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

billd91 said:

In the end, the family compromises. Dash can't use the gifts he has that no other kid can hope to have to their full extent, but he gets to participate with his peers. And if kids relating to their peers isn't worth cheering about, I don't know what is.

Click to expand...

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?

Tiberius said:

The game depicts a believable fantasy world, does it not? As such, deviation from verisimilitude serves only to undermine the fundamentals of the game world itself; a self-defeating prospect. If the game world can't be taken seriously, how is it not a fatal flaw to the enjoyment of the game?

Click to expand...

There is a balance that can be achieved between a believable world and a game where every player has a chance for spotlight time and/or the opportunity to excel.

Whether any given edition of D&D has achieved that balance is a matter of debate, obviously.

Another Pixar quote comes to mind. "Not anyone can cook, but a great cook can come from anywhere." Which I think illuminates not only the Incredibles quote but the 4e design philosophy.

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

the writers of the movie clearly thought we were all deeply small-c conservative-minded knee-jerkers of the worst kind, who assume status-quo is always better than change.

I was instantly offended, I can tell you

Click to expand...

There is a wonderful irony here that I hope no one misses.

Intense_Interest said:

On-Topic being that "Everyone is Special, therefore No One Is", is an applied quote stolen from a source that then dismantles that position, and people who use it as a criticism are far off base.

Click to expand...

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.

Henry said:

That I can see; you won't have someone casting the one spell that saved the day by encapsulating the Cloud Giant that is killing the party in the forcecage, or the Cleric that snatched victory from the jaws of defeat with a mass heal. However, in my experience it was almost always the spellcasters who had the moment; it was rarely the rogue who got the critical backstab, or the ranger who found the untrackable trail of a fugitive.

Click to expand...

YMMV, but that has not been the case in my games. Every class had their moments. The casters rarely had moments to shine in low levels and the rogue never got old. The casters in my games just did not waste spell slots on knock if a rogue was around.

I've seen fighters wipe out the BBEG or cleave an escape path through a horde to allow their allies to flee.

IME, it is a player problem that allowed casters to dominate games in older editions or GMs that allowed it to happen.

GMforPowergamers said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

AllisterH said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Hobo said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

1Mac said:

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

Click to expand...

I'm inclined to doubt that we are.

The Incredibles said:

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.

Click to expand...

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]

The Incredibles said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.