a moment; if no one actually uses Magic Walmarts, as the OP contends, then who is it who has invested time and effort into and is proud of these Magic Walmarts, and who therefore takes offense at the term?)



Those that see such terms as slams of the game system itself, and not just discrete parts of it.

I think it might help to picture Hussar and Storm Raven as the Geico Cave Man in the therapist's office.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Example these better phrases, please.



The phrase you suggested, 'magic mart', is a bit better. 'Magic shop' better still but it does suggest an establishment with a large stock which is not necessarily the case. Even better is 'magic item trade'. It's a good phrase. It doesn't annoy people. It's neutral. It imparts information. Now that's good communication!

Because that's what people mean isn't it, when they say 'No Magic Wal-Marts in my game'? They mean there's no magic item trade. Or maybe limited magic item trade. They mean that they don't follow the 3.5 default. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.

But the problem is the people using the 'Magic Wal-Mart' term aren't happy with a neutral communication of the state of their games. Nah, that's not good enough. Cause they wanna diss 3.5 while they're at it, by exaggerating the position in the 3.5 rules. They want to make the default look ridiculous, which it isn't.

It's not a major thing. No lives are lost. But it's a bit annoying.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You cannot (rationally) say that two terms have the same meaning, but one term is preferable because it has a different meaning.  Hence, it is the meaning that you are actually railing against.



That depends on what you mean by meaning.  

'TSR' and 'T$R' refer to the same company. But they don't have the same meaning.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> In this case, the phrase should almost certainly be understood to mean "Why shouldn't I use it, if I find that it works for me _in communicating with my target audience_?"



If the target audience all know what you mean, maybe the circle of people you game with, then use the phrase. But if the audience is ENWorld, that's not the case.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 9, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> If the target audience all know what you mean, maybe the circle of people you game with, then use the phrase. But if the audience is ENWorld, that's not the case.




The target audience is _never_, one imagines, _all_ of EN World, for the simple reason that some folks on EN World will simply take things in the worst possible way.

If you go back upthread, I was clear that the meaning of MagicMart or Magic Walmart included a connotation of distaste (I believe I was agreeing with Hussar there) and suggested that it was this connotation of distaste that was the real objection.

So, here we are:  Is there anyone on this thread who claims that they don't know what Magic Walmart means?

Is there anyone on this thread who claims that the word is understandable, but shouldn't be used _for any other reason than its connotative meaning_?

Because, right now, what we've got is a complaint that people shouldn't say they dismiss MagicMarts or Pokemounts.  (BTW, I use MagicMart rather than Magic Walmart as my term of choice because it better defines where my particular level of dismissal lies, not because I think it wrong to dismiss game mechanics you don't like.)


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 9, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But the problem is the people using the 'Magic Wal-Mart' term aren't happy with a neutral communication of the state of their games. Nah, that's not good enough. Cause they wanna diss 3.5 while they're at it, by exaggerating the position in the 3.5 rules. They want to make the default look ridiculous, which it isn't.




(1)  You are correct, the people using the 'Magic Wal-Mart' term want connotative meaning.  And it is, as I said long ago (and so many denied), this connotative meaning that is being railed against, rather than the descriptive value of the term.  "Thou shalt not dis magic sales."  "Thou shalt not dis Pokemounts."  Etc.

(2)  The term Magic Walmart may dis a _part of some games_ not 3.5 itself.

(3)  The way that the Core Rules are written can easily lead one to believe that some things are the default which, given best reading, are not.

(4)  There are plenty of things in the default to dis without exaggerating anything.  The easiest example is the skyrocket from 1st to 20th inherent in "Adventure Path" style play.

(5)  Even if one disses the entire game (and most of these people we're talking about _play_ the game, so that isn't too likely IMHO), it is still a game.  Being distainful of a game mechanic, or of a game system, is not the same thing as dissing people.  Pokemount I will cheerfully use.  3etard I will not (don't even like using it as an example).  There is a difference.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You cannot (rationally) say that two terms have the same meaning, but one term is preferable because it has a different meaning.  Hence, it is the meaning that you are actually railing against.



Go read up on slang (which is what we're discussing), similes, metaphors, tropes, and generally figures of speech, then come back and argue that two terms can't refer to the same thing and yet impart different connotations.



> There is a very large difference between dismissing a game mechanic and dismissing people.



There is.  Unfortunately, terms like "pokemount" and "magic wal-mart" - in my experience - usually come out when someone stops arguing against a game mechanic and starts arguing against the person supporting it.  Of those two terms, pokemount is probably the clearer and more technical - 12 pages of trollish discussion in this thread alone proves that "magic wal-mart" is not a particularly transparent phrase.

And 12 pages of a troll is enough for me.  I'm done.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 9, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> Go read up on slang (which is what we're discussing), similes, metaphors, tropes, and generally figures of speech, then come back and argue that two terms can't refer to the same thing and yet impart different connotations.




Two terms can refer to the same thing and yet have different _meanings_, yes.  As I said, it is the _meaning_ that is being railed against.  The demand to use another term with another _meaning_ is the Ministry of Truth mindset referred to earlier.



> Unfortunately, terms like "pokemount" and "magic wal-mart" - in my experience - usually come out when someone stops arguing against a game mechanic and starts arguing against the person supporting it.




The "If you don't like my game mechanic, you are personally attacking me" argument.



> Of those two terms, pokemount is probably the clearer and more technical - 12 pages of trollish discussion in this thread alone proves that "magic wal-mart" is not a particularly transparent phrase.




Ad infinitum, ad nausuem upthread.

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.

There is a difference between folks trolling to attempt to "prove" that the no one should use terms they do not like, and those people actually failing to understanding those terms.


RC


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 9, 2007)

Since the expression is used time and time again, I would like to precise it is wrongly spelled. 

*Ad infinitum, ad nauseam* would be the correct way. 
If you want to indicate repetitive arguments, *argumentum ad infinitum* is correct as well.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 9, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Since the expression is used time and time again, I would like to precise it is wrongly spelled.
> 
> *Ad infinitum, ad nauseam* would be the correct way.
> If you want to indicate repetitive arguments, *argumentum ad infinitum* is correct as well.




Thank you, sir.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 9, 2007)

Happy to oblige, my friend.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jul 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Are you actually arguing that you do not know what "Magic Walmart" means?




To be perfectly frank RC, I didn't even know what a _Walmart_ was until I visited North America back in 2001. We don't have them down here, and apparently they aren't around in Europe either. It was obviously some kind of large retail chain, but that's all I'd have to go on until I went looking for information. 

A lot of North American things are common in the world market and consciousness, but they are far from ubiquitous. The cultural capital is simply not present here, and does not hold the same connotations as it would in North America. It's one reason I prefer Magic Mart (more generic) as opposed to Magic Walmart (more specific).

Finally, there is a difference between saying that there is more than one meaning for a word (that is, the term Magic Walmart being non-transparent, and not with a single meaning that overrides all others) and not knowing the meaning of a word. You keep repeating (Ad infinitum, ad nauseam) the quoted text as if Nellesir et al are saying #2, where I feel it is closer to #1. I'd rather think better of people than assume they are ignorant.

I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I think it needs to be said that more than one person can be right. I also think it's never a bad thing to be respectful of other people/posters.

...

I'm not entirely sure why I jumped in with these comments (especially so late in the conversation), since it seems unlikely that anyone would listen.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Sound of Azure said:
			
		

> A lot of North American things are common in the world market and consciousness, but they are far from ubiquitous.




Of course not, but one doesn't need to know much more than "large retail chain" to understand the term.  



> Finally, there is a difference between saying that there is more than one meaning for a word (that is, the term Magic Walmart being non-transparent, and not with a single meaning that overrides all others) and not knowing the meaning of a word.




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_.



> You keep repeating (Ad infinitum, ad nauseam) the quoted text as if Nellesir et al are saying #2, where I feel it is closer to #1. I'd rather think better of people than assume they are ignorant.




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.



> I'm not saying you're incorrect, but I think it needs to be said that more than one person can be right.




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 also think it's never a bad thing to be respectful of other people/posters.




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.  



> I'm not entirely sure why I jumped in with these comments (especially so late in the conversation), since it seems unlikely that anyone would listen.




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


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

I don't know what 'Magic Wal-Mart' means. It might mean a single magic item shop with a large stock. It probably refers to the default 3.5 position on magic item trade in a disparaging way. It might, as Ourph says, refer to the default 3.5 position in a non-disparaging way. The writer might think that a single shop is the default position. The writer might know that it is not but wish to imply that it is.

And the problem is that, unlike 'bear', the different meanings aren't clear from context.

I think the strongest possible defence of the term is to say that it is disparaging and that that is a good thing, because you believe 3.5's magic item trade rules are ridiculous. That would leave you with the following problems:

1) Not everyone thinks it is disparaging, as this thread has demonstrated, so you won't get your point across. Whether you wish to mock, or not to mock, there's more precise language available.
2) Adding fuel to the edition war blaze.
3) When it was first coined, it was clever. Now it's worn out. If you want to mock, do it with a bit of style and wit. Be original. Make up your own term.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 10, 2007)

I realize I said I was done, but there are a number of points here that I disagree with, and may shed some light on the disagreement.



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course not, but one doesn't need to know much more than "large retail chain" to understand the term.




I disagree.  Knowing Wal-Mart is a large retail chain (the largest, I believe, worldwide), is certainly fundamental, but there are connotations to Wal-Mart that don't exist with, say, Target or Ikea, and those connotations are important to establishing Magic Wal-Mart as a negative - not a neutral - term.



> Repeatedly, we have heard people arguing that Magic Walmart isn't a good term



 Yes.


> because it isn't well defined enough to have a discrete meaning,



 Not from me


> so we should replace it with a term that carries a less discrete meaning (such as magic shop),



 yes, but because of the reason below, not the reason above


> and besides, (paradoxically) its understood meaning connotes dismissal of the concept.



Yes.



> 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_.



The only difference between magic shop and magic wal-mart, in my opinion, is that the former is neutral, and the latter is negative.  It seems that you don't view magic wal-mart as negative, or that you have no problem using negative terms (which is above and beyond a simple disagreement).  In either case, there's a disagreement about the term magic wal-mart that does not exist with magic shop, yet both refer to the same fundamental concept in RPGs.  The only meaning that is removed is the negativity, which isn't anymore necessary to a respectful conversation than swearing.



> 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.



Not I.  Derogatory terms absolutely have descriptive value.  Derogatory descriptive value.  If they didn't have value, they wouldn't be derogatory - they'd be meaningless.



> 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.



Part of my objection, as stated upthread, is that I have rarely, if ever, seen the term magic wal-mart used in a respectful fashion in a discussion about game mechanics.  I've nearly always, if not always, seen it used negatively - as a means to put down someone else's style of gaming.  I have no opinion about the gaming style or mechanics myself - I object to the term.



> 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.



Answered above.



> I would agree, but I don't think that showing distaste for a game mechanic should be considered disrespectful to other people/posters.



I agree, but that's not how I see this term used.



> OTOH, I think that telling other people/posters that they should not show their distaste for a game mechanic is enormously disrespectful.



I agree...but I think that the exhibition of distaste has a time and place, and can be done respectfully.  It might not be done so often, but that's all the more reason to fight back against it.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

I don't even like the term 'magic shop'. There's no agreement on what it means. Some people think it's shorthand for 'magic item trade' ie metaphorical magic shops whereas others think it refers to literal magic shops, with anachronistically large stocks. To my mind, the former's a lot more plausible than the latter, in a D&D universe.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I've nearly always, if not always, seen it used negatively



Usually in posts that also use the following words and phrases: 'video game', 'dungeonpunk', 'whining players', 'sense of entitlement', 'instant gratification' and any of a number of misspellings of 'medieval'. The last one being the most original element.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> The phrase you suggested, 'magic mart', is a bit better. 'Magic shop' better still but it does suggest an establishment with a large stock which is not necessarily the case. Even better is 'magic item trade'. It's a good phrase. It doesn't annoy people. It's neutral. It imparts information. Now that's good communication!
> 
> Because that's what people mean isn't it, when they say 'No Magic Wal-Marts in my game'? They mean there's no magic item trade. Or maybe limited magic item trade. They mean that they don't follow the 3.5 default. And there's nothing wrong with that at all.
> 
> ...




Doug FTW.

Look, I cannot believe that people are arguing in favour of ambiguity.  That just blows my mind.  Let's take the term Magic Walmart.  It can be interpreted as follows:


As a single, large physical place where magic items can be bought an sold.  This is the literal definition.

A shorthand for easy trade in magic items.  Items can be bought and sold in any area large enough to support the trade and shopping is largely hand waved.  This is a fairly neutral connotation.

A shorthand phrase for elitist DM's 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.  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.

A shorthand phrase, originally coined in edition war threads, used as a derogatory phrase to talk about player entitlement and DM disempowerment inherent in 3e.

Now, however one wants the phrase to be interpreted is irrelevant.  The phrase will be interpreted by the reader.  When RC asked if the phrase had any descriptive value, I said no.  He jumped on that to mean that I had said that the phrase couldn't be used to describe something.  That is mistaken.  You can use "Magic Wal-mart" to describe lots of things.  That's the problem.  It's too vague.  It's an internet neologism created by D&D players, so of course it is vague and imprecise.

Doug MCCrae put it best above:

'magic item trade'​
A perfectly accurate phrase that carries no baggage.  Completely neutral.  A DM could say, "Hey, I'm starting a new campaign.  In my new campaign, magic item trade will be restricted to items less than 1000 gp in value."  Poof, no connotation.  Direct, to the point and no one is going to see him as an elitist DM or as starting yet another edition war.

Why are you guys arguing in favour of ambiguity?  So vehemently that you are now calling me a caveman and comparing me to the Thought Police?  Why does being ambiguous in your language mean so much to you?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

> OTOH, I think that telling other people/posters that they should not show their distaste for a game mechanic is enormously disrespectful.




I missed that gem the first time around.

Quote please.  Show one example where that is true RC.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't even like the term 'magic shop'. There's no agreement on what it means. Some people think it's shorthand for 'magic item trade' ie metaphorical magic shops whereas others think it refers to literal magic shops, with anachronistically large stocks. To my mind, the former's a lot more plausible than the latter, in a D&D universe.




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 (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking 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.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking 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.




Can you show me a quote where a poster is telling another poster in this thread that they should never show distaste for a mechanic?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> When RC asked if the phrase had any descriptive value, I said no.  He jumped on that to mean that I had said that the phrase couldn't be used to describe something.




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:
			
		

> Oh, you asked when magic Walmarts would have descriptive value. IMO, never. It's simply too loaded a term to use with any value. I suppose if you had a campaign in which the company Walmart actually existed and sold magic items, then it might be fine, since it actually exists as a concrete idea. However, as a descriptive term, it's vague and without any real value other than to agitate.




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:
			
		

> A shorthand phrase for elitist DM's 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. 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.




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.



> A shorthand phrase, originally coined in edition war threads, used as a derogatory phrase to talk about player entitlement and DM disempowerment inherent in 3e.




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 (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Can you show me a quote where a poster is telling another poster in this thread that they should never show distaste for a mechanic?




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 (Jul 10, 2007)

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.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

RC said:
			
		

> 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.




Well, considering Walmart didn't hit #1 in America until 1990, it would be pretty unlikely that anyone would use the term "Magic Walmart" before 2e.  And, even in 2e days, it would still be pretty unlikely outside of the US.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> See, you can express distaste without appearing like an elitist.  It's possible.  Of course, it requires basic writing skills, but, it is possible.




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


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

> I can also just say "MagicMart", and something along the lines of 80-99% of readers are going to know what I mean.




How do you know that?  What proof do you have?  Other than just "going with your gut".

By your arguement, the following statement should be crystal clear:

My campaign has magic walmarts but doesn't have magic walmarts.​
So, what does the above statement mean?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Well, considering Walmart didn't hit #1 in America until 1990, it would be pretty unlikely that anyone would use the term "Magic Walmart" before 2e.  And, even in 2e days, it would still be pretty unlikely outside of the US.




I think we can feel certain that the phrase was coined in the US.

I think we can reasonably suspect that the phrase was coined well before Walmart hit #1.

Moreover, I think we can feel certain that similar phrases were used before Walmart hit #1.

Of course, 2e at least was weird about the whole concept.  They said, point blank, that buying and selling magic items wasn't a good idea.  And they included the Arcane in the Core Rules.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> How do you know that?  What proof do you have?  Other than just "going with your gut".




Experience.



> By your arguement, the following statement should be crystal clear:
> 
> My campaign has magic walmarts but doesn't have magic walmarts.​
> So, what does the above statement mean?




That, in your desperation to avoid admitting that the term is no more vague than "magic item trade" you're creating a straw man.

By your arguement, the following statement should be crystal clear:

My campaign has a magic item trade but doesn't have a magic item trade.​
So, what does the above statement mean?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I don't know what 'Magic Wal-Mart' means.




Doug, I have to respect your willingness to say that.  But, if I were to replace the term with "magic item trade", it might mean a single magic item shop with a large stock. It probably refers to the default 3.5 position on magic item trade.  The writer might think that a single shop is the default position.  The writer might know that it is not but wish to imply that it is.

The only difference is that "magic item trade" does not, at this time, have a negative connotation.

This is still a reaction which, IMHO, seems nothing more than "How dare you express a distaste for the easy purchase and sale of magic items?"  Or also, in this case, "If you're going to express such a distaste, can you do it in a fashion that better entertains me?"

(With the understanding that, thus far, "If you're going to express such a distaste, can you do it in a fashion that better entertains me?" is by far the best argument I've yet heard for MagicMart being replaced with another term.   )


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But, Magic Item Trade does not carry the same connotative meanings as Magic Walmart, thus, your statement falls apart.  Because Magic item trade is not vague, you cannot use it that way.

However, Magic Walmart, as evinced in this thread, can mean "a single location where magic is bought and sold" *AND* that magic items can be easily bought and sold.  Thus the statement, "My campaign has magic walmarts but doesn't have magic walmarts" can easily mean, 

My campaign allows for easy trade in magic items but not in a single location for all items.​
See the difference?

As far as your experience goes RC, well, you were very quick to discount Quasqueton's experience earlier in this thread.  What makes your experience any more universal?


----------



## Imp (Jul 10, 2007)

Magic E-Bay.

Die, argument, die.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

Imp said:
			
		

> Magic E-Bay.
> 
> Die, argument, die.




The, Arguement, The? 

Now that doesn't make _any_ sense.


----------



## Numion (Jul 10, 2007)

I think it speaks volumes on whether the term "Magic Walmart" is mostly used as insulting, that people are quick to state "My game _doesn't_ have Magic Walmarts", but nobody ever states their games _do_ have them.

If the term was without negative connotations and it was as easily understood as RC says, people would have no problem saying they have them in-game.

Further, the argument that something isn't an insult because the user doesn't think so .. um, my grandpa seems to thinks so also; he uses several racial terms most would consider racist, but aren't in his mind (since that's what schoolbooks said in his day). Doesn't make him right. Not trying to make the things equal, but ..


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 10, 2007)

WalMart: a store where you can buy just about anything.
Magic-WalMart: a store where you can buy just about any magic item.

Magic item trade in DnD 3.5 boils down to; in a large enough city with enough gold you can buy just about any magic item.

When I tell the players in my groups "there are no Magic-Walmarts" they know exactly what I mean. There is no assumption by the other two DMs in the group that I have crapped upon thier gaming style or upon thier game. I have instead with two simple terms (no magic-walmarts) conveyed the parameters of my game regarding magic item trade. I cannot say no magic shops because there are in fact magic shops.

This is a very simple concept why a handful of people can't understand this boggles the mind and leads me to believe its mostly about stubborness. Anything can be considered insulting by anyone. As much as you want to imply that Walmart is bad or wrong nothing could be further from the truth. Walmart fills a much needed role for a lot of people in this country. The same role Kmart filled before it and Sears before it and Woolworth before it etc etc. What ever baggage you have against Walmart get over it.


----------



## Numion (Jul 10, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> This is a very simple concept why a handful of people can't understand this boggles the mind and leads me to believe its mostly about stubborness.




Right back at ya. There's only a handful of active people on either side of the argument.



> Anything can be considered insulting by anyone.




Ergo, nothing is really insulting?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> But, Magic Item Trade does not carry the same connotative meanings as Magic Walmart, thus, your statement falls apart.




WTF?



> Because Magic item trade is not vague, you cannot use it that way.




Obviously, you understand Magic Walmart _*much better*_ than Magic Iten Trade, because Magic Item Trade can indeed mean "a single location where magic is bought and sold" *AND* that magic items can be easily bought and sold.  Thus the statement, "My campaign has a Magic Item Trade but doesn't have a Magic Item Trade" can easily mean, 

My campaign allows for easy trade in magic items but not in a single location for all items.​


> See the difference?




It exists only in your mind, my friend.



> As far as your experience goes RC, well, you were very quick to discount Quasqueton's experience earlier in this thread.  What makes your experience any more universal?




You will note, I hope, that I didn't say my experience was universal.  I said "something along the lines of 80-99% of readers are going to know what I mean".   Clearly I do not mean those readers I have never dealt with.  I am not saying, for example, that people in your home gaming group would know what I mean.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I think it speaks volumes on whether the term "Magic Walmart" is mostly used as insulting, that people are quick to state "My game _doesn't_ have Magic Walmarts", but nobody ever states their games _do_ have them.




Myself being an exception, I suppose, as I said I have run games with them.  Actually, so have several people earlier in this thread.



> If the term was without negative connotations and it was as easily understood as RC says, people would have no problem saying they have them in-game.




I don't claim that the term is without negative connotations.  I claim that it is easily understood, and that the only real contention anyone is honestly offering is about those connotations.



> Further, the argument that something isn't an insult because the user doesn't think so .. um, my grandpa seems to thinks so also; he uses several racial terms most would consider racist, but aren't in his mind (since that's what schoolbooks said in his day). Doesn't make him right. Not trying to make the things equal, but ..




I hope you can see the difference between saying insulting things about _people_ and about _game terms_.  (Actually, I think that a lot of this argument boils down to a very vocal minority being unable to do just that.)


RC


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 10, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Ergo, nothing is really insulting?




Ergo, it is the readers responsibility to consider context prior to declaring something a personal attack.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Ergo, it is the readers responsibility to consider context prior to declaring something a personal attack.




There's waaaaaayyyyy too much reader entitlement going on these days.  I blame it on the video-gamey aspect of message boards.



(Just kidding.  Shadeydm has the right of it, IMHO.)


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 10, 2007)

I guess the thread subject is now whether "Magic Walmarts" is a "wrongbadterm."


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> When I tell the players in my groups "there are no Magic-Walmarts" they know exactly what I mean. There is no assumption by the other two DMs in the group that I have crapped upon thier gaming style or upon thier game. I have instead with two simple terms (no magic-walmarts) conveyed the parameters of my game regarding magic item trade. I cannot say no magic shops because there are in fact magic shops.



So you and your group understand the term to mean an actual physical single big shop with a large stock? A literal Magic Wal-Mart. And the term has no negative connotations.

For your group that's a good term, as its meaning is clear to you. But on ENWorld there's no such clear understanding.

You, Ourph and RC I think all mean different things by it:

Shadeydm: Literal magic Wal-Marts, with no negative connotation.
Ourph: Metaphorical magic Wal-Marts, with no negative connotation.
RC: Metaphorical magic Wal-Marts, with a negative connotation.


----------



## Numion (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> (Actually, I think that a lot of this argument boils down to a very vocal minority being unable to do just that.)




*raises fist* "We're _not_ a *minority*!"


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I guess the thread subject is now whether "Magic Walmarts" is a "wrongbadterm."




Was the subject ever anything else?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> So you and your group understand the term to mean an actual physical single big shop with a large stock? A literal Magic Wal-Mart. And the term has no negative connotations.
> 
> For your group that's a good term, as its meaning is clear to you. But on ENWorld there's no such clear understanding.
> 
> ...




From my perspective RC has "won"(if such a thing is actually possible) this thread at least 5 different times (a conservative estimate). I do not deny that the term Magic-Walmart can be used in a negative way, clearly it can. I do maintain however that it is not a negative term by default regardless of usage.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> For your group that's a good term, as its meaning is clear to you. But on ENWorld there's no such clear understanding.
> 
> You, Ourph and RC I think all mean different things by it:




Yet, if any one of us say "No Magic Walmarts", we and our players understand it to mean that there are no literal magic Wal-Marts or metaphorical magic Wal-Marts, and depending upon context and/or tone (in spoken conversation) they can easily determine whether or not there is a negative connotation.

Moreover, the other terms suggested are equally vague.  If we started, for example, with some criteria by which we can determine that a term is clear enough for use, we could then apply that criteria and see whether or not "Magic Walmart" is clear.  Unfortunately, my request for such clarification has, thus far, fallen on deaf ears.

(Or, perhaps, clarifying how a term can be clear -- apart from claiming that a derogatory term cannot be clear -- includes with it a chance that, when examined, a term might be shown to be clear, making some perhaps reluctant to walk down that road.)

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> I do maintain however that it is not a negative term by default regarless of usage.




I agree with this as well.  I just happen to also agree with Hussar that its predominant usage includes a negative connotation.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Obviously, you understand Magic Walmart _*much better*_ than Magic Iten Trade, because Magic Item Trade can indeed mean "a single location where magic is bought and sold" *AND* that magic items can be easily bought and sold.  Thus the statement, "My campaign has a Magic Item Trade but doesn't have a Magic Item Trade" can easily mean,
> 
> My campaign allows for easy trade in magic items but not in a single location for all items.​



It's true that all the senses of 'magic Wal-Mart' (apart from the negative connotation) are contained within the single sense of 'magic item trade'. The latter is a more precise term though as it would have fewer senses of meaning if it had a dictionary definition.

Magic Wal-Mart:
1) Magic items can be bought and sold.
2) Single big store.

Magic item trade:
1) Magic items can be bought and sold.

The meaning of sense (2) is contained within sense (1), but I see 'magic item trade' as being the more precise of the two terms as it has fewer senses of meaning.

For example if I say my game has Magic Wal-Marts, intending sense 1, a reader may interpret that as sense 2 and then criticise my game for being implausible. But that would be a misunderstanding. A misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if I instead said my game had magic item trade. The reader still wouldn't know if there were literal magic shops. But they wouldn't *assume* there were.

Also the phrase is almost always used in negation. That was Quasqueton's example in post 1. 'My game doesn't contain Magic Wal-Marts' versus 'My game doesn't have trade in magic items.' The meaning of the latter sentence is clearer in every way.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> From my perspective RC has "won"(if such a thing is actually possible) this thread at least 5 different times (a conservative estimate).



There's a joke about arguing on the internet being like competing in the Special Olympics, with a punchline I can't deliver on these boards. Suffice to say, we're all losers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's true that all the senses of 'magic Wal-Mart' (apart from the negative connotation) are contained within the single sense of 'magic item trade'. The latter is a more precise term though as it would have fewer senses of meaning if it had a dictionary definition.




Magic Wal-Mart:
1) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
2) Single big store.

EDIT:  The meaning of sense (2) is contained within sense (1), so a better definition might be "Magic items can be easily bought and sold, possibly within a single establishment, or within an area that acts as a single establishment for game purposes".  Clear enough, says I, and far more precise than Magic Item Trade:

Magic Item Trade:
1) Magic items can be bought and sold with difficulty.
2) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
3) Magic items can be found in big stores.
4) Magic items can be bought from individual artisans.
5) Etc.

For example if I say my game has a Magic Item Trade, intending sense 2, a reader may interpret that as sense 1 and then criticise my game for being difficult and elitist.  But that would be a misunderstanding.  A misunderstanding that wouldn't have happened if I instead said my game had Magic Walmarts.  The reader still wouldn't know there were literal magic shops.  If I said there was a Magic Item Trade he might *assume* there were, or might *assume* there were not.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> There's a joke about arguing on the internet being like competing in the Special Olympics, with a punchline I can't deliver on these boards. Suffice to say, we're all losers.




Amen.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 10, 2007)

Yes, meanwhile that RFP im supposed to be working on is collecting dust because like a moth to the flame I find this stuff irresistable lol.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> 1) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.




For purposes of the definition - easy for who?  The character or the player?  I think sometimes there is some confusion here between a mechanic that removes some potentially annoying complexity from the game, and what that means (or doesn't mean) in terms of what's happening within the fantasy world.  It would be like drawing conclusions about what travel/weather in Greyhawk is like based on the fact that the DM says "ok, you walk for 2 weeks and then you arrive at the destination".


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

gizmo33 said:
			
		

> For purposes of the definition - easy for who?  The character or the player?  I think sometimes there is some confusion here between a mechanic that removes some potentially annoying complexity from the game, and what that means (or doesn't mean) in terms of what's happening within the fantasy world.  It would be like drawing conclusions about what travel/weather in Greyhawk is like based on the fact that the DM says "ok, you walk for 2 weeks and then you arrive at the destination".




Honestly, I think that this is a bit of a straw man.

If something is difficult, then for the most part it is played out in game time.  You wouldn't, for example, handwave a fight with a difficult opponent, though you might for mooks that have no chance of affecting the PCs.

What you call "some potentially annoying complexity" I call "playing the game".

I would be hard pressed _not_ to draw conclusions about what travel was like in a world where the DM routinely says "ok, you walk for 2 weeks and then you arrive at the destination" just as I would be hard pressed _not_ to draw conclusions about what weather is like in a world where it is never mentioned, and never causes me any inconvenience.

For the purposes of the definition, though, I would say "easy for the players" as, IMHO & IME, no matter what the DM says, what is easy for the players automatically "feels" easy for the characters as well.

(Good question though.)


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Magic Wal-Mart:
> 1) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
> 2) Single big store.
> 
> ...




However, the problem is, the reader has to assume based on nothing.  No previous preconception about what "Magic item Trade" means, since the term does not carry any connotative meanings.

Magic Walmart, OTOH, can easily be assumed to have various meanings since it carries all that extra baggage.

ShadyDM, just because your group of gamers understands you, does not make that experience universal.  Yes, there is some onus on the reader to attempt to understand what the writer is trying to say, but, there is a far greater onus on the author to use language which properly conveys his meaning.  Knowing that "magic Walmart" carries negative baggage and is almost never used in a positive sense, means that using the term is likely going to be read as a negative.  Despite the fact that others have posted to say that they have a single location that acts like a Magic Walmart, they've also been quick to point out how this differs from a Magic Walmart.  Post 47 being a prime candidate.

Why would he so vehemently denounce calling his creation a Magic Walmart if Magic Walmart was the completely neutral term that some claim?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> However, the problem is, the reader has to assume based on nothing.  No previous preconception about what "Magic item Trade" means, since the term does not carry any connotative meanings.
> 
> Magic Walmart, OTOH, can easily be assumed to have various meanings since it carries all that extra baggage.




So, Magic Walmart is less clear because it has more meaning?

If we started, for example, with some criteria by which we can determine that a term is clear enough for use, we could then apply that criteria and see whether or not "Magic Walmart" is clear. Unfortunately, my request for such clarification has, thus far, fallen on deaf ears.

(Or, perhaps, clarifying how a term can be clear -- apart from claiming that a derogatory term cannot be clear -- includes with it a chance that, when examined, a term might be shown to be clear, making some perhaps reluctant to walk down that road.)



> Despite the fact that others have posted to say that they have a single location that acts like a Magic Walmart, they've also been quick to point out how this differs from a Magic Walmart.  Post 47 being a prime candidate.




Of course, others, such as myself, have posted to say that they have had a single location that acts like a Magic Walmart.  Period.



> Why would he so vehemently denounce calling his creation a Magic Walmart if Magic Walmart was the completely neutral term that some claim?




"Quick to point out" and "vehemently" must have little descriptive value, btw, if you mean Post 47 to demonstrate either.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

> So, Magic Walmart is less clear because it has more meaning*s*?




FIFY.



> (Or, perhaps, clarifying how a term can be clear -- apart from claiming that a derogatory term cannot be clear -- includes with it a chance that, when examined, a term might be shown to be clear, making some perhaps reluctant to walk down that road.)




Sorry, never said that.  Perhaps I'm not the only one in need of remedial reading classes.  I never said that a derogatory term cannot be clear.  I can think of all sorts of derogatory terms that would be crystal clear.  Particularly after reading this thread.  

What I said that if a term carries negative connotative baggage, then your meaning may not be clear if you don't intend that negative meaning.  That's all I've been claiming since the very beginning.  Unless, of course, you intend the negative meanings, then the term is simply derogatory and its meaning is clear.



			
				Post 47 said:
			
		

> This to me is far from a Magic Walmart and I can safely say my campaign would not be the same without it.




He's flat out stated, in no uncertain terms, that his central magic selling location is NOT a magic walmart.  Why would he do so if Magic Walmart was such a neutral term?


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Magic Walmart, OTOH, can easily be assumed to have various meanings since it carries all that extra baggage.
> 
> ShadyDM, just because your group of gamers understands you, does not make that experience universal.  Yes, there is some onus on the reader to attempt to understand what the writer is trying to say, but, there is a far greater onus on the author to use language which properly conveys his meaning.




Walmart: A store where you can buy just about anything.
Magic-Walmart: A store where you can buy just about any magic item (see v3.5 DMG guidelines for parameters).

Seems quite clear to me, I find it hard to believe that the majority of readers have a comprehension problem here. I also think it would be a very small minority of people who think that Walmart is bad/negative since they are the #1 retail chain in the USA last time I checked. 
But, I seem to recall having said most of this in a prior post which you might have missed.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

Shadeydm said:
			
		

> Walmart: A store where you can buy just about anything.
> Magic-Walmart: A store where you can buy just about any magic item (see v3.5 DMG guidelines for parameters).
> 
> Seems quite clear to me, I find it hard to believe that the majority of readers have a comprehension problem here. I also think it would be a very small minority of people who think that Walmart is bad/negative since they are the #1 retail chain in the USA last time I checked.
> But, I seem to recall having said most of this in a prior post which you might have missed.




So we're back to the assumption that RAW presumes large single locations where magic items can be bought and sold?  Despite the fact that RAW has no assumptions whatsoever about that?  It could be true, but, by RAW, that is certainly not the default assumption.

If you think that being #1=positive PR, I would point to Microsoft.  Heck, Pokemon is the best selling game around.  Does that mean that Pokemount is intended as a compliment?

Again, let me ask, why would people be so quick to distance themselves from the term Magic Walmart if it had no negative connotations?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I never said that a derogatory term cannot be clear.






			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh, you asked when magic Walmarts would have descriptive value. IMO, never. It's simply too loaded a term to use with any value.




Perhaps you don't know what descriptive value means?  That might be a term without sufficient descriptive value.  I.e., unclear.



> What I said that if a term carries negative connotative baggage, then your meaning may not be clear if you don't intend that negative meaning.  That's all I've been claiming since the very beginning.




That would be a different answer than "when magic Walmarts would have descriptive value. IMO, never. It's simply too loaded a term to use with any value."  



> He's flat out stated, in no uncertain terms, that his central magic selling location is NOT a magic walmart.  Why would he do so if Magic Walmart was such a neutral term?




I didn't say that you were wrong about The Green Adam feeling that it was a mildly negative term.  I said you were wrong in using hyperbolic language to describe his reaction.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So we're back to the assumption that RAW presumes large single locations where magic items can be bought and sold?




That is a perfectly valid reading of the RAW, as has often been pointed out upthread.  It is just not, IMHO, the best reading.

If you can supply some criteria by which we can determine that a term is clear enough for use, I'll be happy to discuss the clarity of the term with you.  If not, I hope you understand why I'll be ignoring your already-answered-many-times points on that topic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Again, let me ask, why would people be so quick to distance themselves from the term Magic Walmart if it had no negative connotations?




There is no evidence whatsoever of people being "so quick" to distance themselves from the term.  That is sheer hyperbole.

In fact, saying that The Green Adam felt his magic shop wasn't a Magic Walmart isn't "people" either.  It is one example of one person whose post includes his statement that the shop isn't a Magic Walmart, but otherwise seems ambivilent toward the term.

Heck, I can see that, and I _agree with you_ that the term is generally used in a negative sense.

RC


----------



## NilesB (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Why are you guys arguing in favour of ambiguity?  So vehemently that you are now calling me a caveman and comparing me to the Thought Police?  Why does being ambiguous in your language mean so much to you?



Until another reasonable explanation arises, we must presume it is to violate the board's rules against name calling and personal attacks without being reprimanded by a moderator.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So we're back to the assumption that RAW presumes large single locations where magic items can be bought and sold?  Despite the fact that RAW has no assumptions whatsoever about that?  It could be true, but, by RAW, that is certainly not the default assumption.
> 
> If you think that being #1=positive PR, I would point to Microsoft.  Heck, Pokemon is the best selling game around.  Does that mean that Pokemount is intended as a compliment?
> 
> Again, let me ask, why would people be so quick to distance themselves from the term Magic Walmart if it had no negative connotations?



NO, it does however say that you should be able to find most magic items in a large enough city which certainly allows for them to be sold out of a single establishment if the DM finds this to his advantage. I did not say that Walmart had great PR nor would I say that Microsoft does either (they also carry the same evil empire stigma that some would heap upon Walmart). But it would seem to be a difficult sell for you to say that Walmart isn't a store where you can buy almost anything to most folks. Yes there are some folks who think that Walmart is an evil empire but they are a vocal minority and many of them probably still shop there despite the rhetoric. Just as I am sure many DMs have a Magic-Walmart in thier campaign it doesn't mean that is what they need to call it, but it means that they would know what you meant by the term given the correct context.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

NilesB said:
			
		

> Until another reasonable explanation arises, we must presume it is to violate the board's rules against name calling and personal attacks without being reprimanded by a moderator.




Or, perhaps, as has been said time and time again, the term is no more ambiguous, and carries a good deal more specific meaning, than any term that is proposed to replace it.

In effect, we are arguing against ambiguity.

Moreover, I make the specific claim that the poster(s) calling the term "ambiguous" or "unclear" specifically refuse to state what criteria constitute "clarity" or "descriptive value" because they know quite well that the term is clear.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

> Perhaps you don't know what descriptive value means? That might be a term without sufficient descriptive value. I.e., unclear.




A term is without descriptive value when the term can be interpreted in various, and mutually exclusive, ways.  Saying that you have or don't have Magic Walmarts doesn't actually tell me anything.  Does it mean that you have/don't have large central locations?  Does it mean that you allow/don't allow free trade in magic items?  And that's just taking the most benign versions.

Yes, a word which is ambiguous lacks descriptive value.  Perhaps you would like to define ambiguous?



> That is a perfectly valid reading of the RAW, as has often been pointed out upthread. It is just not, IMHO, the best reading.




No, actually it isn't.  RAW neither states, nor implies any mechanics as to how magic items are bought and sold.  RAW is completely silent on the issue.  How can RAW be read to mean something it doesn't actually say?  RAW states that magic items can usually be bought and sold.  Period.  Anything beyond that is moving beyond RAW.  Thus, while Magic Marts might be one idea, it is certainly not the only one, none of which is actually supported, or denied by RAW.

Actually, I do agree this is a mildly negative term.  It's certainly less than say 3etard.  But, again, why use a negatively loaded term when you don't have to?  Unless, of course, you mean the negative connotations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> A term is without descriptive value when the term can be interpreted in various, and mutually exclusive, ways.




So, you are saying that you were wrong when you said that how "loaded" a term is has anything to do with descriptive value?

You are also saying that Magic Walmart can be interpreted in mutually exclusive ways?  I have yet to see any evidence of that on this thread.

Also, by your definition, "D&D" has no value as a descriptive term.....actually, quite a bit less than Magic Walmart.



> Perhaps you would like to define ambiguous?




http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:ambiguous&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

A large word, phrase, sentence, or other communication is called ambiguous if it can be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. The simplest case is a single word with more than one sense: The word "bank", for example, can mean "financial institution", "edge of a river", or other things. *Sometimes this is not a serious problem because a word that is ambiguous in isolation is often clear in context. ...*​
(emphasis mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguous



> No, actually it isn't.  RAW neither states, nor implies any mechanics as to how magic items are bought and sold.  RAW is completely silent on the issue.  How can RAW be read to mean something it doesn't actually say?  RAW states that magic items can usually be bought and sold.  Period.




How can RAW both be silent on the issue, and "that magic items can usually be bought and sold"?  Actually, RAW says quite a bit more.  It says what size community, for example, an item can usually be found in.  It also says, in the MIC, that if a player asks a DM if an item can be bought, the DM should say Yes.



> Actually, I do agree this is a mildly negative term.  It's certainly less than say 3etard.  But, again, why use a negatively loaded term when you don't have to?  Unless, of course, you mean the negative connotations.




The reason that it is less negative than 3etard is because 3etard targets a _person_ while Magic Walmart targets a _game mechanic or convention_.  And, when I use the term in *a negative contextual sense*, I use it that way because I mean it that way.  

Same with any other term.


RC


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 10, 2007)

I'll just pitch in to repeat my own stand: I think it is not AT ALL about censuring terms. It's about the individual responsibility of formulating your argument to convey what you actually mean to the wider audience, not just to the people who think the same way you do, or there isn't any point in a discussion. 

I personally think that terms like say, "munchkin", "powergamer", "drama queen", "MagicMart", "Pokemount" and others are always damaging a discussion rather than helping it. I think this thread is a proof of that. 

I got to ask: What the hell is wrong with saying "people who like fighting, looting, and the overall acquisition of power in the game" rather than "munchkin"? RC speaks of the readers' entitlement as a sickness. Hmmm. 

First off, that has nothing to do with the reader's entitlement but with what we, as writers, want to convey as a message and where we want the conversation to go. Second, if there's a sickness, IMO, that's the notion that insults are always in the eye of the beholder, that saying "the n-word" is okay because "I don't mean it as an insult", this sort of dismissive apathy that screams "either you understand words like I do, and you're okay, or you don't, and you're not worth talking to". That's the three monkeys, you know?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguous

*Psychology and Management*

An increasing amount of research is concentrating on how people react and respond to ambiguous and uncertain situations. Much of this focuses on ambiguity tolerance. A number of correlations have been found between an individual’s reaction and tolerance to ambiguity and a range of factors.

Apter and Desselles (2001)[3] for example, found a strong correlation with such attributes and factors like a greater preference for safe as opposed to risk based sports, a preference for endurance type activities as opposed to explosive activities, a more organised and less casual lifestyle, greater care and precision in descriptions, a lower sensitivity to emotional and unpleasant words, a less acute sense of humour, engaging a smaller variety of sexual practices than their more risk comfortable colleagues, a lower likelihood of the use of drugs, pornography and drink, a greater likelihood of displaying obsessional behaviour.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Magic Wal-Mart:
> 1) Magic items can be easily bought and sold.
> 2) Single big store.
> 
> ...



I think what you're doing here is conflating the idea of a single broad sense with multiple narrow senses. 'Magic item trade' has a single but broad sense. It's true that all those possibilities above (1-4) reside within it. But because it is a single sense, the reader is aware of that. I don't think a reader would make the assumption you say. If he did, he would be making an error, the fault would be on him, not the writer. By rights, he can make no such assumptions.

'Magic Wal-Mart' otoh has multiple senses. One of them is broad and in fact has the same meaning as 'magic item trade'. Another is narrow - a single large store. This in itself is a simplification as we're ignoring the negative connotations, which are an additional layer of meaning. So because  'Magic Wal-Mart' contains all the meaning of 'magic item trade', if confusion can occur as you say above (but I don't believe it would) then it's more likely with the former term.

However I proposed 'magic item trade' as a replacement for MW-M in the negation statement - 'My game does not contain X'. That's where it is at its best, conveying a far clearer meaning than MW-M. Even where it is a lot weaker, in the positive statement - 'My game does contain X', it's still stronger.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I personally think that terms like say, "munchkin", "powergamer", "drama queen", "MagicMart", "Pokemount" and others are always damaging a discussion rather than helping it. I think this thread is a proof of that.




I personally think that "munchkin", "powergamer", and "drama queen" target people, which is an important distinction between them and "MagicMart" or "Pokemount".



> RC speaks of the readers' entitlement as a sickness. Hmmm.




Umm.....I was lampooning my own side there.  



> that saying "the n-word" is okay because "I don't mean it as an insult", this sort of dismissive apathy that screams "either you understand words like I do, and you're okay, or you don't, and you're not worth talking to".




A term that dismisses a game mechanic, when used to dismiss a game mechanic, is in no way equivilient to using the N-word.  If you think it is.........well, honestly, I can't think of anything to follow that at all.  I hope you do not think it is.

I'm calling that one an already oft-repeated and oft-answered strawman.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

It's true that MW-M is one of many ambiguous terms in roleplaying. 'Munchkin', 'powergamer' and 'min-max' are also good examples. There's massive disagreement about what these terms mean. I never use 'munchkin' but I have to admit I do use the other two, which means I am not as clear as I could be and am myself committing the same error as those who use 'Magic Wal-Mart' without clarification.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think what you're doing here is conflating the idea of a single broad sense with multiple narrow senses. 'Magic item trade' has a single but broad sense. It's true that all those possibilities above (1-4) reside within it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 'Magic Wal-Mart' otoh has multiple senses. One of them is broad




So, both terms have one broad sense and multiple narrow senses.  But "Magic Item Trade" can contain all the meanings of "Magic Walmart", whereas (as opposed to what you said) "Magic Walmart" is limited to only a subset of meanings encompassed by "Magic Item Trade".  For example, "Magic Walmart" _never_ means a difficult procedure to buy and sell magic items, which "Magic Item Trade" can (and for some, does) mean.

"Magic Item Trade" is a broader, less specific, term than "Magic Walmart".  If you are painting in broad strokes, it might be the way to go.  If you mean something more specific, it is not.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> It's true that MW-M is one of many ambiguous terms in roleplaying. 'Munchkin', 'powergamer' and 'min-max' are also good examples. There's massive disagreement about what these terms mean. I never use 'munchkin' but I have to admit I do use the other two, which means I am not as clear as I could be and am myself committing the same error as those who use 'Magic Wal-Mart' without clarification.




Or "D&D".


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 10, 2007)

> A term that dismisses a game mechanic, when used to dismiss a game mechanic, is in no way equivilient to using the N-word. If you think it is.........well, honestly, I can't think of anything to follow that at all. I hope you do not think it is.




Nah, I don't think it is, of course. The use of the N-word is obviously much, much worse. But the type of justification is the same, and is therefore just as faulty. That's what I mean.



> I personally think that "munchkin", "powergamer", and "drama queen" target people, which is an important distinction between them and "MagicMart" or "Pokemount".




Some people just do not take it that way. How is it so hard to understand? Wait. I don't think that's hard to understand. I think the considerations is just dismissed because it would be faulty. Well, that doesn't matter because you won't change people's minds about it! People who would take it as an insult and would talk to you in a very constructive, very profitable way if you weren't using the word in the first place. You can't control other people. The only control you can exercise is over yourself. So... why not?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> For example, "Magic Walmart" _never_ means a difficult procedure to buy and sell magic items



I think it could include that, if it's in the negation phrase. The writer might mean his game contains no magic item trade whatsoever. I'm not certain, but I think I've seen Emirikol use it that way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Nah, I don't think it is, of course. The use of the N-word is obviously much, much worse. But the type of justification is the same, and is therefore just as faulty. That's what I mean.




The type of justification is the same?

Are you actually suggesting that I need to justify using a term like MagicMart or Pokemon?

Do you actually not understand the difference between people and game mechanics?

As I have said before, if we want to get rid of all of this rigamarole about clarity (having demonstrated repeatedly that the term is as, or more, clear than any replacement), and concentrate on whether or not the connotations are sufficient to discourage its use, then we might have a profitable discussion.

This could be the begining of it.



> People who would take it as an insult and would talk to you in a very constructive, very profitable way if you weren't using the word in the first place. You can't control other people. The only control you can exercise is over yourself. So... why not?




Possibly.  Possibly not.

Of course, people have taken offense to 3e being called "D&D".  They feel that calling 3e D&D is a negative remark toward game systems that they have known and loved, and have requested that it be referred to instead as the more neutral term "D20 Fantasy".

If you could agree that 3e and 3.5e should henceforth be called "D20 Fantasy" I suppose I could agree that Magic Walmarts should henceforth be called "The Magic Trade".  I guarantee, though, that within a 6-month period, we'll start having people say that "The Magic Trade" is used to connote an elitist attitude, etc., etc.  



			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think it could include that, if it's in the negation phrase. The writer might mean his game contains no magic item trade whatsoever. I'm not certain, but I think I've seen Emirikol use it that way.




I think not.

"No magic item trade whatsoever" is a broad concept that might include narrow concepts, but the narrow concept on its own is _never_ meant by the term.  Meanwhile, Magic Item Trade can mean both.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> ...any of a number of misspellings of 'medieval'. The last one being the most original element.




You mean my thief character isn't a "mydeevul rouge"?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> You mean my thief character isn't a "mydeevul rouge"?






Ultimately, "You misspelled gingwatzim!" is the fallback position for anyone whose argument is failing.

Sorta like "wrongbadfun".


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Also from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambiguous
> 
> *Psychology and Management*
> 
> ...




This is interesting, albeit verging on making a roundabout personal attack on some of the posters.  These things correlate to a -lower- tolerance for ambiguity, or higher?


----------



## Numion (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> a greater likelihood of displaying obsessional behaviour.




Does > 150 posts in a ~500 post thread qualify as 'obsessive behaviour'?


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 10, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I agree with this as well.  I just happen to also agree with Hussar that its predominant usage includes a negative connotation.



I agree that, taken at face value, the term is neutral.  It's -value- however, largely comes from the negative connotations.  If that weren't so, it'd be interchangable with Magic Woolworth or Magic Sears & Roebuck, and I don't think it is in most cases.  People just don't have the same nostalgia for Wal-mart that they do for Woolworths (it's tough to miss something that won't go away).


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 10, 2007)

Okay, if you think that one of the senses of MW-M is to refer to the default position on magic item trade in the core rules, then say that instead.

Instead of 'My game contains magic Wal-Marts' you could say 'My game follows the RAW regarding magic item trade'.

If you think it means magic items can be easily bought and sold then say 'In my game magic items can be easily bought and sold'.

If you think it means a single big store then say 'My game has a single store selling all magic items'.

If you want to say that the 3.5 magic item rules suck then say they suck. At least we know what you mean now.

And so on. Practically any reasonably terse description is better than MW-M, because MW-M has so many different senses - a single big store, the default rules, negative connotations, no negative connotations.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> This is interesting, albeit verging on making a roundabout personal attack on some of the posters.




I thought of it more in lines of supporting Midknightsun's diagnosis of disfunction.  YMMV, especially in light of:



> These things correlate to a -lower- tolerance for ambiguity, or higher?




Lower, the way I read it, but it is (funny enough) pretty damn ambiguous on the point.  I clipped the part about leadership on the wiki, because it didn't seem to be saying anything at all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Does > 150 posts in a ~500 post thread qualify as 'obsessive behaviour'?




Yes.

Clearly I need to increase my explosive activities, variety of sexual practicesand use of drugs, pornography and drink to decrease displaying obsessional behaviour.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I agree that, taken at face value, the term is neutral.  It's -value- however, largely comes from the negative connotations.  If that weren't so, it'd be interchangable with Magic Woolworth or Magic Sears & Roebuck, and I don't think it is in most cases.  People just don't have the same nostalgia for Wal-mart that they do for Woolworths (it's tough to miss something that won't go away).




Or Ben Franklins.  You remember those?

Man, I'm old.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Okay, if you think that one of the senses of MW-M is to refer to the default position on magic item trade in the core rules, then say that instead.




Okay, if you think that one of the senses of D&D is to refer to the default core rules, then say "default WotC core 3.5 RAW" instead.

Instead of 'I'm playing D&D' you could say 'My game follows the WotC 3.5 RAW regarding rules'.

If you are using house rules then say 'In my game we are following the default WotC core 3.5 RAW' instead of 'D&D'.

If you want to say that the 3.5 rules suck then say the WotC default 3.5 RAW suck. At least we know what you mean now.

And so on. Practically any reasonably terse description is better than D&D, because D&D has so many different senses - OD&D, RC D&D, Holmes boxed set, 1e AD&D, 2e AD&D, with houserules, without houserules, with 3rd-party material, without 3rd-party material, with splatbooks, without splatbooks, with negative connotations, without negative connotations.


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 10, 2007)

Nellisir said:
			
		

> I agree that, taken at face value, the term is neutral.  It's -value- however, largely comes from the negative connotations.  If that weren't so, it'd be interchangable with Magic Woolworth or Magic Sears & Roebuck, and I don't think it is in most cases.  People just don't have the same nostalgia for Wal-mart that they do for Woolworths (it's tough to miss something that won't go away).



I am sure if we were having this discussion in the same context 20 years ago it would be a MagiKmart but these days Walmart is at the top of the one stop shop food chain therefore we have Magic-Walmart.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 10, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> And so on. Practically any reasonably terse description is better than MW-M, because MW-M has so many different senses - a single big store, the default rules, negative connotations, no negative connotations.



It depends on the point of the post.  Sometimes an explicit, specific description isn't the best way to accomplish your goal.  Satire, analogy, hyperbole, allusion, exaggeration, etc. are all recognized and effective means of communication used by the greatest writers in the world which derive their value from being specifically NOT explicit, unequivocal and accurate.

Nobody wants to read a messageboard full of this.... "In my table-top, face-to-face, story-oriented fantasy roleplaying game using the Wizards of the Coast D&D rules version 3.5 strictly as written I, as the Dungeon Master, in my role as arbiter of the rules and designer of the shared fantasy milieu make use of monolithic, commercial locations where it is possible to purchase at the listed book price any magically enhanced item or items which are detailed in chapter _X_ of the Wizards of the Coast D&D version 3.5 _Dungeon Master's Guide_ or have been specifically enumerated as available by previous DM rulings as long as such items fall within the gold piece limit imposed by the economic guidelines on page _XX_ of the aforementioned D&D version 3.5 _Dungeon Master's Guide_.....".

And even if everyone did conform to that level of specificity and clarity in their posting, I would bet large amounts of money that someone, somewhere would still find some word, phrase or comment to get their panties in a twist about.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Or Ben Franklins.  You remember those?



Yes.



> Man, I'm old.



Apparently, but I'm not one to point fingers.  I could, in theory, have kids graduating high school (and know someone only 3 years older who does).  I have a 7-month old instead.


----------



## Nellisir (Jul 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ultimately, "You misspelled gingwatzim!" is the fallback position for anyone whose argument is failing.
> Sorta like "wrongbadfun".




ixch...ixca...ithx...

You misspelled "intelligent evil manta rays that worship a two-headed demon prince of jungles" trumps gingwatzim, IMO.


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Jul 11, 2007)

Ourph said:
			
		

> ...as long as such items fall within the gold piece limit imposed by the economic guidelines on page _XX_ of the aforementioned D&D version 3.5 _Dungeon Master's Guide_.....".





Dude... don't you know that *guidelines* aren't ironclad and can't be *imposed*?
Sheez, the nerve!



j/k!


----------



## Cameron (Jul 11, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Yes.
> 
> Clearly I need to increase my explosive activities, variety of sexual practicesand use of drugs, pornography and drink to decrease displaying obsessional behaviour.



Increase your explosive...

So! *You* are the guy behind Glasgow and London!

Get him!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 11, 2007)

Cameron said:
			
		

> Increase your explosive...
> 
> So! *You* are the guy behind Glasgow and London!
> 
> Get him!




No...the "explosive activities" are supposed to come at the end of a"variety of sexual practices".


----------

