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

[TheWyrd]

My take on the quote actually revolves around opinions. In modern times and particularly on internet message boards, there is a belief that all opinions are equally valid.. or 'special'. But the truth of the matter is that there are some people out there who are more knowlegable, well informed, and just plain insightful than any Joe Blow who manages to find the keys to express whatever wrong headed opinion manages to drift through their echoing cranium.

And just because they manage to yell louder than anyone else doesn't make them right.

 

[eyebeams]

Yes on both counts. But that's not surprising, seeing as it's fantasy, and most literary/cinematic fantasies are naked power fantasies.

If you mean violent power over others, social prestige and the ability to prevail in situations where you yourself cannot, your observation is actually less true in RPGs, because unlike non-interactive power fantasies, an RPG character's ability to achieve any of these is not guaranteed.

It's not surprising that a segment of the gaming populace believes exactly that, seeing as most roleplaying games are naked power fantasies.

All roleplaying games -- every single one -- are about manipulating who has power over a narrative. The differences boil down to where players are expected to express power. In D&D, this you do it through violent conflict. In other games, you do it through other ways: social dominance in character and the ability to make decisions on the meta-story level and so on.

 

[rkwoodard]

i thought it

The Incredibles are so videogamey.

I thought it was too anima.

 

[Felix]

Let's first remember the lesson Unbreakable taught us: comic book heroes are exaggerations of truth, tarted up for mass consumption. Dash may be fast without having to work for his gift, but his real-life analogue champion collegiate sprinter will be spending months of training time while forsaking enjoyable things that may hurt his chances at the big meet. The philosophy may be illustrated with supers, but they apply to us.

-------
Regarding the quote.

Lets ignore the fact that the source of the quote is a deranged maniac

They used an immature, psychotic loser to voice their moral agenda? Ooookay.

The first time this thought is encountered is with Dash, not Syndrome. He is expressing frustration because he is not allowed to participate in athletic competition, where he would excel, because the establishment desires that his excellence not throw into relief other children's mediocrity. That he can achieve great things doesn't matter to those who govern his life, and he resents that far from being excited for him that he can do well, his governors shackle him from even competing.

Dash represents the victim of a regime that prizes mass mediocrity over individual excellence.​

Syndrome seeks to profit from the cult of mediocrity presented in the first act of the movie. That heroes have been driven underground by society gives him the opportunity to find, betray and murder them, weeding out those he believes to be his competition. With his competition out of the way, himself the only Super remaining, he would then profit from the remaining mediocre population by creating a problem that only he can solve.

Syndrome represents the opportunist who uses the cult of mediocrity to hamper rivals while enhancing his own position.​

----

How does this relate to 4e?

3e had built-in weaknesses to every class. (Yes, some classes had more glaring weakensses than others; I won't argue that Half-elf bards can be as "good" as Dwarven Clerics.) Rogues were up a creek versus undead; with anti-magic Wizards have a hard time; Fighters have a hard time with Will-saves, among other things.

Similarly, each class was best suited to a set of obstacles, where they excelled: Fighters only need HP pit-stops but were otherwise energizer combat bunnies; Bards can sell water to a drowning man; Paladins go to town on evil outsiders.

You can make up for your weaknesses by diverting some resources away from your strengths, but by and large, you were good at what you were good at, and your faults were yours to keep.

Theoretically, adventures are a series of obstacles, each one catering to the varied strengths of the group: a locked door for the Rogue; waves of low-hp baddies for the Sorc; misbehaving wildlife for the Druid. When that moment came around, you were the guy, you got the job done, and you pulled everyone's arse out of the fire. Those were the defining moments and the reason why you gamed, even if you only got one every third session.

(Yes, glory hogs that want session after session of that limelight are disruptive.)

I suspect Syndrome's quote is used so often is for three reasons:

Firstly, the movie is freaking awesome, and deep meaning can be expressed and understood by a few words. (The same way, "To be, or not to be" expresses the turmoil of suicidal thoughts and all its complications in 6 words because the source is so well known and well studied.)

Secondly, Syndrome puts is more succinctly than Dash; when Dash says it, the line is split between his mother (representing the governors) and himself (the talented governed). Quoting Syndrome is simply easier.

Thirdly, they are trying to evoke Dash's feeling: they want to say that they miss the moments where their specialty was in dire need and nobody else could do the job like they could. They are criticizing 4e for both curbing the powers and advantages of particular classes, but also for mitigating the weaknesses of each class. They contend that each class is better able to cope with any particular obstacle put in front of them, and also that no class has as big an advantage when dealing with any particular obstacle. No longer is there that moment when you save the day, because the other three guys could have done the same thing: it just happened to be your turn in the initiative.​

How accurate that is in play, I can't say. But I feel that is the design philosophy behind some of the changes that were made to 4e, and to a certain extent, "Everyone special means no one is" fits: without each individual possessing unique and significant strengths and weaknesses, there is no reason why Andy the Fighter couldn't have solved the problem as easily as Bob the Cleric. (Different methods, perhaps, but problem solved as easily.)

I suspect that 4e fans are satisfied by the amount of "I'm a badass" time afforded by the game; I suspect 4e detractors are not. And considering how much discussion can be had on the nuances of the phrase, it's not surprising that people don't elaborate on their feelings: we don't have the time, and in the end this is a hobby: none of us are owed exhaustive explanations for divergent preferences. Unless writing exhaustive explanations is a fun though-experiment, neh?

 

[AllisterH]

Yeah, and because of the language they used, they completely failed to convey that to, I would guess, a reasonable fraction of the audience. I know quite a lot of people I've talked to came away with a bad taste in their mouth from that movie.

It's not a matter of being a "philosophy major" or "looking too close", the FIRST THING that popped into my mind when he said that was that if we were supposed to think this was "automatically bad", then 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, in that the film was both putting out a pretty lame message and totally assuming that I'd swallow it whole. I was entirely behind the beating seven shades of smack out of the guy before that, but that damn line broke my suspension of disbelief with near-audible snap and made me think "Hey what exactly are these jerks trying to say here?".

<snip>

Then again, I love to play knights and nice nobles in D&D, so maybe I should stop whacking on noblesse oblige. I was just really peeved to be expected to swallow that whole, without, at the time it's said in the film, them really earning it.

I'm with you RuinExplorer.

Hell, the very last scene where Dash runs a race I found very distasteful. I found it akin to a scene where Osain Bolt decides to run a 100m against the Special Olympics 100m and comes in second/third.


Why exactly would I cheer at that?

(The weird thing about the Incredibles is that it is based on the Fantastic Four and the marvel universe...

The marvel universe where Supergenius _IS_ a legitimate superpower and one where Mr. Fantastic's superpower isn't his elasticity, but his brains. A world where you have IRON MAN?)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

ow accurate that is in play, I can't say. But I feel that is the design philosophy behind some of the changes that were made to 4e, and to a certain extent, "Everyone special means no one is" fits: without each individual possessing unique and significant strengths and weaknesses, there is no reason why Andy the Fighter couldn't have solved the problem as easily as Bob the Cleric. (Different methods, perhaps, but problem solved as easily.)

The ends do not justify the means. At least that's what some people think. So if you use different methods, they matter, even if you achieve the same goal.
It does matter whether you kill innocents or rather sacrifice your own soul to stop the evil Prince from gaining power.

More over, it is not true that Bob the Cleric can do the same as Jack the Fighter. They might still help you win the same fight, but they will do it in different ways.
The "end goal" might be to drop all opponents to 0 hit points while keeping the party standing, but they both have different means to achieve that. They have different goals within the combat. The Cleric identifies those that need healing, and chooses targets that he aids the party to strike. The Fighter identifies those that are the biggest threat to his party members and engages them, forcing them to focus on him who can take it.

Also, just because everyone has the potential to do something doesn't mean he actually does it. Every Fighter can learn Thievery and pick locks just as well as a Rogue (with the same dexterity) and can pick Diplomacy to charm the Duke. But that doesn't mean that every Fighter does that. And it will cost him somewhere else.

 

[roguerouge]

** Edit to add; If anyone *does* consider Finding Nemo to be nazi propoganda, for the love of Pelor, don't tell me...

OT: Would you like me to tell you about how Beauty and the Beast encourages people to stay in abusive relationships instead?

 

[tyrlaan]

I'm not convinced that everyone who uses this quote actually is arguing what everyone thinks they're arguing. When I've heard it, my interpretation could best be summed up by something a friend of mine originally said about 4e: "But I don't want to play a wizard."

It's not about feeling somehow less special because power level is balanced, rather all classes play the same in a general sense. In 3e, if all you wanted to do was bash down the door and kill things with your pointy stick, you could do that no problem while your friend spent 20 minutes figuring out which spell to cast on their turn.

 

[roguerouge]

On a side note, I really think labels like "marxist", "fascist", "freudian", or whatever are terrible tools for trying to pick apart stories and ideas... I think it is something of a failing of academia (including my own college education, really), that it teaches people to interpret texts entirely through that kind of flawed lens.

The point is to get you to look at things through multiple perspectives. And your preference for formal analysis, close reading and narratology are simply different lenses. Most great works permit reveal different things when viewed through different lenses, just like reality.

However, you should consider reading this, as its one of the better defenses of your particular take on this issue: Against Interpretation, by Susan Sontag, Against Interpretation

 

[MrGrenadine]

Everything, but especially this:

I suspect that 4e fans are satisfied by the amount of "I'm a badass" time afforded by the game; I suspect 4e detractors are not. And considering how much discussion can be had on the nuances of the phrase, it's not surprising that people don't elaborate on their feelings: we don't have the time, and in the end this is a hobby: none of us are owed exhaustive explanations for divergent preferences. Unless writing exhaustive explanations is a fun though-experiment, neh?

Uh...what he said.