"Syndrome" Syndrome: or the Fallacy of "Special"

[Belen]

Originally Posted by GMforPowergamers

the real irony here is this is the defence that people use for 3.5...

"Well I never saw a selfish wizard step on the toes of a rouge even though they could"
"I don't think I ever saw a cleric buff to be better then the fighter"
"I never saw the animal compainon as a better fighter"

all of that is this: Helen: Right now, honey, the world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we gotta be like everyone else.

I think the incredables is a great take on being yourself and helping your fellow man. The problem is that people use the quote wrong...

can every pesent in a 4e game use powers? Can every Farmer call come and get it? Can every shop keeper sneak attack?

no of cource not, everyone isn't special, the PCs are special...the wizard is just no more special then the others now...

I am sure that there is an argument here, but all I see is confusion. Are you just wanting to attack 3.5 or praise 4e? Or both? I found your stream of consciousness here difficult to follow.

IMO, previous editions of the game used character classes to allow for varying styles of play. A person attracted to the simplicity of the fighter may not enjoy the resource management aspects of the wizard.

The current edition standardizes the style of play. Every style is now the same; however, the effects differ based power. This is how people can feel that every class is the same. They are locked into a specific style of play.

This is a weakness in the current edition for me and one that has pushed me away from 4e. It is a strength for others.

I think the arguments about casters dominating the game are just excuses from people who love the default style of 4e. In fact, those making the arguments were most likely the same players causing such issues in previous editions.

Personally, I think that the love versus hate for 4e is a core style issue. One side wants the game to be open for multiple styles of play, even within the same group, while the other wants a stable play experience that does not vary, even within the group.

[Hobo]

Indeed. I don't know jack squat about 4e, but in my 3.5 Age of Worms game, when we faced whatever demon it was near the end that could have been a TPK, my shifter ranger/barbarian (who had the Pounce ability from the Reachrunner prestige class) was able to go first, critted the thing, and did about 120 points of damage in the first round. The sorcerer later caused a critically fumbled save when he banished the creature (using limited wish to cast as a cleric, IIRC) on the next action, but it was almost anti-climactic at that point. The combat had clearly started off on completely the wrong footing for the monster because of a ranger of all things.

I never saw that wizards and sorcerers made fighters and rogues (etc.) obsolete.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by AllisterH

Exactly how was Dash relating to his peers in that scene? Did he even say two words to them? Did he even acknowledge any one of them with a wave of his hand?

At that part of the movie, we're focused on Dash communicating with his parents - largely communicating how happy he is. The fact that we don't see it doesn't mean that he isn't relating with his peers. Assuming he's not because of what we see on the screen seems a particularly myopic point of view.

[Gunpowder]

Originally Posted by Hobo

Well, that's your problem right there. The Incredible's doesn't dismantle that position at all. In fact, I think it's the primary message of the movie; it's an anti-political correctness rant couched in an entertaining superhero action drama.

Huh? two people had that position. Dash, a petulant child who just got told "No", and Syndrome, the mego-maniacal supervillian. Not the best vectors to deliver a message.

Dash's problem was that he lacked self-control (like any other kid, really) and failed to realize that his actions had consequences on others. Every kid needs boundaries, does not matter if the boundary is "No cookies before supper" or "no super powers at school functions." If he started tearing up a race track, then his family might have to move or lose the government protection entirely (granted that's mostly Bob's fault for punching his boss through a couple of walls). When Dash came in second, he was happy and demostrated his growing maturity. He was able to control himself and got to hang out with some friends from school.

Syndrome squandered his super powers (Inventing rocket boots at 12 is a result of super powered genesis, not hard work.) nursing a gudge that he should have dropped when his balls did (Bob was right no matter how much a jackass he was to little Syndrome). Syndrome got the idea stuck in his twisted little mind that the definition of a super was that you were better than anyone else at X and is thus deserving of praise.

Which completely misses the point. A super is anyone who steps up to the plate for altruistic reasons in a situation when no one else can't or won't. If Bob never lifted anything heavier than a beer keg with his super strength, he would not be a super. If Syndrome had used his smarts to be Ironman or Batman or hell just invent solar panels that work at 80% efficiency he would have been a super.

[Marius Delphus]

Originally Posted by 1Mac

Also, as long as we are allowing unmoderated politics in this discussion

I'm inclined to doubt that we are.

Originally Posted by The Incredibles

Dash: But Dad always said our powers were nothing to be ashamed of, our powers made us special.
Helen: Everyone's special, Dash.
Dash: [muttering] Which is another way of saying no one is.

Dash is lamenting being forbidden from "cutting loose" with his superspeed, winning foot-races, and consequently being recognized as "the best."

Dash grows as a character during the course of the movie: he realizes that his goal is really to *cheat* using his supernatural gifts. No one else can *possibly* run as fast as he can, so rather than winning at foot-races, he makes a mature choice and settles for joining in. Admittedly this is because he's found the very outlet Helen says early in the movie that he needs, but he still appears to have lost a chunk of the selfishness we saw in him.

[ASIDE] The other characters appear to make similar choices. In the short space of the denouement, Violet gets a date and Bob and Helen get in the bleachers to support Dash instead of hiding in the house. [/ASIDE]

Originally Posted by The Incredibles

Mr. Incredible: You mean you killed off real heroes so that you could *pretend* to be one?
Syndrome: Oh, I'm real. Real enough to defeat you! And I did it without your precious gifts, your oh-so-special powers. I'll give them heroics. I'll give them the most spectacular heroics the world has ever seen! And when I'm old and I've had my fun, I'll sell my inventions so that *everyone* can have powers. *Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super--[chuckles evilly]--no one will be.

Syndrome is plotting to "cut loose" with his inventions, "win" at super-heroics, and consequently be recognized as "the most spectacular," following which he'll sell his inventions.

Syndrome doesn't grow as a character: when thwarted, he seeks revenge in classic supervillain fashion. Syndrome demonstrates he's the sort of character that resorts, by default, to tearing others down in order to build himself up by comparison: movie-wise, this is definitely a bad-guy sort of trait.

[ASIDE] Does anyone really think that literally "everyone" will be able to afford what Syndrome sells? Or, in the alternative, that the inexpensive inventions will be "as super" as the expensive inventions?

Or maybe Syndrome, who isn't known for the best of intentions, might be just having a poke at Mr. Incredible: perhaps he's explaining, in another way, that he doesn't find Mr. Incredible nearly as cool anymore (he says at another point, "I've outgrown you"), and that super-heroes in general bore him these days, because he can kill them and/or replicate their powers with inventions at his leisure. [/ASIDE]


So what are the filmmakers really telling us, and how does this relate to 4E's way of "leveling the playing field"?

Personally, I think the movie is a riff on Spider-Man's "with great power comes great responsibility" mantra. The good guys are at their best when they're using their "gifts" to protect others; the bad guys are at their worst when they use their "gifts" to get what they want in spite of others.

Syndrome's threat, "And when everyone's super, no one will be," can therefore, IMO, be read as shorthand for Syndrome's agenda to destroy all super-heroes -- in this instance, by invalidating their gifts through his inventions. But his real goal *must* be a new generation of supervillains: empowered, selfish people like him who want to use the "gifts" they purchase to get what they want.

And I would say that it differs fundamentally from Dash's lament in that Dash is mostly expressing pre-adolescent frustration, whereas Syndrome is gloating over how he'll throw the world into chaos.

When it comes to a game of D&D, it seems to me that most players would rather be able to make meaningful choices that have meaningful effects on the outcome of the game. Most players would rather not have their thunder stolen by a "cheat" that's on another player's character sheet.

Whatever your, or my, experience with wizards and clerics pre-4E, I'm convinced it's pretty clear they can "cheat" with relative ease in ways other characters can't. IMO, the designers appear to have leaned toward viewing the pre-4E spellcasters' experience during play as "more special" than other characters' experience during play. Spellcasters had meaningful choices: Which spells do I memorize/prepare today? Which do I cast right now? Non-spellcasters, IMO, had fewer meaningful choices.

So I think that's what 4E is addressing: giving all characters similar abilities to gain the spotlight in the way that pre-4E spellcasters tended to, and by extension giving all players similar chances to make meaningful choices.

IOW, it's not about holding Dash back: it's about giving Dash a field full of speedsters to race with.

[Umbran]

Originally Posted by Hobo

Well, that's your problem right there. The Incredibles doesn't dismantle that position at all. In fact, I think it's the primary message of the movie; it's an anti-political correctness rant couched in an entertaining superhero action drama.

Yes. The major point of the quote is that Syndrome is wrong - he is the villain, you know, so his philosophy is supposed to be flawed. Dash is wrong, too, when he says as much - the difference being that Dash learns, and Syndrome does not.

[crazy_monkey1956]

Originally Posted by Marius Delphus

IOW, it's not about holding Dash back: it's about giving Dash a field full of speedsters to race with.

I'd revise this slightly by saying that it's not about holding Dash back in the foot race; it's about Dash learning to use his gifts to benefit the team (his family).

The Incredibles (the family) can be used as something of an analogy to a 4E adventuring party. Each has a role to play and a different set of gifts. When they work together they truly are greater than the individual members of the team. A finely tuned 4E party is much the same, with each character having a role to play toward the team's overall effectiveness.

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by Marius Delphus

Whatever your, or my, experience with wizards and clerics pre-4E, I'm convinced it's pretty clear they can "cheat" with relative ease in ways other characters can't. IMO, the designers appear to have leaned toward viewing the pre-4E spellcasters' experience during play as "more special" than other characters' experience during play. Spellcasters had meaningful choices: Which spells do I memorize/prepare today? Which do I cast right now? Non-spellcasters, IMO, had fewer meaningful choices.

So I think that's what 4E is addressing: giving all characters similar abilities to gain the spotlight in the way that pre-4E spellcasters tended to, and by extension giving all players similar chances to make meaningful choices

Without going too deep into a anti-4e rant, I must comment part of the way they balanced all classes was not just to give fighters and rogues "meaningful choices" but to REMOVE many of the "meaningful choices" wizards and clerics had. So if (on a versatility scale) fighters were a 3 and wizards a 10, they balanced both by making them both a 5.

[Marius Delphus]

@crazy_monkey: I'm on board with that.

[Marius Delphus]

@Remathilis: For the purposes of this discussion, I'm not trying to say anything beyond "this is what I think the 4E designers did." How, why, and whether they should have is a completely separate topic.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

You speak as though that is a problem; I find that it stands to reason that those who can rewrite the laws of reality by will alone or who act as conduits for the power of the divine should be more potent than those who cannot. The ability to pick any lock is nice, but is demonstrably inferior to the ability to make the lock cease to exist, or to simply warp space such that it no longer provides an obstacle. Being able to defeat any man in a duel is an admirable talent, but how can it compare to being able to banish your foe to another plane?

There are ways to model spellcasters being more powerful that don't require you to make them more powerful by level.

The first thing to do is to not treat the game rules as world simulators but as rules for a "fair" game. They do not model the world.

So, Wizards are more powerful in the game world. Maybe most Wizards are described as higher level characters than non-Wizards. But by the game rules, getting to a be a high level Wizard is just as easy or tough as becoming a high level Fighter.

If the game rules were in fact the world simulation rules, than everyone would become a Wizard. No one takes a level in Commoner if he can pick between Wizard and Commoner.

We already say "there are rules that work differently from the player side then from the game side. NPCs don't get to choose to become Wizards or Clerics. Sometimes they become Minions or Commoners or Experts.

If you follow this approach consistently, you get good results. Inside the game world, high level NPCs are typically spellcasters, not fighters or rogues. They get the reputation of being very powerful because they are. In the game rules, it is just as easy to create a high level spellcaster as it is to create a high level fighter.

[mmadsen]

Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully

There are ways to model spellcasters being more powerful that don't require you to make them more powerful by level.

The first thing to do is to not treat the game rules as world simulators but as rules for a "fair" game. They do not model the world.

That is an important, if subtle, point. For instance, you could run a Lord of the Rings-style campaign not by making elves über as a character race but by making a typical elf 10th level.

It's the player who chooses race and class, so those decisions should arguably be balanced, in order to have a good game, but within the game world certain races and classes could clearly outshine others.

[Belen]

Originally Posted by Marius Delphus

IMO, the designers appear to have leaned toward viewing the pre-4E spellcasters' experience during play as "more special" than other characters' experience during play. Spellcasters had meaningful choices: Which spells do I memorize/prepare today? Which do I cast right now? Non-spellcasters, IMO, had fewer meaningful choices.

I disagree. They had different choices. A lot of players do not enjoy a class with heavy resource management. They prefer a simple rather than complex character.

This is a meaningful choice.

Again, it is all about style of play. In the current edition, everyone has to manage resources. The style has been standardized. This has advantages, but also serious flaws as the game becomes less accessible to varied personalities.

It has nothing to do with cheating.

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by Gunpowder

Huh? two people had that position. Dash, a petulant child who just got told "No", and Syndrome, the mego-maniacal supervillian. Not the best vectors to deliver a message.

Dash isn't "a petulant child", he's the voice of the movie. He's voicing the same thoughts that Bob has hidden, in an attempt to "fit in;" to "be normal." Dash's inability to cope with the mixed message of "do your best" while simultaneously being told, "don't be better than other people, though" is at the heart of the movie. When Syndrome expresses his desire, along with supervillian chortling, to make that bleak situation a reality for everyone, the ridiculousness and untenability of the scenario are highlighted.

At the end of the day, it also doesn't matter which character voiced the thought; the plot itself presents that as the main human drama conflict to be resolved, a bigger conflict in many ways than the more surface conflict with Syndrome and his organization; the real conflict is the ideology represented by Dash (and Bob) vs. that of Syndrome.

At the end, the superheroes are justified; they're allowed to come out of hiding and resume their superheroing duties, because victory over the tyranny of political correctness causing them to hide or not use their powers for fear of being better than the average person is assured.

Obsessing with who said a given line is completely beside the point.

[Hobo]

Originally Posted by Umbran

Yes. The major point of the quote is that Syndrome is wrong - he is the villain, you know, so his philosophy is supposed to be flawed. Dash is wrong, too, when he says as much - the difference being that Dash learns, and Syndrome does not.

If they're wrong, then the plot resolution is a tragedy. Their views/fears are entirely justified by the way the plot resolves.