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



## Intense_Interest (Jun 25, 2008)

Lately, I have noticed that the talking-point criticism of the 4E system has been a co-opted quote from the movie *The Incredibles*, in that "When everyone is special, no one will be."

Lets ignore the fact that the source of the quote is a deranged maniac; the quote itself, when applied as it has been here, is completely dismantled by the actions of the movie.

Within the movie, you have the super-family Parr (a Captain Ersatz version of the Fantastic 4) that is, ostensibly, no less powerful than one another.    One person's Super Speed doesn't take up more time or succeed greater than another's Invisibility/Forcefields: one character's Super Strength is proven to be as useful or better than another's Elastic Limbs.

Yet it is in the full amalgamation of the Five Man Band (The Incredibles plus Frozone) in which the team itself is "special".  The climax of the movie is that the Team completed the mission together.

Therefore, I don't see how someone can use the Syndrome quote honestly and without irony when comparing it to 4E: The 4 Roles (plus Frozone!) creates mutually-"special" characters that divorced from the world around them does special things.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 25, 2008)

I think the message of the movie is that everyone is special, and that what makes people exceptional is the courage to use their gifts to their fullest and be honest about their frailties.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 25, 2008)

The other weird thing about how that quote is used in the movie is that no one in the movie "earned" their powers.  They just got them for free.

Its basically an argument justifying inherited privilege and the denigration of anyone who starts out with little but works hard for more.

But that's completely irrelevant to the 4e analogy.  People who use that quote seem to never quite know what they mean by it, which makes it awfully hard to answer.


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 25, 2008)

Huh? In the movie, superheroes get driven underground by an unappreciative, sheep-like public that can't handle the fact that some people _are_ special.

If the ending proves anything, it's the idiocy of stifling ability for the sake of conformity and not hurting anyone's feelings.

(And it's also a celebration of noblesse oblige, and all sorts of bad, elitist stuff, etc., etc. But it sure as hell doesn't show everyone really is special in their own way.)


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 25, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its basically an argument justifying inherited privilege and the denigration of anyone who starts out with little but works hard for more.




No, it's saying that when we have power, we have a mandate to use it for the good of all. Mr. Impossible gets into a lot of trouble by acting selfishly. And Syndrome was not a "by his bootstraps" folk hero, he was a manipulator who used others thoughtlessly, and oh yeah, a genius who built his own rocket boots at age 12. Being a natural genius is not "hard work." Syndrome could have made the world a much better place, but instead he became a weapons dealer and a fake super hero.

What the movie showed is that Mr. Impossible's desire to be "special" was partially motivated by selfishness. But it was also a frustration at the way society squanders people's potential. Look at the way he handled the old lady's insurance claim. That was an injustice. At the end, the Parr family don't inherit "privilege;" no, despite being rejected and treated unfairly by society, they fought against a dangerous foe with no likely reward of any kind. And far from being a lark for Robert like fighting robots and playing super agent, it was a terrifying experience to see his family on the line. 

The message was that no one is entitled to special privileges. Syndrome sought adulation and destroyed himself. The Parrs united for the greater good. Their special reward was to have the family's infant child kidnapped by a sociopath.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jun 25, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

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



Let's not. Let's remember this every time we see that quote.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jun 25, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think the message of the movie is that everyone is special, and that what makes people exceptional is the courage to use their gifts to their fullest and be honest about their frailties.



I think it's exactly the opposite: That some people are special and that it's OK to be better or whatever. It doesn't entitle you to be a bad person, but it's also fine to let your freak flag fly.


----------



## FireLance (Jun 25, 2008)

Yeah, using that quote in that context annoys me, too.

This is partly because I think that the statement is only true if everyone was special in the same way, and partly because it implies to me that the world should be divided into "special" and "non-special" people, and that the "special" people should somehow be more important. Whether or not this is true, I find it to be a dangerous line of thought.

I thought the real message of The Incredibles (one of my favorite movies, by the way) was that you should not be content with mediocrity or with being something less than you potentially could be, but that you should find your talent, your gift, or whatever makes you special, and offer it to the world.

So, in my view, settling for mediocrity is bad. However, simply telling people that they're special isn't a good idea, either. To me, that's only half the job. The other half is finding out what their talents (or at least, their comparative advantages) are, and helping them to become useful people who actually have a reason to feel at least slightly special.


----------



## blargney the second (Jun 25, 2008)

Thank you!  I couldn't remember where that quote came from, and it's been driving me nuts.

I totally agree that fallacious logic is running rampant on the internet.
-blarg


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 25, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I think it's exactly the opposite: That some people are special and that it's OK to be better or whatever. It doesn't entitle you to be a bad person, but it's also fine to let your freak flag fly.




My view is it's saying that it's okay to have superior abilities, but that does not give you superior worth as a human being. Probably the most heroic thing Bob does in the movie is help people with insurance claims, a noble calling which earns him nothing but misery and subjection to hatred. As a superhero, he is in his element. Being a nobody was _hard_ but it didn't bend his moral resolve.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 25, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> So, in my view, settling for mediocrity is bad. However, simply telling people that they're special isn't a good idea, either. To me, that's only half the job. The other half is finding out what their talents (or at least, their comparative advantages) are, and helping them to become useful people who actually have a reason to feel at least slightly special.




Exactly. Anyone in Bob's office could have done what he did for the customers, but they didn't have the conviction to do so.


----------



## Byronic (Jun 25, 2008)

The funny thing is that when I read that quote on a thread over here earlier, I thought he meant retarded people.


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 25, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> Huh? In the movie, superheroes get driven underground by an unappreciative, sheep-like public that can't handle the fact that some people _are_ special.



Essentially, it's Ayn Rand in tights.

Fantastic movie, however. In spite of itself.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 25, 2008)

The message of The Increadables is that even if an author has a message in his head, chances are other people will get another message which is probably equally as valid.

Either that or americans like popcron and cartoons.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 25, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I think the message of the movie is that everyone is special, and that what makes people exceptional is the courage to use their gifts to their fullest and be honest about their frailties.




Dude, I was talking about the movie in the context of the application to 4E.  I really don't see the point to a tangent discussion of the "message" of the movie as a whole; otherwise, I would have put it in Off-Topic.


----------



## Wormwood (Jun 25, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> Dude, I was talking about the movie in the context of the application to 4E.  I really don't see the point to a tangent discussion of the "message" of the movie as a whole; otherwise, I would have put it in Off-Topic.



Duly noted.

Your original point, that people mistakenly use the quote as a bludgeon against 4e, is perfectly valid.


----------



## Set (Jun 26, 2008)

I thought that the 'everyone is special, and therefore no one is' was the same point made in  Harrison Bergeron.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 26, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> My view is it's saying that it's okay to have superior abilities, but that does not give you superior worth as a human being. Probably the most heroic thing Bob does in the movie is help people with insurance claims, a noble calling which earns him nothing but misery and subjection to hatred. As a superhero, he is in his element. Being a nobody was _hard_ but it didn't bend his moral resolve.



Great view, but totally off base.  The line of Syndrome was the actual stabbing point for the writers.  Not everyone is special, those that are have responsibilities to ensure that they aren't above the law.  Like the old Spiderman line "With great power comes great responsibility."  That was their guideline.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2008)

Thunderfoot said:
			
		

> Great view, but totally off base.  The line of Syndrome was the actual stabbing point for the writers.  Not everyone is special, those that are have responsibilities to ensure that they aren't above the law.  Like the old Spiderman line "With great power comes great responsibility."  That was their guideline.




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


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Essentially, it's Ayn Rand in tights.
> 
> Fantastic movie, however. In spite of itself.




Really? I thought it was more Kantian: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end."


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> Dude, I was talking about the movie in the context of the application to 4E.  I really don't see the point to a tangent discussion of the "message" of the movie as a whole; otherwise, I would have put it in Off-Topic.




It is important, when proposing an argument, to choose first principles or assumptions that your audience finds agreeable.


----------



## eyebeams (Jun 26, 2008)

The film's great, but its subtext is a fascist apologia. I don't see what it has to do with D&D, really. 4e is remarkably vague about what powers represent in the story. This is good for some people and bad for others. But really, if people envision them as superpower-like and don't care for it, their reaction is essentially to their own attitudes. This includes saying they don't have narrative impact because everybody has them. Powers are rules for dramatic adventure events. If not everyone can have them, then this is basically denying that the players should have equal access to that excitement.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 26, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It is important, when proposing an argument, to choose first principles or assumptions that your audience finds agreeable.




I think that the argument you have been having right now proves that impossible in the universal sense.

However, in the context of "4E", "Special", "Game Balance", etc., I don't see how you could disagree with my choice of source, or arguement.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2008)

Set said:
			
		

> I thought that the 'everyone is special, and therefore no one is' was the same point made in  Harrison Bergeron.




No, the argument there was that reducing people to the lowest common denominator was insulting to everyone, including the lowest common denominator.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> The film's great, but its subtext is a fascist apologia.




I believe it's a criticism of fascism and corporatism from a humanist, egalitarian standpoint. It's even slightly Marxist.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> I think that the argument you have having right now proves that impossible in the universal sense.
> 
> However, in the context of "4E", "Special", "Game Balance", etc., I don't see how you could disagree with my choice of source, or arguement.




If I disagree with what someone has to say about the film, then if I try to respond to the argument you are making an analogy to, it's hard to respond to the argument without being sure what qualities from the analogy you consider a part of the argument. 

If you say, "It tastes like chicken, because of all the breading," I want to ask what makes it taste like chicken, but I wonder if you just mean it has breading and that's what makes the taste similar.


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 26, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> If I disagree with what someone has to say about the film, then if I try to respond to the argument you are making an analogy to, it's hard to respond to the argument without being sure what qualities from the analogy you consider a part of the argument.




If you have a disagreement with what someone has to say about the film, and it requires you to respond in a way that *is absolutely off topic*, you are being off-topic.

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.

You have close to a third of the replies in the thread.  I invite you to a create a take-on-all-comers OP in the Off-Topic forum concerning the Message of The Incredables.


----------



## Cadfan (Jun 26, 2008)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> No, it's saying that when we have power, we have a mandate to use it for the good of all.



No, no, no.  You added basically all of the stuff in your post.

The movie is very clear.  The villian's nefarious plan is to sell the inventions that make him super so that everyone can have them.  This will make everyone super, which, he reasons, is the same as no one being super.  This is clearly presented as 1) logical, and 2) a scary idea.  We can't have everyone being super!  The viewer is supposed to hear this and feel resentful on behalf of the Incredibles family, because they're REAL superheroes, and they're SPECIAL, and now this guy is going to take that away by making everyone else just as good as them!

The problem is, the main characters didn't earn their powers at all.  They didn't earn the ability to be special.  They just had it handed to them.  Later, they did stuff with it, that's great.  Good for them.  But the fact that they have super powers was something they were born into.  It required no effort at all, no work, no nothing.

For us to feel that its bad for everyone to get super powers requires us to feel that the main characters are in some way more deserving of superpowers than others.  Which is absurd- they may have done good things with their powers, but they certainly didn't earn them.

Its like a landed nobleman in the medieval era arguing that the peasants can't be given the same rights as him, because that would drag him down to their level.  He wouldn't be special anymore.  And he deserves his inherited privilege!  He runs such a nice estate, and is quite kind to the little people down beneath him.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jun 26, 2008)

I haven't seen the film.  Don't need to.  

  What makes a 'special' 4E character?  A character that is *played* specially.
  What makes a 'special' 3E, 2E, 1E, OD&D character?  A character that is *played* specially.

  Sting didn't make Bilbo special.  Bilbo made Sting special.
  The Ring didn't make Frodo special.  The fact Frodo resisted the Ring to the end made Frodo special.
  Even Wormtongue was special ... BECAUSE he WAS Wormtongue, and not just any Rohirrim turned traitor.

  EDIT:  

  Galadriel saw that if she took the Ring, she most certainly would not become special.  (The Ring did it's utmost to entice her, obviously, but it failed.)
  Because she saw that, and decided not to take the Ring when it was freely offered to her, she proved herself special.

  What beat Sauron is the fact that he thought everyone wanted to become 'special' like he was.  Instead, they decided to forego such 'specialness' and destroy the Ring.


----------



## SweeneyTodd (Jun 26, 2008)

I don't even see how the (misunderstood) quote is even a decently formulated argument, since earlier versions had spellcasters. 

I guess the argument is "well, you leveled up to the point where you were Special, so you earned it", or something.

Maybe the OP could clarify which personal preference causes 4e to rub him the wrong way? Is it that martial classes are on an even footing with spellcasters, or what?


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The movie is very clear.  The villian's nefarious plan is to sell the inventions that make him super so that everyone can have them.  This will make everyone super, which, he reasons, is the same as no one being super.  This is clearly presented as 1) logical, and 2) a scary idea.  We can't have everyone being super!  The viewer is supposed to hear this and feel resentful on behalf of the Incredibles family, because they're REAL superheroes, and they're SPECIAL, and now this guy is going to take that away by making everyone else just as good as them!




You could easily argue it's supposed to be "scary" because:

1. It's being done for all the wrong reasons - to hurt a small group of people instead of helping the population at large 

2. It'd mean Syndrome won, and is fat, happy and in charge

3. Syndrome is an insane super-weapons dealer with poor impulse control

The movie has all kinds of issues if you look too closely, but that whole scne, IMO, was the writers going "Being a spiteful asshat is bad, ok?"


----------



## wayne62682 (Jun 26, 2008)

IMO the quote was originally being used to condemn 4E because, basically, the Fighter doesn't get overshadowed and outperformed by the Cleric/Druid/Wizard/anyone else.   "When everyone is special, nobody is special" seems to only refer to the perceived "dumbing down" of 4E, in that now everyone does the same thing with some minor flourishes; there's no more Wizard using some broken twink spell to shatter all semblance of a fair and balanced game and do so legally and within the rules.

In my opinion, the use of that quote and making analogies to the movie are fallacies in themselves - the movie represents what made 3.5 suck so much; the fact that some people ARE better than others because they're more special.  In 3.5 the Wizard was Superman, and the Fighter was your average beat cop on the street.  When some hood robs a bank, the beat cop can stop him just fine, unless Superman gets there first (and he usually did), but when there's another supervillain (or even an above-average normal villain like Batman faces), the beat cop is well out of his league -- no matter how hard he tries or how determined he is to stop the bad guy, he physically CAN'T.  And, while that might be a realistic interpreation in the 3.5 context, it _wasn't fun_ in the context of "Me and my buddies want to spend a couple hours playing a game for our enjoyment"


----------



## Set (Jun 26, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I haven't seen the film.  Don't need to.




Don't let the philosophy majors spoil it with the various hair-brained marxist/nietzchean/cheech&chong agendas they are attaching to it.  It's a freaking *awesome* movie; hilarious, exciting and fun, and dragging it into this quagmire is like calling Finding Nemo nazi propoganda.**

I'm pretty sure the writers would choke on a biscuit if they knew people were calling it a 'noblesse oblige' supremacist manifesto!

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


----------



## Intense_Interest (Jun 26, 2008)

wayne62682 said:
			
		

> In 3.5 the Wizard was Superman, and the Fighter was your average beat cop on the street.  When some hood robs a bank, the beat cop can stop him just fine, unless Superman gets there first (and he usually did), but when there's another supervillain (or even an above-average normal villain like Batman faces), the beat cop is well out of his league -- no matter how hard he tries or how determined he is to stop the bad guy, he physically CAN'T.  And, while that might be a realistic interpreation in the 3.5 context, it _wasn't fun_ in the context of "Me and my buddies want to spend a couple hours playing a game for our enjoyment"




I find that considering the "beat cop" as level 1 and the "hero" to be level 11 is a better assumption.

The fact that Beat Cops never level and that your Level 1s never get hit with lvl 11 challenges is one of those Handwaved-for-playability crutches.

Further, The Incredables was one of the 4 roles (plus Frozone!) player character groups, in what I conceive it as, while the cops were NPC gaurds, unstatted


----------



## orangefruitbat (Jun 26, 2008)

*The Moral of the Incredibles*

...is don't wear capes.

Which seems to be in line with the 4E art direction.

Hence, the movie is a true inspiration for DnD.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Jun 26, 2008)

My dentist looks and talks like Edna Mode.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Jun 26, 2008)

Wow, I was just complaining about that quote in another thread a few days ago...

I don't really want to get into a lot of the ideas of the movie as a whole (since it has just been too long since I have seen the movie), but I certainly agree that, in context, that line is _not_ meant to be something the viewer should agree with.

Mostly, we are meant to believe that the line is flawed simply because it comes out of a psychotic villain's mouth, and the voice actor and animators put such a wonderful evil tone and wicked expression into the the second half of the line (the important half).

As far as I am concerned, I think that line exists solely to reveal Syndrome's ultimate motivation: he wants no one to be "super", meaning he wants superheros to cease to exist. The first half of the line ("if everyone is super") is a just a brief explanation of how (in his twisted mind) his current actions will lead to his end goal stated in the second half ("then no one will be"). Honestly, if you take the line by itself, even in context, it is pretty logically flawed... Of course, Syndrome is not one for logic, since his entire motivation for his rampant hatred of Mr. Incredible and evil deeds is the fact that Mr. Incredible didn't want a young brat tagging along on superhero work (which is a more reasonable stance than Batman ever took!).

Anyways, the movie itself challenges the very assumption behind the line (that all "supers" are equal). As I mentioned in another thread, look at the scene where Syndrome tries to pass himself off as a superhero/defender of justice in the final battle sequence of the film. Syndrome has all of the powers, all of the "super"-ness, thanks to his gadgets, but he fails to even stop a disaster of his own creation (that he rigged to stop when he told it to!). His obsession with power, massive ego, and disregard for society all mean that he will never be a superhero, even if he has powers (which is the very point of his big quote!).

Meanwhile, look at how Mr. Incredible changes across the course of the movie... He is truly heroic when he works behind the scenes to help an old woman with an insurance claim, but he only uses his powers to severely injure a defenseless (if petty) man. His powers and his heroic nature are seperate, not the same thing (like Syndrome implies in his line). In fact, the movie goes to pretty impressive lengths to show that Mr. Incredible is a far greater individual when he is acting like a normal father who happens to have super-powers, than when he is a superhero who happens to be a father. Some of my favorite scenes from the movie involve that distinction, really.

Besides, even ignoring all of that, you still have a guy trying to claim that just because everyone has superpowers, it would somehow make a man with super-strength, a stretchy woman, an invisible girl, and a speedster all "mundane". Even if that were all true within the context of that world somehow, it would not be applicable to D&D because that level of variation would still be incredibly interesting and diverse enough for anyone.



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.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 26, 2008)

eyebeams said:
			
		

> 4e is remarkably vague about what powers represent in the story. This is good for some people and bad for others. But really, if people envision them as superpower-like and don't care for it, their reaction is essentially to their own attitudes. This includes saying they don't have narrative impact because everybody has them. Powers are rules for dramatic adventure events. If not everyone can have them, then this is basically denying that the players should have equal access to that excitement.



This is an excellent few sentences.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 26, 2008)

The Incredibles are so videogamey.


----------



## pawsplay (Jun 26, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> If you have a disagreement with what someone has to say about the film, and it requires you to respond in a way that *is absolutely off topic*, you are being off-topic.
> 
> 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.
> 
> You have close to a third of the replies in the thread.  I invite you to a create a take-on-all-comers OP in the Off-Topic forum concerning the Message of The Incredables.




If your post requires an off-topic response, isn't it off-topic, too? I'll concede that the line, from an unreliable voice, is misused by some people on message boards, just like "To thine own self be true" is used witlessly by people in general, but your summation of the Incredibles specifically seems to me off-target. I'm not sure what content you expected to the discussion if it was not that analogy. You are specifically attacking what the phrase means, but I don't share your formulation. 

Anyway, I'm out.


----------



## Afrodyte (Jun 26, 2008)

Intense_Interest said:
			
		

> Dude, I was talking about the movie in the context of the application to 4E.  I really don't see the point to a tangent discussion of the "message" of the movie as a whole; otherwise, I would have put it in Off-Topic.




True, but I think it's relevant (especially with the increased emphasis on heroism - or at least heroic potential - in 4e PCs).

A lot of the stuff said here is going to make me a better DM if I run D&D soon.


----------



## mattdm (Jun 26, 2008)

Scribble said:
			
		

> The message of The Increadables is that even if an author has a message in his head, chances are other people will get another message which is probably equally as valid..




But if everyone's view of the message is special^H^H^H^H^H valid, than no one's ...

never mind.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> The movie is very clear.  The villian's nefarious plan is to sell the inventions that make him super so that everyone can have them.  This will make everyone super, which, he reasons, is the same as no one being super.  This is clearly presented as 1) logical, and 2) a scary idea.  We can't have everyone being super!  The viewer is supposed to hear this and feel resentful on behalf of the Incredibles family, because they're REAL superheroes, and they're SPECIAL, and now this guy is going to take that away by making everyone else just as good as them!




The Parrs and the other superheroes _are _more deserving of their powers; they use them for the common good with no thought of reward for themselves. It matters not one hill of beans if they worked to gain those powers or were born with them. The whole point is that they took a gift that made them better in some way than most people and learned to use it responsibly and for the benefit of others. Since being good is almost always much harder than being selfish, in becoming deserving of those powers they were born with they worked a lot harder than most others ever work in their lives, at anything.

Syndrome's idea is a titanically dangerous one because he'll supply powers to anyone with money to pay for them. The vast majority of people are not going to be so selfless as the heroes; Syndrome would basically create a huge tide of supervillains or a huge tide of people who'd instantly kill themselves because they can't be bothered to read a manual, and laugh all the way to the bank while doing it. It would be like handing a gun to a baby. 

The point of the movie really resides with Dash. He's the first person to use this phrase. He's a kid and can't see why he can't use his natual gift (which, unique among the Parrs, is the only thing _everyone _can do - he can just do it way better than most) to gain things it would be impossible for others to attain. 

Robert, whose life was pretty much defined by his powers, doesn't see the harm in it because he's come to resent how he was treated - unable to use his powers, he's dying a slow death. 

Helen does, but she goes too far the opposite way; she seems as if she'd be just as happy to never use her gifts again except in small mundane ways. 

The truth, as it usually does, lies in the middle: Dash _should _use his powers _but _in socially acceptable ways - such as bashing rampaging mole men. Helen is shown that she can't deny who she is and that hiding her abilities as as bad as misusing them; she almost causes the deaths of her children because she's not let them use their powers. 

Robert is shocked out of his resentment and learns to be a hero again.

Syndrome's later use of the term is totally ironic and meant to show just how single-minded and self-absorbed he really is. He thinks he'll be getting rid of superheroes by bringing everyone up to their level, because of his own inadequacy caused by his total tunnel vision. He can't see that he himself was special even a a child, just that he wasn't special in a flashy manner like Mr Incredible. Everything he's worked for has been a lie.


----------



## Kheti sa-Menik (Jun 27, 2008)

Edena_of_Neith said:


> I haven't seen the film.  Don't need to.
> 
> What makes a 'special' 4E character?  A character that is *played* specially.
> What makes a 'special' 3E, 2E, 1E, OD&D character?  A character that is *played* specially.
> ...




I'll point out that Frodo didn't resist the Ring to the end.  In the end, he gave in.  It was his finger being bitten off by Gollum that removed its influence.  It doesn't make Frodo any less a heroic figure, but it does his story more bittersweet.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jun 27, 2008)

Set said:


> Don't let the philosophy majors spoil it with the various hair-brained marxist/nietzchean/cheech&chong agendas they are attaching to it.  It's a freaking *awesome* movie; hilarious, exciting and fun



I actually thought it was obvious, trite, and dull.

But then, I think Pixar makes bad films.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Jun 27, 2008)

Set said:


> Don't let the philosophy majors spoil it...




As a philosophy major, I take offense at this statement.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 27, 2008)

mmu1 said:


> The movie has all kinds of issues if you look too closely, but that whole scne, IMO, was the writers going "Being a spiteful asshat is bad, ok?"




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?".

Frankly, most of the rest of the movie, at least when Frozone wasn't on-screen, as kind of a let-down. Like Mac, I thought it was pretty trite, frankly, and lacked any real depth or emotional warmth (surprisingly, imo, given the subject matter).

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.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:


> The movie is very clear.  The villian's nefarious plan is to sell the inventions that make him super so that everyone can have them.  This will make everyone super, which, he reasons, is the same as no one being super.  This is clearly presented as 1) logical, and 2) a scary idea.




If I might interject - you missed two steps.  First, he uses his inventions to make himself look like a hero.  Then he sells them at high prices (and they're all weapons) to make a fortune, and only then does he make them so available that everyone scrabbles for them as the way to be special.  So, you have lies, greed, and envy.  That's why it is scary.

_The Incredibles_ is about the damage you do to yourself and your loved ones when you hide who you really are under a facade.  The problem most people have with the message here is that they assume that there's a value to "special".  YOu see, Syndrome thinks special = better.  The Parr family comes to realize that special just means different.  That's why Syndrom is a whackjob, and they're a reasonably sane family.


----------



## Mallus (Jun 27, 2008)

eyebeams said:


> The film's great, but its subtext is a fascist apologia.



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



> If not everyone can have them, then this is basically denying that the players should have equal access to that excitement.



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


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Jun 27, 2008)

I like popcorn.


----------



## TheWyrd (Jun 27, 2008)

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 (Jun 27, 2008)

Mallus said:


> 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 (Jun 27, 2008)

*i thought it*



Hussar said:


> The Incredibles are so videogamey.




I thought it was too anima.


----------



## Felix (Nov 9, 2009)

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.*



			
				Intense Interest said:
			
		

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






			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Ruin Explorer said:


> 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'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 (Nov 9, 2009)

> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Set said:


> ** 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

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 (Nov 9, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Everything, but especially this:



Felix said:


> 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.


----------



## Henry (Nov 9, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> 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.




But is your friend getting skipped for 20 minutes, or are you waiting for 20 minutes while the DM stops the action so that your friend decides? That was one stated problem in the gap between 3E and 4E.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 9, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> 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?




Your comparison would only fit completely if Usain Bolt lived in a world in which he was living, working, and being peers to those Special Olympics athletes every day or if he had to appear as one of those Special Olympians in his regular life. That's not the case. One of Dash's problems throughout the movie is that he has trouble relating to his peers - he cannot go out for sports and play his heart out like the rest of the kids can because of his powers. 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.


----------



## Henry (Nov 9, 2009)

felix said:
			
		

> 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.)




Actually, 4E classes possess more unique and significant strengths than 3e did: As in Basic D&D and OD&D, you can't pick and choose class levels to get a certain effect; you can diversify, but you will never have the same strengths as someone who IS a certain class. Any one character, no matter the magic items and prep-time,  WILL NOT SURVIVE a given challenge meant for a group.

On the other hand, I've seen a 3E level 11 Artificer destroy a 5-unit 10th level NPC group of mercenaries in under 10 rounds thanks to his mixing of Clerical, Artificer, and Wizardly disciplines. Superior Invisibility, non-detection, true seeing, teleport, disintegrate, bolt of glory, flesh to stone, and The remaining two NPCs teleported out before an Unseen God could strike them down, too.  I haven't seen anything in the 4E rules yet that could compare to it, short of a group of minions.


----------



## Belen (Nov 9, 2009)

Intense_Interest said:


> Lets ignore the fact that the source of the quote is a deranged maniac; the quote itself, when applied as it has been here, is completely dismantled by the actions of the movie.




Really, you think Dash is a deranged maniac?

Helen: Dash... this is the third time this year you've been sent to the office. We need to find a better outlet. A more... constructive outlet.
Dash: Maybe I could, if you'd let me go out for sports.
Helen: Honey, you know why we can't do that.
Dash: But I promise I'll slow up. I'll only be the best by a tiny bit.
Dash: Dashiell Robert Parr, you are an incredibly competitive boy, and a bit of a show-off. The last thing you need is temptation.
Dash: You always say 'Do your best', but you don't really mean it. Why can't I do the best that I can do?
Helen: Right now, honey, the world just wants us to fit in, and to fit in, we gotta be like everyone else.
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.


----------



## Belen (Nov 9, 2009)

Honestly, though, if I was going to use the quite to define 4e, then I would argue that the "balance" as it is achieved in 4e means that individual characters have lost their unique ability to shine.

Sometimes it is fun to see a player save the day because of their unique place within the party.

Just my two cents.


----------



## Henry (Nov 9, 2009)

Belen said:


> Honestly, though, if I was going to use the quite to define 4e, then I would argue that the "balance" as it is achieved in 4e means that individual characters have lost their unique ability to shine.
> 
> Sometimes it is fun to see a player save the day because of their unique place within the party.
> 
> Just my two cents.




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.


----------



## Tiberius (Nov 9, 2009)

Henry said:


> 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.




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?


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Nov 9, 2009)

Tiberius said:


> 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?




In the context of a believable fantasy world, that makes perfect sense.

In the context of a game meant to be enjoyed cooperatively by a group, its a _very bad thing_ as it detracts from the enjoyment of the game by allowing one player (the one playing the high level wizard or cleric) to do everything the other characters can.


----------



## Tiberius (Nov 9, 2009)

crazy_monkey1956 said:


> In the context of a believable fantasy world, that makes perfect sense.
> 
> In the context of a game meant to be enjoyed cooperatively by a group, its a _very bad thing_ as it detracts from the enjoyment of the game by allowing one player (the one playing the high level wizard or cleric) to do everything the other characters can.




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?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

Belen said:


> Really, you think Dash is a deranged maniac?
> 
> Helen: Dash... this is the third time this year you've been sent to the office. We need to find a better outlet. A more... constructive outlet.
> Dash: Maybe I could, if you'd let me go out for sports.
> ...




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...


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 9, 2009)

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.




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?


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Nov 9, 2009)

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?




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.


----------



## 1Mac (Nov 9, 2009)

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




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


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 9, 2009)

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.



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.


----------



## Belen (Nov 9, 2009)

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.




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.


----------



## Belen (Nov 9, 2009)

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 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.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 9, 2009)

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 (Nov 9, 2009)

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?




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 (Nov 9, 2009)

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.




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 (Nov 9, 2009)

1Mac said:


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



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.



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.



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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

@crazy_monkey: I'm on board with that.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 9, 2009)

@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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Tiberius said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> 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.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 9, 2009)

Gunpowder said:


> 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.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> 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.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Nov 9, 2009)

Perhaps what really can be taken away from all this is that people can try their hardest to make something they think will be great — and that a lot of people end up liking — but they can still stumble in the execution.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 9, 2009)

Belen said:


> 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.



These players probably prefer an earlier edition to 4E, then.

In any event, I was speaking of meaningful choices during combat, not at character creation. When the wizard player hems and haws over his spell list trying to decide which of his 5 encounter-winning options to use (and which to save for later), while the fighter's only meaningful decision is which opponent to hit next, I'm saying the wizard's play experience could be viewed as "more special."



> 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.



I don't deny that some players aren't happy with 4E.



> It has nothing to do with cheating.



In a game where either (1) the wizard can end the encounter in one fell swoop or (2) the wizard can save his spell but the rest of the characters must take a few rounds to achieve the same end, IMO the other players could be excused for thinking the wizard is cheating just a bit. In a game where the CODzilla barrels through a fight and achieves the same thing all the other melee characters, combined, achieved (and in the case of the druid, takes up nearly as much game time as all the other melee characters, combined), and afterwards heals the other melee characters to boot, IMO the other players could be excused for thinking the CODzilla is a bit of a cheat.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 9, 2009)

crazy_monkey1956 said:


> 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).



To take this a step further, it's about illustrating that "being special" doesn't necessarily equate to "always having the spotlight on you". Dash is special even if he doesn't get to use his gift to win every sporting event in his school. The 4e Wizard is special even if he doesn't get to dominate the game past 10th level and make every other class basically superfluous to the success of the team.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

Belen said:


> 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.




sorry if I was not clear, but yes I feel 4e is better then 3e, how ever I am currently playing both. So take that for what you will. I mean that the phrase and the movie doesn't apply to 4e though, atleast not any mor ehten it did to any other edtion...

like I said if only 30% of the population has claasses, and the rest are farmers and bakers, and fishermen, and ect ect ect then every class is special, but not everyone, just everyone of the main stars...




> 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.




that is funny I found that as players spent more and more time playing they gear themselves toward the level of simplicity they want. In 3.5 I found many wizard players happy to 'down grade' to the warlock, well many fighter players were equaly happy with the 'upgrade' to warblade... infact I saw very few 10th level fighters in my games ever...

[sblock=melee character pre Bo9S]
I have a player who loves theives, and have been playing them sence 1e...in the late 90's he found he more often then not multi classed into eaither wizard or fighter. 
This same play around 2003 (right after 3.5 hit I think) found his favorit way to play a rouge was to multi into what he called 'combat class'...he and others around here used this base to build every warrior type you can imagin and every rouge type as well...
Fighter/Rouge/Ranger 2/3/3 then found a prestige class to fit them and there character...why becuse you got skills and fighting power, and hp, and gave up little..

funny how no one every said "gee fighter 8 is just as good, or Ranger 8 is just a good, or ROuge 8 is just as good" and yet the spellcasters could still sing "Anything you can do I can do better...I can do anything better then you"
[/sblock]




> 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.




I still see the same styles of play as before I don't know if maybe you and I just have diffrent groups, but fighters are played the way I always wanted to play them, and wizards have only lost there biggest guns...



> 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.



It is no exsistan to me...



> 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.



yea, becuse those people that always played wizards are happy with the power cut...oh wait that is a major complaint...




> 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.



 I want play style to vary but not the fun...and some things in old edtions where not fun...for most people I know.



I also find it funny I remember people from 1e forward having players say "I am too dumb to be a wizard" now adays you rearly hear that... so was it play stlye diffrence or gamemastery diffrence???


----------



## Umbran (Nov 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


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




They, meaning the protagonists?  If so, then yes.  If the protagonist is wrong, and fails to learn before it is too late, the result is typically tragedy.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


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



I'm not sure this is a tenable position. Surely the writers don't place the movie's message in the mouth of the movie's villain, or of a character who is merely a petulant child at the time the line is delivered. This would cause nearly everyone who sees the movie to miss the message, because it's been said by somebody who, in context, we can't trust.



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

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



How so? The idea (that if everyone is special, then no one is) is left untested by the end of the movie. The writers appear to want the viewer to understand that being true to who you are is more important than comparing yourself to others. Standard kiddie-fare message: *because* everyone is special, make the most of *your* gifts.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> In a game where the CODzilla barrels through a fight and achieves the same thing all the other melee characters, combined, achieved (and in the case of the druid, takes up nearly as much game time as all the other melee characters, combined), and afterwards heals the other melee characters to boot, IMO the other players could be excused for thinking the CODzilla is a bit of a cheat.




I know games that the DM wont let players play cleric druid wizard sorcerer type until they prove they can 'hold back' enough to let everyone take a turn... 

I look at it like superman, he has 300 power, each at rediculace levels of mastery, if he goes all out very little can stop him...BUT he holds bback and doesn't use his speed in the same issue flash does, or his heat vison with blasters, or his award winning investgative journalist skills mixed with super sense when with batman...


edit: An idea from another genre is my character 2 years ago at gen con…

I sat down at a M&M game and the GM asked who new the rules well, me and one of the guys I was with said we did, so he asked if one of us would play the techno character because it was ‘complex’…so I took it.

Now this was a 6 player game that he let 2 others sit in with because they wanted to try the system so 8 players total. I looked at my sheet then asked “Um guys who here thinks these characters are really powerhouses?” and everyone said “um nnot really”…so I proded my 2 friends (so 3 of the 8 of us where from my games) to find out what they had, and then I said tot eh DM “Um…this character is way overboard for this group” but I was assured it was fine…and I had a skill that was needed (It ended up being the computer skill maxed well no one else had above 3 ranks in it)

So I had a power that let me build devices in a round then use it the next, and each time I had X number of points to spend, I had to take one apart to make the next. SO I quickly went though and made some low power toys splitting the points up…then I took a sheet of paper and wrote out a death ray… I folded the paper and gave it to a guy I didn’t know and asked him to hold onto it until the end of the game just incase…

We played the 3 ½ hour game and I was board, I tried not to rearrange my powers every scean to fit what we needed, so others could do things too…finaly when game ended I asked the other player to hand the GM the paper…

He almost had a heart attack… Disintegrate 10 no save… without costing all of my points. I then told him to be more careful, the first encounter I could have used it to end the whole mod…I then told him about the mental link power that let me control mechinces I could give myself that would have ended both rp sceans in like 3 second… he thanked me for not ruining his game and I went away…

But I don’t think he realized how little the fun was for me. The character was so OP that he could solo the game…but I had to sit on my thumbs or ruin 7 other players (one of  witch I had to bunk with that night)


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



You're wrong. You're just adding stuff into the movie that isn't there, oversimplifying various aspects of the movie, and blatantly forgetting very important parts of the movie.

Alright, here are a few basic facts about the movie.

Dash is just an exaggerated version of the typical boy who hates getting told that he can't do something by his parents. He is basically a bit selfish and very bratty and rebellious. He is certainly immature. He grows a lot by the end of the movie, though, which is indeed the main point.

Bob is an exaggerated version of the typical man going through a mid-life crisis, pining for the adventure and romance of his younger days, letting nostalgia obscure many of the problems. The fact that his wife gets the mistaken impression he is having an affair is perhaps the clearest sign of the fact they are making this parallel...

Syndrome, as he was when he was just Mr. Incredible's fanboy, was just like Dash. He was a bratty, spoiled, and selfish kid. His flaw was that he just didn't grow up. He continued to be bratty and selfish his entire life. This is probably why the people at Pixar gave him the height and appearance of a child when he is grown up.

Syndrome's threat has absolutely nothing to do with making everyone endure some kind of situation of both being "special" and being told to :not be better than other people". I honestly have no idea where you got that from. You seem to be assuming somehow that Syndrome is some kind of parallel for "political correctness" and he stands opposite of the desires that Dash and Bob have early in the movie, but that is completely false. Syndrome is the very incarnation of the desires and ideology that drives Dash to want to be "special" and makes Bob want to relive his youth. 

Honestly, I don't think the idea of "political correctness" is even a significant factor in this movie. The Incredibles don't stay under the radar because it is "politically incorrect", they do so because they want to have a normal family. As is shown in the later parts of the film, the Incredibles and the ice-powered guy really don't have any kind of real fear of using their powers when it is necessary to help others. The real event that brought an end to Mr. Incredible's days as a superhero wasn't the lawsuit against him, it was his wedding. The last time he ever wore his mask as Mr. Incredible prior to the main action of the movie was the moment he took it off after putting on his wedding tuxedo. Mr. Incredible didn't just hold his insurance job to keep a low profile, he did so because it was a way of earning a living to support his family. The burdens of married life and raising a family is really what kept him from being a superhero, not anything else.

Anyways, to finally get around to my main point (and I really am no longer addressing Hobo here)... The idea of "specialness" you see in Dash and Syndrome's quotes is basically those two's desires to be, well, worshipped because they perceive themselves as special. I don't think it really even has anything to do with the actual fact of their specialness. The story of _The Incredibles_ is a big metaphor for the trials of a _normal_ family, of any family, not necessarily a family that has a potential olympic athlete for a son. Dash and the young Syndrome are both parallels for the average kid who dreams of being just like some role model and believes that they are uniquely awesome simply because they _are_ uniquely special to their own parents. If you want to get psychoanalytical about it, it could be said that their desire for other people to "recognize their specialness" is nothing more than a foolish desire for everyone to love them unconditionally the same way their parents do. In Syndrome's case, this became such an obsession that he enacted a grand insane scheme to transform himself into the world's only superhero and savior, live as such until he grows old, and then make sure that no one ever becomes as "special" as him ever afterwards.

As one final note, people should keep in mind that Syndrome really is a pathetic little man. For all his desire to be seen as a superhero, he only wants to do so when he has no competition for the limelight and when it is 100% safe for him. If he really wanted, he could have started acting like a hero and used his technology to stop bank robberies at any time.


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Nov 9, 2009)

The "anti-political correctness" message is in the movie, though never stated outright.

It is most apparent when Bob and Helen are arguing after Bob comes in late.  At one point Bob says, "They keep coming up with new ways to celebrate mediocrity."  This is in reference to Dash's 'graduation' ceremony, moving from 4th grade to 5th grade.

As a parent of kids that age, the 'celebration of mediocrity' point is a valid one, in my opinion.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

The thing that really hits home with me is that it is almost the story of watchmen... serisely take both storie and put them side by side...

the heros where welocme and part of history
the heroes where outlawed
the heroes went underground...

I mean it is a pizar movie still but with some very adult themes...heck count the deaths in the movie (including the cape gag) and see that this is a very grim and gritty comic book world, not a happy 4 color one...


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 9, 2009)

crazy_monkey1956 said:


> as a parent of kids that age, the 'celebration of mediocrity' point is a valid one, in my opinion.




qft...


----------



## Umbran (Nov 9, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> Surely the writers don't place the movie's message in the mouth of the movie's villain, or of a character who is merely a petulant child at the time the line is delivered. This would cause nearly everyone who sees the movie to miss the message, because it's been said by somebody who, in context, we can't trust.




Sure they would - in general, villains and petulant kids are wrong.  The audience would expect the message to be some negation of whatever such characters happen to believe.

In the case of this movie, I think one can say that the negation is that the line is irrelevant.  Comparing who is more or less special is pointless and ultimately unfulfilling - what matters isn't what you can do, but what you choose to do.

I think that rather goes for the game, too.


----------



## rogueattorney (Nov 9, 2009)

I think missed in this is that when Dash says "when everyone is special, no one will be," he thinks it's bad.  When Syndrome says it, he thinks it's good.

Dash is the gifted athlete or student who sees everyone put through a mediocre challenge where everyone get the same little trophy or star.  He's begging to be challenged for real.

Syndrome is the one charging $50 per head to enter a beauty contest and then gives every contestant a prize to make sure his customers don't get their feelings hurt and re-enter the contest next year.

It's interesting that the younger Syndrome had been discouraged from excelling with his amazing gifts as a child, too.  Much like Dash had.  His frustration turned to life-long rage, a direction it wouldn't have been too difficult imagining Dash heading down.

I could get real political about state enforced mediocrity and the fate of the super heroes in that movie - humiliated, beat down, and eventually rounded up and murdered - but I won't.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 9, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Sure they would - in general, villains and petulant kids are wrong.  The audience would expect the message to be some negation of whatever such characters happen to believe.



Just to nitpick, I'd say that in this case, the line given to the villain or petulant child is the *antithesis* of the movie's message, so I'm going to assume we actually agree.  But I do take your point that if the antithesis of the message comes out clearly enough, the actual message is equally clear.


----------



## Belen (Nov 9, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> In any event, I was speaking of meaningful choices during combat, not at character creation. When the wizard player hems and haws over his spell list trying to decide which of his 5 encounter-winning options to use (and which to save for later), while the fighter's only meaningful decision is which opponent to hit next, I'm saying the wizard's play experience could be viewed as "more special."




Only if you view the game as players competing with each other and the DM.  Maybe Wizards has decided that this is how most people play the game.

Every other character class has meaningful decisions in combat.  In 1e/2e, they could get creative by sliding under the orc etc.  A Wizard could cast a spell and pray that no one hit them.

In 3e, every class could take feat chains that gave them cool things to do in combat.  A Wizard could cast a spell and pray they made their concentration check.

I know that it is currently in vogue to use the meme of Wizards that could do everything and make every other class feel bad, but that is just not the case.

The only time I have seen such an issue crop up is when a DM allowed a Wizard to get away with murder.  This is a player/DM issue.  



Marius Delphus said:


> In a game where either (1) the wizard can end the encounter in one fell swoop or (2) the wizard can save his spell but the rest of the characters must take a few rounds to achieve the same end, IMO the other players could be excused for thinking the wizard is cheating just a bit. In a game where the CODzilla barrels through a fight and achieves the same thing all the other melee characters, combined, achieved (and in the case of the druid, takes up nearly as much game time as all the other melee characters, combined), and afterwards heals the other melee characters to boot, IMO the other players could be excused for thinking the CODzilla is a bit of a cheat.




I can see why you may have that opinion if you suffered through bad DMs or overreaching players.  One issue with 3e was the true lack of consequences for casters, such as extended periods to cast spells or aging effects etc.  Heck, they could almost never be threatened.

However, playing by the rules is not cheating.  The players play a cooperative game.  Jealousy defeats the purpose.  It seems that a lot of people had Wizard envy or experiences games where the DM just did not challenge the Wizard.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Nov 9, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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..




And still, despite you performing an improbable and unlikely feat, it made no difference to the outcome of the combat at all. If you had not even been there, the sorceror would still have won the fight for you.

You get lucky, the monster has a slightly hard time. The sorceror gets lucky and the combat is over.


----------



## Belen (Nov 9, 2009)

Saeviomagy said:


> And still, despite you performing an improbable and unlikely feat, it made no difference to the outcome of the combat at all. If you had not even been there, the sorceror would still have won the fight for you.
> 
> You get lucky, the monster has a slightly hard time. The sorceror gets lucky and the combat is over.




When did this argument get codified?  I think my time away from ENWorld has caused me to miss lots of edition wars goodness.

I have seen fighters one round BBEGs at high level before a wizard gt a chance to go.  High level 3e was always about who got the nuke out first.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 9, 2009)

crazy_monkey1956 said:


> The "anti-political correctness" message is in the movie, though never stated outright.
> 
> It is most apparent when Bob and Helen are arguing after Bob comes in late.  At one point Bob says, "They keep coming up with new ways to celebrate mediocrity."  This is in reference to Dash's 'graduation' ceremony, moving from 4th grade to 5th grade.
> 
> As a parent of kids that age, the 'celebration of mediocrity' point is a valid one, in my opinion.



You know, I don't really agree. For one, I think the context of that scene and Bob's current mental state when he says that may be a strong element of what we are supposed to take from it (single lines out of context can be taken to mean anything, really), but it has been so long since I have seen the movie that I can't remember this scene at all.

Honestly, I might just write this one off as one of those cases where Pixar throws in some crude political commentary that is mostly unimportant to the central themes of the story (kind of like the strong commentary on comercialism and such you see in Wall*E that has absolutely nothing to do with the main action of Wall*E's own story). This is the one criticism I would give to almost all of Pixar's works. They are not perfect, after all.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 10, 2009)

It's true that the best damage dealers in 3e are the melee guys. I had a warblade who dealt about 160 dmg on a charge at level 10. But the casters can do so much more. Solve non-combat challenges, movement, battlefield control, save-or-f--ked-up. There's only one thing the wizard can't do as well as a min-maxed melee guy. And clerics and druids don't have that weakness. I've seen a shapeshifted druid dealing well over 100 dmg a round in the vicinity of level 10. This is using splatbooks such as Spell Compendium ofc, the Bite spells. And the druid can do lots and lots of other things too.

Once you get to around level 7 in 3e, casters are best. At levels 1-4, the melee guys are top dogs. D&D's kind of broken that way, but the whole clunky thing sort of almost works if you just play at levels 3-6.

I've been saying casters are OP long before 4e. Honest. Balance has always been a big deal to me.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 10, 2009)

Belen said:


> Only if you view the game as players competing with each other and the DM.  Maybe Wizards has decided that this is how most people play the game.



I don't view the game this way, and it's still my contention that (a) pre-4E spellcasters have more cool options on their character sheet than non-spellcasters do, and (b) 4E appears to have "leveled the playing field" in this respect.



> I know that it is currently in vogue to use the meme of Wizards that could do everything and make every other class feel bad, but that is just not the case.



I hate memes, and I don't care what's in vogue. I'm speaking from experience as (a) a 1E–2E player who has used single high-level wizard/magic-user, illusionist, cleric, and druid spells to effectively end combats in a single round and (b) a 1E–3E DM who's had players do this with wizards/magic-users, illusionists, clerics, and druids.



> The only time I have seen such an issue crop up is when a DM allowed a Wizard to get away with murder.  This is a player/DM issue.



Not necessarily. Playing completely within the rules, it's possible, for example, for a wizard to seem far more awesome than a fighter during combat and have much more impact. I've seen it happen in fairly-run games where everyone liked each other, nothing peculiar was going on, and no significant house rules were in play.



> I can see why you may have that opinion if you suffered through bad DMs or overreaching players.



It's not necessary to have had either, as I state above.



> One issue with 3e was the true lack of consequences for casters, such as extended periods to cast spells or aging effects etc.  Heck, they could almost never be threatened.



This is not a problem I've ever really had.



> However, playing by the rules is not cheating.  The players play a cooperative game.  Jealousy defeats the purpose.  It seems that a lot of people had Wizard envy or experiences games where the DM just did not challenge the Wizard.



But it can *feel* like somebody's cheating. Without any player animosity, and with all players focused on cooperating in-game, in pre-4E games, it's possible for high-level primary spellcasters to "steal the show" and have plenty of options left over, while the non-spellcasters don't have that many options.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Nov 10, 2009)

rogueattorney said:


> I think missed in this is that when Dash says "when everyone is special, no one will be," he thinks it's bad.  When Syndrome says it, he thinks it's good.
> 
> Dash is the gifted athlete or student who sees everyone put through a mediocre challenge where everyone get the same little trophy or star.  He's begging to be challenged for real.
> 
> ...



You are really making a mistake in equating Syndrome with "state enforced mediocrity".

Syndrome is absolutely _not_ the guy going around making everyone feel good about themselves pointlessly. He is the guy paying everyone $50 to bow down, lick his boots, and sing his praises. He is the guy going around putting everyone down and trying to get people to adore him (and _only_ him). He is an egomaniac.

Syndrome isn't a victim and perpetuator of some kind of "state enforced mediocrity". He isn't a person who had been discouraged from excelling at all. In fact, considering his staggering wealth, gigantic army of loyal minions, and incredibly destructive death machines, he has been mind-bogglingly successful in his application of his various talents. He isn't an incarnation of "the man" who forces superheroes to stay normal, he is the guy who is literally going around killing superheroes by giving them a second chance to use their powers. He is obsessed with the glory of superheroes and wants it for himself, he isn't interested in "bringing them down to his level" or anything like that. As I said above, I honestly have no idea where someone would even get the idea.

Syndrome isn't a warning about what happens if you check a child's talents, he is a warning about what happens if you _don't_ check a child's self-centeredness and anger.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Nov 10, 2009)

Belen said:


> I know that it is currently in vogue to use the meme of Wizards that could do everything and make every other class feel bad, but that is just not the case.



They've been calling the wizard Batman for a long time on the WotC boards. Well before 4e. I believe it's a reference to the class's ability to solve any problem, given time to prepare. Likewise 'CoDzilla' has been around for ages.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 10, 2009)

Doug McCrae said:


> They've been calling the wizard Batman for a long time on the WotC boards. Well before 4e. Likewise 'CoDzilla'.




I have been on the WotC website since the early 3e days...

year one there was talk about broken monk and ubber fighter...both seamed so over the top in theory...then around 8-15 months in stories started of the 'win buttons' that were level 5+ spells.

I still remember at the same gencon that I got my 3.5 books at I talked to people who called druids a double character...you get your broken caster and your bad ass fighter as a pet...

C.o.D. zilla came out as a popular phrase around that time...

it orginaly ment Cleric or Druid zilla where the cleric could self buff to being a better fighter then a fighter and still have his spells, well the druid could do so easier...

latter when night sticks, and persistant spell came out and clerics could use them to have Divine X (the spell that was +1/3 caster level attack and damage as a luck bonus) Divine power (fighter base attack and +4 str) and Wrightus Might (up one size catagory) up all day for 1 casting each... yea so you have the ability to wear any armor, a fighter base attack, upto +6 attack and damge, and count as large...pluse still have your spells... 

people then cryed "that is power creep not the class fault" and C.O.dzilla got a new meaning

COre Only...and that mostly ment the Druid. At X level (I want to say 7th) You could wild shape into a bear (lots of combat potantial) well calling down lightning and entangling (pretty good casting), and summoning more bears (more good combatabts) with your wolf body guard (equal to most equal level fighters)...

See PHB only games where not balanced...you could make 3 teirs of power characters...


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 10, 2009)

billd91 said:


> 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.




Inference from WHAT exactly?

Do we ever see Dash wanting to interact with his peers other than beating them down in a foot race?

I could see one inferring if it had been VIOLET, but Dash, show some evidence.


----------



## Set (Nov 10, 2009)

pawsplay said:


> No, the argument there was that reducing people to the lowest common denominator was insulting to everyone, including the lowest common denominator.




Same deal in my book.  Dash, you're not allowed to be as fast as you can be.  Bob, you're not allowed to be the hero that you actually are, sit in this cubicle and do paperwork, when you could be saving lives, because *it upsets people* who don't have super-powers to see you out there doing things that they can never do.

That's pretty much exactly the message of Harrison Bergeron.  You're too pretty, wear this mask.  You move too gracefully, wear these weights to keep you off balance.  You're too smart, wear this headset that makes annoying noises to disrupt your concentration, so that you won't hurt the feelings of the less smart people by showing off your genius.

Dash can't be fast, he has to be hobbled.  Bob can't use his strength, and instead is weighed down with his false identity as a normal guy.  Violet can't learn self-confidence, because she's trapped in a life built on self-denial and deliberately repressing her potential to excel, so that the gifts and talents that a young person should be able to be proud of, she has to hide, like a shameful dirty secret.

It's totally Harrison Bergeron.  Just with a happier ending and 100% more Samuel L. Jackson.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 10, 2009)

Set said:


> It's totally Harrison Bergeron.  Just with a happier ending and 100% more Samuel L. Jackson.



The nitpicking mathematician in me wants to know:

1. How much Samuel L. Jackson was there in Harrison Bergeron?
2. How much would 100% more of that be?


----------



## Gunpowder (Nov 10, 2009)

Set said:


> Same deal in my book. Dash, you're not allowed to be as fast as you can be. Bob, you're not allowed to be the hero that you actually are, sit in this cubicle and do paperwork, when you could be saving lives, because *it upsets people* who don't have super-powers to see you out there doing things that they can never do.




Er, You do know that self control and sometimes yearning for a normal life are common themes in comics right? Superman lives in a world made of cardboard ( obligatory youtube link:YouTube - World of Cardboard) and _loves_ being Clark Kent. His deepest desire? Living on a farm with wife Lois and son on Krypton (see for the man who has everything YouTube - For the Man Who Has Everything 2/3 couldn't find the first part). Spiderman's original motivation for crime fighting wasn't for power or glory but out of guilt for getting his uncle killed, who was in that situation _because_ Parker was trying to cheat at a wrestling competition to make some money. And the second movie goes into how much easier Parker's life is without spiderman. 

So Dash's problems weren't stemming from the man keeping him down but learning to live with his fellow human beings, not above them.

Also, what would Dash running a race at his full potential prove? Nothing. He needs his full potential when he is running across water away from minions piloting flying saucers equipped with machine guns and spinning blades of doom. Running the 100m sprint? the fact he could hold back is a bigger accomplishment considering that he could keep himself from putting tacks on his teacher's chair.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 10, 2009)

I forget: how many other superheroes are there at the end of the film? Do we celebrate just the one family, or does everyone become special (as other superheroes come out of the wood work or whatever). 

I forget: do the normals do anything to help out in this film, or is just the specially powered ones?

If the normals don't help, then aren't we celebrating the special because no one but this family is special? At the end of the day, if I recall, the family gets to be normal as a reward for being special, while the normals in the film never get to be special.

In short, if I'm remembering correctly and using the OP's metaphor right, everyone's focused on the CoDzillas of the film because all of the characters are CoDzillas. 

There's no Mary Jane, no crowd of ordinaries pitching in to help Spiderman in his final fight in the first film... (There are narratives that take the role of the normals quite seriously indeed. The Incredibles doesn't feature a Xander to save the world or a Giles to get the killing blow or a Charles Gunn to fight the good fight alongside the empowered.)

For our purposes, the only thing that makes someone worthy of our attention in The Incredibles is if they're powerful. Whatever the dialogue says, the underlying structure of the film could be seen to undermine its stated messages.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> Just to nitpick, I'd say that in this case, the line given to the villain or petulant child is the *antithesis* of the movie's message, so I'm going to assume we actually agree.




It looks like.  If the word had come to me at the time, I might have used "antithesis".  I used "some form of negation" because there are some folks about who would apply mathematical definitions to literary analysis, and the language could then get confusing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Hobo said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





Agree 100%.  Especially the last line.

I would agree 110% were it possible.  


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> I'm not sure this is a tenable position. Surely the writers don't place the movie's message in the mouth of the movie's villain, or of a character who is merely a petulant child at the time the line is delivered.




However, the context of the line is almost universal in the movie, from the little old lady in the insurance office who isn't supposed to be treated as a unique individual to the woman who makes capeless costumes for superheroes and has nothing to do until Bob shows up to the trike kid just waiting for something amazing to happen.

Because the words are stated by only certain characters doesn't mean that they are not contextually demonstrated by almost every character in the film.



> How so? The idea (that if everyone is special, then no one is) is left untested by the end of the movie.




Not so.  The idea (that if everyone is special, then no one is) within the context of the film is the idea of artificially levelling the playing field (whether by supressing super powers or by artificially reproducing them).  That idea is tested when the supers are not allowed to be super any more, and it is shown to be a critical fail by the end of the film.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> Honestly, I don't think the idea of "political correctness" is even a significant factor in this movie.




the incredibles political correctness - Google Search

Or maybe he just watched the "making of" interviews on the DVD.  I seem to recall it being discussed, although I may be wrong.


RC


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> In short, if I'm remembering correctly and using the OP's metaphor right, everyone's focused on the CoDzillas of the film because all of the characters are CoDzillas.




I don't think that's a good analogy at all. CoDzillas are noted for their individual ability to handle virtually any situation.  A CoDzilla doesn't really need the rest of the party - but a major part of the film is that the Parrs need each other, both in super-action and emotionally.



> There's no Mary Jane, no crowd of ordinaries pitching in to help Spiderman in his final fight in the first film...




This is true, but I am not sure it is meaningful.  



> For our purposes, the only thing that makes someone worthy of our attention in The Incredibles is if they're powerful. Whatever the dialogue says, the underlying structure of the film could be seen to undermine its stated messages.




One must be careful in analysis, not to make a failure to state a given point equivalent to an active statement of the opposite.  The show is of finite length, and they must choose a finite number of things to actively say.  That does not mean they are making an infinite number of negative statements by omission.

First and foremost, the film is about Bob Parr's family, and their internal relationships.  What makes someone relevant to the story at hand is interaction with and impact upon that family - this should not be construed as a statement of "worth", merely of focus.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> One must be careful in analysis, not to make a failure to state a given point equivalent to an active statement of the opposite.  The show is of finite length, and they must choose a finite number of things to actively say.  That does not mean they are making an infinite number of negative statements by omission.
> 
> First and foremost, the film is about Bob Parr's family, and their internal relationships.  What makes someone relevant to the story at hand is interaction with and impact upon that family - this should not be construed as a statement of "worth", merely of focus.




Ordinarily, I'd agree with you, but not in this case. Clearly the concepts of "special" and "normal" are central to the film, which makes the omission of any role for normals a deliberate choice or a revealing error. And there are a lot of normals in the film for The Incredibles to test the characters at work and school. They're not really an omission at all. The creators didn't see them as being relevant or important, which says something about their values.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Exceptions:  The babysitter, Bob's tyrannical boss, the Government Agent, Frozone's wife, the guy trying to commit suicide that sues Bob, the normal boy Violet likes, the normal woman who makes costumes that save their skins, the normal woman who saves Bob (& family) from Syndrome on the island.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 10, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> The creators didn't see them as being relevant or important, which says something about their values.




We may have to agree to disagree, then.  I am extremely hesitant to make a claim on someone else's values based on what they failed to say, as opposed to what they did say.

In fiction, there is a very big difference between "focus" and "value".  There's any number of important things in the world, but we can only talk about so many of them at a time.

And, by RC's note - there are a number of "normals" in the movie who all do their bit to help the Parrs - specifically Edna Mode (the fashion designer), the Government Agent, and Mirage (Syndrome's assistant).  They don't take the same types of actions as the Parrs in physical combat, but there's a good argument the Parrs would have been hosed without them.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Indeed, it is Mirage who not only releases the Parrs, but gives them the means to reach the mainland in time to save the city.  The teacher that Dash torments in the beginning of the film is necessary for his education.  The cute boy Violet likes contributes to her happiness.  The babysitter allows the rest of the family to follow Bob, without which Syndrome would have won.  Edna Mode's costumes also contribute to the Incredible's success.  Heck, even the kid on the tricycle urges Bob to do something incredible, which pushes him toward eventually confronting and defeating Syndrome.

The Incredibles are as dependent upon the normals as the normals are upon them.

It is also noteworthy that, when the Incredibles and Frozone are taking down Syndrome, the normal people are happy to see them.  They, too, have learned that conformity has turned what was once a colourful existence into something that is instead drab and grey.  They are happy to have the colours back again!

Note also the parallels between Bob's insurance boss and Syndrome.  

Finally, note that at least one normal is given a "superhero" name in the movie:  Mirage.  Edna Mode (Mode = Fashion) is also a superheroish alternate identity name.  Certainly, Violet is surprised to find the "normal" boy she thinks is special also regards her in the same way.  In The Incredibles, specialness does not come from superpowers, but from (1) using your potential for the good of others, and (2) recognizing the potential of others.  It is the attempt to squash the potential of others that drives every conflict in the film, and is ultimately shown to be wrong.



RC


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 10, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> However, the context of the line is almost universal in the movie, from the little old lady in the insurance office who isn't supposed to be treated as a unique individual to the woman who makes capeless costumes for superheroes and has nothing to do until Bob shows up to the trike kid just waiting for something amazing to happen.
> 
> Because the words are stated by only certain characters doesn't mean that they are not contextually demonstrated by almost every character in the film.



One more time: Syndrome's threat and Dash's lament aren't the message the film is trying to get across. Those statements, _coming as they do from untrustworthy sources_, should be read as the _antithesis _of the film's actual message: that when you're true to yourself, you become special. Never settle for mediocrity: aspire higher, serve the collective good (not yourself), and find self-fulfillment (paraphrased from a review).

In the film's first act, we're treated to a world where *no one* is special, and consequently no one is happy (read: self-fulfilled). Bob's act of kindness at the office, and his clandestine super-heroics, show his craving for a world where this isn't the case. The boy on the tricycle craves the same thing (and incidentally provides a "voice of the viewer" character -- when will the movie live up to its promise, he asks with a wink).



> Not so.  The idea (that if everyone is special, then no one is) within the context of the film is the idea of artificially levelling the playing field (whether by supressing super powers or by artificially reproducing them).  That idea is tested when the supers are not allowed to be super any more, and it is shown to be a critical fail by the end of the film.



As I said, I take the film to be demonstrating instead that when _no one _is special, no one is. We're shown a world where the supers can't be super, where workers are just cogs in a corporate machine, and where (we're told) mediocrity is celebrated. This is not a world where everyone really is special. Even the superheroes have become coggy to the extent that they're easily duped by what appears to be the world's one extant supervillain. When the "special" people do their thing and are allowed to shine, that's when the situation presented in the movie improves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> One more time: Syndrome's threat and Dash's lament aren't the message the film is trying to get across.





I believe that the makers of the film have disagreed with you.  I won't have time to rewatch the commentary tonight, but I am almost certain that they stated that the message of the film is exactly what Hobo said it was.  If I have a chance to get to it this week, I'll be happy to quote them word for word as to the underlying message of the film.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

It could also be that we are talking past each other, because I fail to see where "that when you're true to yourself, you become special. Never settle for mediocrity: aspire higher, serve the collective good (not yourself), and find self-fulfillment (paraphrased from a review)" is the antithesis of the message Hobo claims.

In the opening act, it is Elastigirl who says that everyone is special.  Is she an untrustworthy source?  It is Dash who (correctly) understands this to mean no one is (a statement you seem to agree with).  Is Dash therefore untrustworthy in his observation, or trustworthy?  His actions -- his outlet for his frustrations -- are a result of having his abilities artificially levelled by society.

Syndrome, while the villian of the piece, is certainly demonstrably the most clever character in the film.  We know from the film that most people who have power use it poorly (normal suing Bob for saving him, the bomb guy, Syndrome, Bob's insurance boss, the mugger, the criminals Bob and Frozone sneak out to stop, Dash in the beginning of the film), because having power =/= being deserving of power. 

We are repeatedly shown people who want to drag the world down to their level.  Syndrome offers them the power to do just that.  



RC


----------



## tyrlaan (Nov 10, 2009)

Henry said:


> Originally Posted by tyrlaan
> 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.​But is your friend getting skipped for 20 minutes, or are you waiting for 20 minutes while the DM stops the action so that your friend decides? That was one stated problem in the gap between 3E and 4E.



If that's what you picked out of my comment, I think you may have missed my point. 

My point is that a wizard plays different from a fighter in 3e. Drastically different. In 4e, this just isn't the case anymore. I'm not passing judgment one way or the other, but that is the crux of my point and my explanation on how I've heard the "everyone is special so no one is" quote come across.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> If that's what you picked out of my comment, I think you may have missed my point.
> 
> My point is that a wizard plays different from a fighter in 3e. Drastically different. In 4e, this just isn't the case anymore.



Except people disagree about that. I, for example.

I don't play my Wizard like a Fighter. I don't run into melee, I don't try to provoke enemies into striking me instead of my comrades. And that's just the core difference.

There is a difference whether you have heat vision or super speed. Both is special, but don't tell me that Flash is the same as Cyclops.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2009)

It's impossible to discuss the movie in any depth without getting overly political, because it is a highly politically charged movie where Brad Bird voices all sorts of political statements covertly, from the value and inherent dignity of motherhood, to criticism of a litigation centered culture, to social libertarianism.  

I can't discuss that or my opinion of it, but I can point out several things.

The movie has three villains, each of which represents a deranged version of the libertarian ideas Bob represents.  Each of them in some fashion misuses their individual rights in a selfish way that works to destroy those very rights.

1) Oliver Sansweet, the man who sues Bob for saving him from himself (and his pack of lawyers): "Mr. Sansweet didn't ask to be saved. Mr. Sansweet didn't want to be saved...You didn't save my life! You ruined my death, that's what you did!" - Oliver Sansweet is challenging the right of an individual to intervene in anothers life.  Oliver Sansweet defeats Bob.  The world Sansweet creates with the help of his lawyers is one where no one can intervene in anyones life save through faceless bureaucracies, communication by lawyers, and impersonal bureaucratic jargon.  He creates a world filled with fear, where no one is willing to risk standing out because even if they try to help, they'll be punished.  And since no one can stand out, it's a world without heroes.  Society tries to console itself for its loss by saying that the world is now filled with everyday heroes, but without rights the individual proves to have no power, as we see from the next villain...
2) Bob's boss at the insurance agency: Bob is trying to save the world one policy at a time.  He tries to help, but he faces the same obstacles to being an ordinary hero as he faced being an extraordinary one.  He's forced to act covertly.  He lives in fear of lawyers and the corporation he works for.  "We're supposed to help our people! Starting with our 
stockholders.  Bob a company is like an enormous clock."  Bob's boss believes no matter what the team comes first.  The individual should be a 'cooperative cog', and that a person's real job is to help the team succeed and only the team succeed.  When Mr. Huph is informed that someone needs help, his only concern is whether or not they would be legally required to help: "Well, let's hope we don't cover him."  He's not interested in duty or compassion.  He's interested in the team (and hense himself) getting ahead.  Mr. Huph defeats Bob.  Bob's exceptional ability is of no value compared with Mr. Huph's authority and position in the world of lawyers, restrictions, and companies.  When Bob loses it, Mr. Huph ultimately wins.
3) Syndrome: Contrary to what you might think, Syndrome is a super like Bob.  Syndrome (like Edna) is a 'gadgeteer' - a super with the incredible ability to make things.  Syndrome doesn't however want to help other people.  Syndrome wants to be liked and admired.  Where as Bob does what he feels he must whether he gets rewarded, thanked or not, Syndrome only really cares about the rewards - fame, respect, power, wealth.  This isn't real heroism though.  It's just the mask of heroism.  Bob is a hero who wears a mask (whether an actual mask or the mask of being ordinary) to disguise his heroism, Syndrome is a self-centered individual that wears the mask of a hero.  Syndrome's threat, "And when everyone's super...no one will be.", isn't really credible.  Syndrome isn't actually going to share.  If he wanted to share, he would have done so.  He might be lying to himself or to Bob, but Syndrome simply isn't the sort that is trying to help or enable others.  Syndrome is much more honest when Bob gets him monologuing, "Now you respect me, because I'm a threat. That's the way it works."  Personal power as far as Syndrome is concerned isn't to help others, but to push down, intimidate, and subjegate others.



> "Everyone's special, Dash....Which is another way of saying no one is."




After Oliver Sansweet, the world becomes afraid of anyone standing out as special.  Everyone is required to be ordinary.  People are punished for winning (being heroic) and rewarded for losing (failing to help others).  No one wants an inspiration.  Oddly, the world didn't become afraid of heroes because of someone like Syndrome.  They didn't become afraid of people using their power to oppress them, they became afraid of people actually helping them.  Consequently they live in a world were everyone is oppressed reutinely.  What they didn't count on is that although they could take away everyone's freedom to be heroic, they couldn't prevent people from using their talents to oppress them precisely because those people didn't care about their rules.  Only the people who actually cared to help were punished.

Bob tries to be a heroic insurance agent, but fails.  Helen is heroicly being a mother, but even she is failing at the task because she's forced to push down and suppress her children to get them to confom.  But as a result her children are unprepared to deal with real life or to stand on their own, which means she's failed at her most basic job - getting her children ready to live their lives without a parent.  Her children can only survive in a world of mediocrity.  When something real happens, they don't know what to do despite the fact that they are extraordinarily capable individuals.

The message of the movie is that we can't escape our need for heroes and that we can't let envy and greed rule the society.  Everyone has a role.  Everyone isn't born 'incredible', but its worth noting that you don't have to be incredible to be a hero.  Nobody in the movie could have done what Bob did, but anybody could have been the hero Bob was trying to be at work or the mother Helen was trying to be at home.  They just weren't, in part because they didn't have any heroes to inspire them to do so.  Everyone had to help and support everyone else, and it was ok to celebrate extraordinary accomplishment if it was done in the service of everyone.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2009)

Interesting post, and I think it makes sense to me. 

An interesting question, going back to the origin of the discussion - what would this really mean for a game? Do we need - inside the game - people playing the "mother trying to be heroic" alongside the mother with superpowers, so to speak? Or isn't the role of the game to let us play the one with superpowers we can hope to aspire to in real life? 

Do their need to be weak player characters with no special abilities alongside "special" player characters to make this kind of point? 

Or is this actually missing the point of playing characters in a roleplaying game? We play the game to be as "special" as we can't be in real life?


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 10, 2009)

I agree that the film issues a warning about suppressing that which is special and settling for the average or (worse) the lowest common denominator. I disagree that it's the film's message, as I've explained.

Helen is correct, but her world hasn't really caught on. Dash and Syndrome are not correct. Just because everyone is special doesn't mean everyone has the same capabilities or deserves the same accolades; just because everyone is special doesn't mean Dash's speed isn't special, or Bob's (moral and physical) strength isn't special... _et cetera_. Helen and Dash, too, are talking past each other: she doesn't mean "special" the way he and Syndrome do.

Anyway, I think I've more than amply explained my views. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> Helen and Dash, too, are talking past each other: she doesn't mean "special" the way he and Syndrome do.




I think you are correct in this at least.  Helen is using 'special' in a way different than everyone else, however, Helen has got the got in the trap of using everyone's 'specialness' (in her sense) to excuse conformity and mediocrity.  

The problem is that in the world Dash lives in, "everyone is special" means everyone is equally deserving of accolades for everything.  Bob complains about this, "It's not a graduation. He's moving from the fourth grade to the fifth grade...They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity."  

Helen is actually in the wrong on this conversation, as she later realizes on the island.  She's been requiring her kids to be something other than 'great' and celebrating only their mediocrity (and trying to get Bob to do the same), and in doing so, you hasn't been helping them.  She tries to put the blame for this on Bob, by saying that its his emotional hang up that is involved, but really its hers.  Bob's hang up is his unwillingness to accept help, not his desire for his son to be 'great'.   Helen is too scared of the consequences of letting her children risk greatness to actually let them be special.  The result is that they are crippled by her desire to protect them.

Everyone being "special" and everyone being "equal" doesn't mean that some people aren't plan "better" than others.  There are people out there that are smarter, more charismatic, stronger, faster, more atheletic, more knowledgable etc. etc. than I am and who would beat me in any contest and who probably would be more suited to solving any problem we might need solved.  They are better than me.   However, their superiority doesn't infringe upon my dignity and value, nor does it give them to right to oppress my dignity and value.  However, them merely doing what they are capable of doing isn't oppressing me.  I can't blame them for my envy or jealousy, nor can I try to take from them what they have because it isn't "fair".  All I can expect is the right to be as extraordinary as I can be without them trying to take that from me.


----------



## tyrlaan (Nov 10, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Except people disagree about that. I, for example.
> 
> I don't play my Wizard like a Fighter. I don't run into melee, I don't try to provoke enemies into striking me instead of my comrades. And that's just the core difference.
> 
> There is a difference whether you have heat vision or super speed. Both is special, but don't tell me that Flash is the same as Cyclops.




It's a matter of granularity. Yes, of course you don't run into melee with your Wizard. That's not my point. Forest, trees, and all that.

My Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Invoker, Artificer, etc. all have 2 at-wills, 1 level 1 encounter power, 1 level 1 daily power, and so on. All of them make an attack roll against a defense score that's modified by one of their ability scores. 

The 3e fighter could spend every turn saying "I hit that guy" and then roll 1d20 (or more depending on iterative attacks) and possibly damage.

The 3e wizard would say "I'm casting spell X" and pick targets and watch the DM make a bunch of saving throws OR say "I'm casting spell Y" and pick a target and make a ranged touch attack OR say "I'm casting spell Z" and pick some targets and watch them suffer because it's an area effect with no save. 

The 3e wizard is _required_ to manage resources on an entirely different level from the fighter. The 3e fighter can essentially go through life just spamming right-click on all its enemies. The 3e wizard can't plausibly do this. It's the nature of the system. Not all classes _mechanically_ play the same.

In 4e, this is clearly not the case. _All _classes rely on the same resource management mechanics (barring the pending psion of course), the same attack resolution mechanics, etc. 

I'm not arguing that once you dig deeper the classes are all the same. I'm also not arguing that I have an issue with all the 4e classes using the same overall mechanics. In fact, I very much like that this is the case. But to some, this takes away an element of play they used to enjoy - namely being able to play a dirt simple character.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I can't discuss that or my opinion of it, but I can point out several things.





Beautiful work, Celebrim, and I am sorry that I cannot XP you for it at the moment.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Here is a post by Korgoth in another thread:  http://www.enworld.org/forum/4992481-post60.html


In Korgoth's first game, "If everyone is special, then no one is" does not apply.  Specialness is gained through excellence in play.

In Korgoth's second game, "If everyone is special, then no one is" does apply.  Winning with Batman in this game is meaningless; it is indicative of nothing.

Whether one views any particular game as Korgoth's first or second game is another question entirely.



RC


----------



## Felix (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:
			
		

> [Dash] realizes that his goal is really to *cheat* using his supernatural gifts.



Prepostureous!

That Dash or any of the supers are "cheating" by using their inborne talents is precicely the reasoning behind the supressive society that drives the Parrs underground, forces them to uproot multiple times, pigeonholes Bob in a corporate structure of automatons, and leads a mother to teach her children to not develop their talents - how can Violet be confident in herself among her peers when her own mother is basically teaching her that her talents are something to be ashamed of and hidden?



> Syndrome demonstrates he's the sort of character that resorts, by default, to tearing others down in order to build himself up by comparison



And this is exactly what society at large has done to the supers.



> movie-wise, this is definitely a bad-guy sort of trait.



Precicely.



> Dash is mostly expressing pre-adolescent frustration



Dash may be a pre-adolescent, but he is expressing the exact same frustration as his father; the only difference is that while Dash is confused about the contradiction, Bob understands that what is happening to him and his family is evil.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Snip post 133





			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Snip post 136



Applause.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 10, 2009)

Felix said:


> Prepostureous!
> 
> That Dash or any of the supers are "cheating" by using their inborne talents is precicely the reasoning behind the supressive society...



I believe you've misconstrued what I said. I said Dash's goal is to cheat... by using his super speed in foot-races against other elementary school students who have no hope of competing fairly with him. That's pretty much the definition of cheating. Similarly, Bob would be cheating if he used his super strength in Olympic weightlifting.


----------



## roguerouge (Nov 10, 2009)

Umbran said:


> And, by RC's note - there are a number of "normals" in the movie who all do their bit to help the Parrs - specifically Edna Mode (the fashion designer), the Government Agent, and Mirage (Syndrome's assistant).  They don't take the same types of actions as the Parrs in physical combat, but there's a good argument the Parrs would have been hosed without them.




That's what I'm looking for then. I've not seen the film in some time.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 10, 2009)

tyrlaan said:


> It's a matter of granularity. Yes, of course you don't run into melee with your Wizard. That's not my point. Forest, trees, and all that.
> 
> My Wizard, Fighter, Rogue, Invoker, Artificer, etc. all have 2 at-wills, 1 level 1 encounter power, 1 level 1 daily power, and so on. All of them make an attack roll against a defense score that's modified by one of their ability scores.
> 
> ...



No, he can do that just fine. Just take your Crossbow or Staff and do it. 

But maybe you are right, it might be matter of granularities. My example Wizard is a Wizard that doesn't use his class abilities at own. The hypothetical 4E Wizard that tries to use his class powers as if he was a Fighter doesn't use his class ability well. Both "fail" on using their class powers effectively, just one possibly more than the other.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 10, 2009)

Perhaps relevant:  Tell me how to play 4E and OD&D (so I can ignore it) « The Mule Abides



> What that means is that I had to find a way to get other players to cooperate on good tactics without feeling like I was telling them what to do and depriving them of their own choices. The final realization was that even once I did so it didn’t make that much difference.......I admire that 4E gives everyone lots of choices every turn, but personally I’d rather trade that for the occasional chance to be the one whose decisions shape the entire session, when I’m the fighter with the only sword that can hit the shadow.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> I believe you've misconstrued what I said. I said Dash's goal is to cheat... by using his super speed in foot-races against other elementary school students who have no hope of competing fairly with him. That's pretty much the definition of cheating.




Huh?  No it isn't.

The definition of cheating is to defraud and decieve.  Dash cheats when he loses.  He does not cheat when he wins.  When he wins it is because he is legitmately faster than the other students, not because he's gained an unfair advantage.

Dash competes fairly at all times.  It's no more his fault that he runs faster than the other competitors than it is Usain Bolt's fault that he runs faster than the other competitors.   

Compared to me, Usain Bolt is a super.  Does that mean it would be unfair for him to compete with me?  Should Usain bolt be forced to run with blocks of concrete in each hand to make the competition fair?  



> Similarly, Bob would be cheating if he used his super strength in Olympic weightlifting.




No, he wouldn't.  It might make the other competitors feel bad to be so outclassed in the competition (or maybe not, considering that they might be supers as well), but it wouldn't be cheating on Bob's part.

While Bob clearly has superhuman ability, where would you draw the line?  What if Bob cleared 600 lbs (and could only clear 600 lbs)?  How would you know if he was (strong) 'normal' or a (weak) 'super'?  When do you decide to disqualify people?  When they can run the 100 yard dash in under 10 seconds?   How about under 9.7?  What about under 9.3?  

The fact of the matter is that if you can clear 580 lbs, it's heroic and the question of whether you are a 'super' or 'normal' is rather irrelevant and redundant.  You certainly aren't 'normal' if you can clear 580+ lbs. on a clean and jerk, but you also aren't (necessarily) cheating either.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 10, 2009)

Huh? What is more fraudulent and deceptive than taking part in a competition when one is orders of magnitude superior to any of the other competitors? Any illusion of fair play has been shattered, and even the faintest of hopes the other competitors might have of winning have been destroyed.

In the case of Dash and Bob, I don't have to draw a line that skirts "human normal." Dash has super speed. On screen, it's made clear that he outclasses by orders of magnitude any runner without super speed. To run in a race where nobody but him has super speed, and win, is to cheat. Likewise, Bob has super strength. On screen, it's made clear that he outclasses by orders of magnitude any weightlifter without super strength. To lift weights in a competition where nobody but him has super strength, and win, is to cheat.

Though the limits of "human normal" are creeping upward every decade, Dash and Bob are not nearly in the same league. Competing with normal humans, for them, is cheating.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 10, 2009)

Gunpowder said:


> Spiderman's original motivation for crime fighting wasn't for power or glory but out of guilt for getting his uncle killed, who was in that situation _because_ Parker was trying to cheat at a wrestling competition to make some money.




I have to question qhether using your strength to win a competition is actually cheating? We don't accuse people who are large in size with "cheating" because they excel at being linemen in football, or people who are tall with cheating when they excel in basketball. Why is it that using "superpowers" (which are effectively a literary construct) is cheating when done in competition? I could never compete with Michael Phelps in a swimming contest, even if he stopped working out for a decade, is it cheating for him to win if he races against me?



> _So Dash's problems weren't stemming from the man keeping him down but learning to live with his fellow human beings, not above them._




Learning to patronize them by letting them win? Parents often try to patronize their children when they are very small by letting them win at games. Is Dash a parent level figure to those poor benighted souls who aren't good enough to have "superpowers" who should be letting others win races? This seems like a very dangerous ideology to be espousing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> I believe you've misconstrued what I said. I said Dash's goal is to cheat... by using his super speed in foot-races against other elementary school students who have no hope of competing fairly with him. That's pretty much the definition of cheating. Similarly, Bob would be cheating if he used his super strength in Olympic weightlifting.




Really? If I'm faster than you it is cheating for me to win a race against you?

The message of the film really is "be mediocre".


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 10, 2009)

No, it isn't, and no, I disagree.


----------



## renau1g (Nov 10, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> Learning to patronize them by letting them win? Parents often try to patronize their children when they are very small by letting them win at games. Is Dash a parent level figure to those poor benighted souls who aren't good enough to have "superpowers" who should be letting others win races? This seems like a very dangerous ideology to be espousing.




Very True. On the other hand, If I'm playing floor hockey (ministicks) with my 3 year old nephew, I *can* absolutely dominate him and make him feel bad. It's more fun for both of us if he has a good time and "wins" as neither of us are taking home the Stanley Cup or getting a $Million signing bonus as a result. 

Maybe I misunderstood your sentence, but you are saying patronize in a negative context right?


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> Huh? What is more fraudulent and deceptive than taking part in a competition when one is orders of magnitude superior to any of the other competitors?




I'm quite at a loss to see how anything fraudulent or deceptive takes place.  



> Any illusion of fair play has been shattered...




How?  Fair play doesn't gaurantee equal odds of winning.  Indeed, under fair play I might have no chance of winning.  If I play the world chess champion fair and square, he'll beat me fair and square every time.  What's fraudulant or deceptive about that?  



> ....and even the faintest of hopes the other competitors might have of winning have been destroyed.




I'm beginning to see your problem.  You think 'fair' in this context means 'not extreme', which is one possible definition fair ('we are having fair weather'), but not the one used in context of a competition.  If I race Usain bolt, and there is a 'fair chance' of me winning then it is a very unfair competition indeed.  Dash is playing by the same rules as everyone else.  He's a eight year old boy that attends an elementary shool.  The race is open presumably to everyone matching that description.  How is he cheating?

And if you say, "Well, he's a super.  He's clearly better than everyone else!", then where do you draw the line?  Would it be ok for him to be only 10% faster than the other boys?  How about 30%?  If Dash drops out, would it be cheating for the next fastest boy to remain in the race?  How do you know he isn't a super too?  Who would decide what the limit of greatness allowed in a competition would be before you were disqualified from it?  And, if you could be disqualified on the grounds of your greatness, wouldn't the resulting competition then just be a celebration of mediocrity?  And, if you could be disqualified for being too fast, in what sense would the resulting competition be 'fair'?



> In the case of Dash and Bob, I don't have to draw a line that skirts "human normal." Dash has super speed. On screen, it's made clear that he outclasses by orders of magnitude any runner without super speed. To run in a race where nobody but him has super speed, and win, is to cheat.




Why?



> Likewise, Bob has super strength. On screen, it's made clear that he outclasses by orders of magnitude any weightlifter without super strength. To lift weights in a competition where nobody but him has super strength, and win, is to cheat.




Why?



> Though the limits of "human normal" are creeping upward every decade, Dash and Bob are not nearly in the same league. Competing with normal humans, for them, is cheating.




I'm at a loss to see why.  When they run the Olympic races, many participants come from small nations where there are few competitors and low levels of competition.  These participants are wildly outclassed by the strongest competitors, and indeed would likely be outclassed by the third or fifth or tenth or 50th runners up of the stronger nations in that particular sport.  Is it cheating for the faster, stronger, more skilled competitors to even be in the competition?


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2009)

renau1g said:


> On the other hand, If I'm playing floor hockey (ministicks) with my 3 year old nephew, I *can* absolutely dominate him and make him feel bad. It's more fun for both of us if he has a good time and "wins"...




Speaking as a former 3 year old, no it isn't - at least not in the long run.  At least speaking for myself, nothing so irritates a child as realizing that his victory is hollow because he's been allowed to win.  If he doesn't realize how he's been cheated, sure, he'll have the thrill of victory, but if he actually cared finds you out, he's not likely to be happy about it.  And if he didn't actually care, he's not likely to be bothered by being what you consider 'crushed'.  In that case, he's probably not competing with you at all and may not even understand the concept. 

If you let him win, he's been cheated out of a fair competition.  He's been disrespected as a competitor.  He's been lied to.

Someone criticized Dash for not winning the final race.  I agree.  When dash threw the race, that _was_ cheating because Dash had decieved and disrespected the other competitors.  If Dash no longer felt the need to win, he shouldn't have competed.

I used to play soccer in high school.  I wasn't that good, but I enjoyed playing.  Occasionally, we got crushed.  I should have been quite put out though if the other team hadn't kept playing their hardest right up to the final minute.  I can hold my head up high in defeat, but only if you don't look down on me.  Play me hard as a mark of respect.  I suspect that this feeling is close to universal.  Time and time again we get stories of some down on their luck school, or small school punching above their weight, getting thumped hard by a bigger program, and time and time again there is an outcry by the parents about how this was 'unfair', 'mean', 'bad form', and so forth.  Interestingly, you pretty much never here that from the players who are never as upset about it as the parents or our self appointed gaurdians are.

I used to play scholar's bowl in high school.  We went to a national competition one year after placing second in the state, and we got thumped hard by the eventual winner - a team from Durham NC that had two Jepordy Teen champions on it.  We got crushed.  It was humbling.  But it wasn't humiliating because the other team played their best rather than treating us like 3 year olds who had to have our feeling protected.

If you want to play a game with your 3 year old nephew where the goal is 'fun', then I suggest you find a game that you can compete more as equals than floor hockey.  I get beat by my 4 year olds in 'Monkey Madness', 'Disney Yatzee', and so forth.


----------



## Marius Delphus (Nov 10, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I'm quite at a loss to see how anything fraudulent or deceptive takes place.  ... I'm beginning to see your problem.  You think 'fair' in this context means 'not extreme',



No, I don't. I would argue you therefore don't see my problem.



> How is he cheating?



If it's not cheating for the Flash to enter the Olympics and steal the gold medal from the fastest normal human in the world, then I give up.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> No, I don't.




Ok, then which definition of 'fair' are you using?



> If it's not cheating for the Flash to enter the Olympics and steal the gold medal from the fastest normal human in the world, then I give up.




What definition of 'cheating' are you using?  In what way had the flash practiced deception?  In what way did the Flash decieve the other competitors?  In what way did the Flash violate the rules?  In what way had the Flash taken something he didn't deserve?  

If it is cheating for Usain bolt to enter the Olypics and steal the gold medal from the fastest normal human in the world, then I give up.


----------



## Abisashi (Nov 10, 2009)

Is it cheating for a runner to be genetically engineered before their birth to be faster than any human ever has?

Is it cheating for a runner to be a cheeta? A cyborg or an android? A space alien?

I'm curious what people think. I think Dash is cheating because there is an unwritten rule that everyone is a normal human, and he has evolved beyond that.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 10, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> If you let him win, he's been cheated out of a fair competition.  He's been disrespected as a competitor.  He's been lied to.



I think the point of Dash not winning the race is that it can't be about "competition" for him. There is no competition. When you are orders of magnitude better than everyone else the idea that you are actually "competing" is laughable. When I score a goal against my 6yr old cousin in soccer, I don't feel that I've won any sort of victory (and to do so would be patently ridiculous). The goal of playing soccer with him isn't competition, it's play. If I played against him the way I play against other adults, I wouldn't be connecting with him or encouraging his interest in soccer and the whole point of doing that particular activity would be lost.

In the same way, running in the race for Dash isn't about competition, it's about participation. It's about interacting with his peers in a way that let's him connect with them. If he ran as fast as he could and won every race by several orders of magnitude he might be victorious, but he wouldn't develop any sort of comraderie with his peers. The lesson his parents are trying to teach him is that it's OK to have superpowers, but it's not OK to use those powers to dominate people who lack those powers (and yes, I mean dominate in both the competitive and the tyranical senses).

:edit to add:

I think the use of the word "cheating" is inaccurate. Dash isn't cheating by being super. But participating as a super in a race against normals is kind of pointless. It's like playing in a game of D&D where you get to add +100 to every d20 roll and everyone else doesn't. Of course you're going to dominate. But if it's that obvious, what's the point? At some point when you have such a great advantage, participating just becomes a kind of self-aggrandizing power-trip, not healthy competition with the possibility of actually losing.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 10, 2009)

I think the biggest problem with trying to derive political messages (or make political messages) from superhero stories is that there aren't any real life superheroes.  The 
unfairness that we feel when Dash wants to win races by just blitzing everyone else with special magical powers that he was born with and never worked for really hasn't got a real world equivalent.  

Even someone like Michael Phelps got there by a combination of natural talent, body type, and insanely hard work over a long period of time.  And even then, he doesn't exceed other real life athletes as far as the fictional Dash does.   So our normal, every day life assumptions about fairness and who "deserves" victory are built around a set of assumptions that are violated by the superhero genre.

Basically, superhero stories tend to assume that some people are just plain born _better_ than others (or instead of born, radiated, gifted, mutated, etc).

And in contrast, in real life, that assumption has existed in a lot of different contexts and a lot of different historical places, and has, in every case been false, and in many cases hideously evil.

So... yeah.  Not sure you can draw too much from superhero comic morality, since it assumes an entirely different human experience than the one we actually have.  I mean, we tend to think that its morally wrong to believe that, I dunno, people with blue eyes have a natural intellectual superiority to people with brown eyes.  We think that this is morally wrong because its not true, and false beliefs like this have led to a lot of pain over the years.  But if we lived in a fictional universe where having blue eyes meant that you'd be born as a comic book level supergenius, well, we'd need different morality, wouldn't we?  But we're not in that universe, so imagining how we'd feel about blue eyed supergeniuses if they existed doesn't tell us a lot about how we should think about real life problems.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 10, 2009)

Abisashi said:


> Is it cheating for a runner to be genetically engineered before their birth to be faster than any human ever has?




Not at present it isn't.  Eventually, we might have to make a rule about genetic enhancement, but I foresee that would be a very very difficult rule to enforce.  The problem would be proving that given the extreme variability in human genetic code, that the genes of the person in question weren't that person's naturally.  After all, presumably Usain Bolt has various genes which make him a naturally faster runner than I am.  Now, if I take a baby and modify it with Usain Bolt's genes, so that it grows up to be a tremendous runner, that person may not even know about his own heritage.

Would it then be cheating for that person to run with what Usain Bolt has naturally? 

Would it be cheating if my parents were both olympic sprinting champions?  Is seletive breeding not genetic engineering of a sort?

What if I modified the child so that he had the best possible combination of human traits for running possible?  How could you screen such a person and by such screening prove that they were unnatural?



> Is it cheating for a runner to be a cheeta?




Generally the rules for atheletic competition require that the competitor be human.



> A cyborg or an android?




This is a growing and interesting issue.  Until recently we created special categories of competion for handicapped individuals like amputees because we could not create parts which adequately replaced their missing limbs.  However, as our knowledge of prosthetics increases, we risk the point where the prosthetic limb might be one day superior to the one it replaced either in specific sports or generally.  At that point, we will probably place various limits on the sorts of prostethetics which are usuable in an open competition, for example, unpowered prosthetics only, or must be no less than a minimum weight, or whatever.  It would then be much like we place limits on what a bat may be constructed from when we play baseball at the professional level.  And at that point, if you used an illegal prosthetic in competition, then it would be cheating.



> A space alien?




Generally the rules for atheletic competition require that the competitor be human.  Presumably, if we encountered space aliens and we both enjoyed sports, we would likely invent an 'open competition' where members of both races could compete against each other.  Very likely, one race would almost always or even always win the 100 yd dash, and the other would almost always or even always win the Marathon.  If that were the case, we'd probably after a time get bored with competing in those categories and instead confine ourselves to inter-species competition that was interesting.  



> I think Dash is cheating because there is an unwritten rule that everyone is a normal human, and he has evolved beyond that.




Depends on what you mean by 'normal'.  Dash is a normal human.  He just happens to be superfast.  Or conversely, Usain Bolt is a not a normal human, because normal humans can't run like that.

And in any event, if you break an unwritten rule, it can hardly be argued that you are cheating. 

Evidently, the people of Dash's world are unable to identify what makes a person 'super', else the Parr's would have known that Jack-Jack was a 'super'.  And, since the people of Dash's world can't screen for super powers, they have no way of constructing a rule saying 'no supers allowed' except one that is based on performance - "No runners allowed that can run a 100m dash in faster than 9.3 seconds", for example.  So, if that is the rule, what happens if someone does his best and then breaks the speed limit?


----------



## Abisashi (Nov 10, 2009)

Cadfan, I agree completely.

Edit: Celebrim, I think the real problem is that the world of the incredibles would have rules governing the use of super-powers in athletic events (assumable making them illegal, whether or not that is enforceable for reasons you suggest), but the movie didn't want to deal with the complexity of changes that would occur when a society discovered that it includes super-heroes, and so left most things default. I think it's a reasonable compromise for a movie, but it unfortunately leaves this topic non-profitable for debate.


----------



## Mark (Nov 10, 2009)

The point isn't that Dash wants to win races, per se, but rather that he doesn't want to hide who he is.




> (. . .) cheating because there is an unwritten rule (. . .)





Nope.  Doesn't work that way.


----------



## Abisashi (Nov 10, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Eventually, we might have to make a rule about genetic enhancement, but I foresee that would be a very very difficult rule to enforce.
> ...
> Would it be cheating if my parents were both olympic sprinting champions?  Is seletive breeding not genetic engineering of a sort?
> ...
> This is a growing and interesting issue.  Until recently we created special categories of competion for handicapped individuals like amputees because we could not create parts which adequately replaced their missing limbs.  However, as our knowledge of prosthetics increases, we risk the point where the prosthetic limb might be one day superior to the one it replaced either in specific sports or generally.  At that point, we will probably place various limits on the sorts of prostethetics which are usuable in an open competition, for example, unpowered prosthetics only, or must be no less than a minimum weight, or whatever.  It would then be much like we place limits on what a bat may be constructed from when we play baseball at the professional level.  And at that point, if you used an illegal prosthetic in competition, then it would be cheating.




I expect issues like these will eventually derail the Olympics, but maybe someone will come up with good answers and prove me wrong.




			
				Mark said:
			
		

> Nope. Doesn't work that way.




If I can bend space with my mind, or being in my presence makes all others drop to their knees and worship me (and thus choose not to compete), or if I never tire, I am not technically cheating at a Marathon (whether or not these specific examples are cheating aren't relevant; I am sure you can conceive of a super-power which is legal but makes it impossible for you to lose). These things are not cheating because the writers of the rules never considered them because they are impossible. If someone was discovered to have this power, and you were in charge of deciding whether they should receive their medal, would you give it to them? Would you feel they deserved it?

Edit: For this example, I mean in the real-world, in which there are no super-heroes and it is assumed they are literally impossible.


----------



## Mark (Nov 10, 2009)

Abisashi said:


> If I can bend space with my mind, or being in my presence makes all others drop to their knees and worship me (and thus choose not to compete), or if I never tire, I am not technically cheating at a Marathon (whether or not these specific examples are cheating aren't relevant; I am sure you can conceive of a super-power which is legal but makes it impossible for you to lose). These things are not cheating because the writers of the rules never considered them because they are impossible. If someone was discovered to have this power, and you were in charge of deciding whether they should receive their medal, would you give it to them? Would you feel they deserved it?





If people like that existed, and there were no rules to exclude them, then it would not be cheating for them to participate.


----------



## Herobizkit (Nov 10, 2009)

... and this is where camp Magneto comes in.

Magneto asserts that he (and others) should not be forced to hide their powers, nor should they be forced to identify themselves to humanity.  To be fair, the analogy the senator uses, comparing supers to loaded guns, is akin to current U.S. 'concealed carry' laws.  While some states do limit the types of weapons that can be carried concealed, the fact remains that people still can.  By the same token, supers should have protected rights and be allowed to "be super" without being hunted down. 

(Apologies if the following statement is not 100% correct.)  When Magneto decides to occupy Genosha, he is choosing to create a world for his fellow mutants - a world where, in fact, "everyone is special."  Instead of mutants living with their fellow man, they can choose to live with their "real" fellow man... and where a foot race competition might be more of a competition.

Point is, the Incredibles shouldn't be presecuted for being super, nor should they have to hide their identities.  If Syndrome had succeeded, he would have given power to those who could afford his inventions rather than everyone... and that's bad, and completely the opposite of the way he originally indended thinks is right.  Either everyone is on the same playing field, or everyone is not.


----------



## Abisashi (Nov 10, 2009)

Mark said:


> If people like that existed, and there were no rules to exclude them, then it would not be cheating for them to participate.




I think we are talking past each other; I think we both agree it wouldn't literally be cheating, and I think we both understand what people would mean when they called it cheating.


----------



## Mark (Nov 10, 2009)

Abisashi said:


> I think we are talking past each other; I think we both agree it wouldn't literally be cheating, and I think we both understand what people would mean when they called it cheating.





Not only not literally cheating but also not figuratively cheating.  Do you think people are misusing the word "cheating" as hyperbole instead of simply using the word "unfair" because they think it will help them win an argument?  If so, then I think we do both understand.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2009)

Abisashi said:


> I expect issues like these will eventually derail the Olympics, but maybe someone will come up with good answers and prove me wrong.




It's already happening.  Oscar Pistorius is a double amputee that was banned from the 2008 Olympics (briefly) because the IOC didn't know whether his limbs constituted an unfair advantage.   They reversed themselves back and forth a couple of times as the two sides of the questions rules lawyered and argued over it.  



> If someone was discovered to have this power, and you were in charge of deciding whether they should receive their medal, would you give it to them? Would you feel they deserved it?




This isn't as hypothetical of an issue as you think just because we are talking about superheroes.  There are several real world sporting examples that come to mind.  In the 1950's, American table tennis players used advances in paddle technology to develop a finger spun serve that even the best tennis players in the world (including themselves) couldn't return on the volley.  The result was that new rules were created that made certain paddle constructions illegal and which made it illegal to hold the ball with your fingers on the serve.  However, they didn't cheat and they didn't have to forfiet their victories.   In the 1980's, the entire history of the America's Cup is one long series of competitors producing new innovations and breaking unwritten rules until finally some sanity was reintroduced.  It was both good and bad for competition, but it wasn't cheating (although some people thought so, and there were some tense moments when teams had to prove that they weren't).


----------



## Abisashi (Nov 11, 2009)

Mark said:


> Not only not literally cheating but also not figuratively cheating.  Do you think people are misusing the word "cheating" as hyperbole instead of simply using the word "unfair" because they think it will help them win an argument?  If so, then I think we do both understand.




I think people are using the word cheating in this thread to include behaviors that they feel ought to be be illegal, or that would be made illegal once their existence came to the attention of the rule-makers (if possible; many people noted the difficulty in enforcing these rules).


Edit: Celebrim: Hopefully this post's definition clarifies what I was trying to say. I would give the super-person their medal, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

EditEdit: Also, thanks for the interesting examples; I was aware of Oscar Pistorius, but not the table-tennis or America's Cup.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 11, 2009)

Hobo said:
			
		

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



Wait... what?

This is standard operating procedure in Hollywood, and might be in writing 101.  Easiest way to set up a straw man is to put the argument in the mouth of the jerk who is always wrong.



Raven Crowking said:


> I believe that the makers of the film have disagreed with you.  I won't have time to rewatch the commentary tonight, but I am almost certain that they stated that the message of the film is exactly what Hobo said it was.  If I have a chance to get to it this week, I'll be happy to quote them word for word as to the underlying message of the film.
> 
> 
> RC



Sadly, more than 10 years in academia has proven this to me.... The creator's conscious intent is irrelevant (link NSFW)

One can read or view a work and construct multiple internally consistent frameworks to explain that work.  I have seen multiple occasions when a creator was presented such a analysis and the response was some version of the following:

"Huh.  That's interesting.  I didn't realize I had said that."

"You mean that's not what you meant?"

"No, it's exactly what I meant.  I just didn't realize I meant it until you showed me this.  Who wrote this?  I think I need to collaborate with them on something."

One of these was an analysis of data on bird song, so it works just as well in the sciences.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the cats at Pixar would have such a reaction to Celebrim's analysis, particularly the part about Elastigirl's role as a mother (which is excellent work, btw).

As for the game issue....

Are pre-4e casters really more special than everyone else?  Seems we have a lot of people saying, "yes, we saw that problem" and a lot of people saying "no, I never saw that problem."

So, we have a potential problem which manifested at some tables and not others.  Here's the sticking point for me, possibly because I'm a scientist.... negative evidence means *nothing*.  Just because you don't know anyone personally who has used offshore accounts to escape from paying taxes or to launder money doesn't mean that those things aren't problems.  I personally have never met a serial killer, nor lived somewhere one was operating.  This is *not* evidence that serial killers do not exist.  If I claimed this to be the case, I would clearly be wrong.  That does not invalidate my experience of a serial killer free world.  It just means that I am either lucky or blessed with a skill for avoiding serial killers.  Or I'm just oblivious, but in our media-saturated world, that might be a superpower.

But I digress....

Let's say we're writing a new set of rules, and this potential problem with caster classes has come to our attention.  We don't even know if it really is a problem, but there's some evidence for it here and there.  What is the best way to address it?

Well, we can ignore it.  Ostrich syndrome is not a very proactive stance, though.  We can go to each and every table that has the problem, and try to apply band aids to fix it.  That's time consuming, and probably impossible.  In some cases, it would require curing jerkiness, power-gaming, or both.  These are terminal conditions for most adults, IME, so that's not a viable choice.  Or we can write the rules to close the loopholes in the first place.

3rd one feels about right to me.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 11, 2009)

Mark said:


> The point isn't that Dash wants to win races, per se, but rather that he doesn't want to hide who he is.



I disagree with this. I think Dash wants to be himself and his "vision" of that self is a boy who always wins races, a boy who is recognized as super by everyone. What he doesn't realize (and what his parents are presumably attempting to teach him) is that an existence like that can be very lonely and unfulfilling. This is the existence that Syndrome chooses, one where his only human contact is with sycophants, servants or enemies. 

It's why superheroes have secret identities. Superman doesn't need to be Clark Kent because he has to have the paycheck or he doesn't have anything better to do with his time than work a crappy reporter job. He needs to be Clark Kent because it's the only way he can interact with people in a normal and fulfilling way. Superman (ignoring the whole "Superfriends" phenomenon) doesn't have friends, he has fans. Clark Kent has friends.


----------



## Mark (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I disagree with this. I think Dash wants to be himself and his "vision" of that self is a boy who always wins races, a boy who is recognized as super by everyone.





I think you are overreaching.  I think Dash would be happy being himself, even if being challenged by others who were also similarly fast.  I think he just doesn't see himself as someone who throws races, and it bothers him.  What his parents, presumptions aside, are trying to teach him is what they have misguidedly come to believe, which is that they need to hide and not be themselves, pursuing a paradigm of happiness that simply is not fulfilling for them or their children.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 11, 2009)

The argument against Dash is that we don't see any indication of him wanting to do things that even with Superspeed, he won't have ana dvantage with other kids.

For example, boardgames and heh to relate this to D&D, how about RPGs?


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> It's why superheroes have secret identities.



not all of them... 


Ourph said:


> Superman doesn't need to be Clark Kent because he has to have the paycheck or he doesn't have anything better to do with his time than work a crappy reporter job. He needs to be Clark Kent because it's the only way he can interact with people in a normal and fulfilling way. Superman (ignoring the whole "Superfriends" phenomenon) doesn't have friends, he has fans. Clark Kent has friends.



Clark is a good example where both identities are real it is a good thing you didn't pick Batman.
Millionaire playboy philanthropist, who drops out of school, drinks, chases chicks and races cars and gives money to charities out of guilt, is a mask.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 11, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Clark is a good example where both identities are real it is a good thing you didn't pick Batman.
> Millionaire playboy philanthropist, who drops out of school, drinks, chases chicks and races cars and gives money to charities out of guilt, is a mask.




Good point. Since The Dark Knight Returns (the graphic novel by Miller and not the movie from last year), the comics have REALLY pushed that the Bruce Wayne persona is the actual mask and that Batman is the actual real person.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

Mark said:


> Not only not literally cheating but also not figuratively cheating.  Do you think people are misusing the word "cheating" as hyperbole instead of simply using the word "unfair" because they think it will help them win an argument?  If so, then I think we do both understand.




I seriously question whether it would even be unfair.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> I disagree with this. I think Dash wants to be himself and his "vision" of that self is a boy who always wins races, a boy who is recognized as super by everyone. What he doesn't realize (and what his parents are presumably attempting to teach him) is that an existence like that can be very lonely and unfulfilling. This is the existence that Syndrome chooses, one where his only human contact is with sycophants, servants or enemies.




Yes. The life of an elite athlete has always proved to make it too difficult for people to actually enjoy themselves or find friends.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

renau1g said:


> Very True. On the other hand, If I'm playing floor hockey (ministicks) with my 3 year old nephew, I *can* absolutely dominate him and make him feel bad. It's more fun for both of us if he has a good time and "wins" as neither of us are taking home the Stanley Cup or getting a $Million signing bonus as a result.
> 
> Maybe I misunderstood your sentence, but you are saying patronize in a negative context right?




Yes, I am. For you to let your three year old nephew win is normal, and acceptable. You are an adult, and he is a child. Part of your responsibility to him is to help him learn and grow. For Dash to let his classmates win is patronizing in the bad sense - he is assuming a role equivalent to being a parent to them with no real justification. If Dash continues this into adulthood, he is then an adult treating other adults as small children. Effectively, the message here is that super-powered people should assume the role of benevolent parent for the poor normals.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

Marius Delphus said:


> No, I don't. I would argue you therefore don't see my problem.




I see what you think the problem is. I just think that your position is untenable, and pretty silly.



> _If it's not cheating for the Flash to enter the Olympics and steal the gold medal from the fastest normal human in the world, then I give up._




No, it would not be. Why do you think it should be? He's just fatser than his competitors. He might get bored, but that should be for him to decide.


----------



## AllisterH (Nov 11, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> Yes. The life of an elite athlete has always proved to make it too difficult for people to actually enjoy themselves or find friends.




Ah, but Dash isn't an ELITE athlete.

Half of the reason why we admire elite athletes is what it takes to GET to be an elite athlete.

Phelps broke the world record for the number of gold medals and his training regime started when he was 11. Similarly, Usain Bolt has been a runner since he was 14.

And we're not talking 1 hour at the gym here. We're literally taking 6-8 hours of training every day for meets that happen every 3 months.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 11, 2009)

Mark said:


> I think you are overreaching.  I think Dash would be happy being himself, even if being challenged by others who were also similarly fast.  I think he just doesn't see himself as someone who throws races, and it bothers him.



On the contrary, he's unhappy when he is not participating at all. He seems perfectly happy at the end of the movie when he is participating, but not necessarily dominating.



			
				Mark said:
			
		

> What his parents, presumptions aside, are trying to teach him is what they have misguidedly come to believe, which is that they need to hide and not be themselves, pursuing a paradigm of happiness that simply is not fulfilling for them or their children.



Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl had secret identities even before the supers were outlawed. They were unfulfilled because they were prevented from being heroes, not because they needed their hero identity to be their ONLY identity.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 11, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> He's just fatser than his competitors. He might get bored, but that should be for him to decide.




Wouldn't it be farcical to call them competitors at that point? If no one can conceivably beat him, especially normal elementary school children, let alone actual Olympic level athletes, how are they competiting against him? At that point they could just give him a Gold Medal for "showing up" and not bother racing against him at all.

How is beating a bunch of people that are relatively mediocre not just a different way of celebrating mediocrity? Challenging oneself is a way to excel. Showing off by winning without really trying isn't.

Exchanging mediocrity with underachievement by relying on natural talents without actually trying to excel or improve oneself isn't really a good goal. Instead of everyone getting a medal for showing up, only Dash gets a medal for showing up ... but you still have a reward for doing nothing, just in this case, the reward is also for being born lucky.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Exceptions:  The babysitter, Bob's tyrannical boss, the Government Agent, Frozone's wife, the guy trying to commit suicide that sues Bob, the normal boy Violet likes, the normal woman who makes costumes that save their skins, the normal woman who saves Bob (& family) from Syndrome on the island.




Those are very good examples... 

The babysitter is awesome on wheels.... Incredibly adaptable in her ability to deal with that babies powers is just shy of a super power.

The costumer is incredibly perceptive and good at motivation (this is a leader archetype in 4e).

Syndromes hench woman ... doesnt stay static and just do her job she learns.

The government agent eventually owns up in my opine and takes a little responsibility for continuing to support the familly.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 11, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Clark is a good example where both identities are real it is a good thing you didn't pick Batman.
> Millionaire playboy philanthropist, who drops out of school, drinks, chases chicks and races cars and gives money to charities out of guilt, is a mask.



Who are Batman's friends? Seriously, name one person the Batman/Wayne character counts as a friend who doesn't either know him as Bruce Wayne only or know that Bruce Wayne is Batman.

You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't claiming that supers' secret identities are all well-adjusted nice guys with glasses like Clark Kent. My point was that supers don't have friends. Only their secret identities have friends. Even if those secret identities are messed up, they still have access to friends that the super identity will never have.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes. The life of an elite athlete has always proved to make it too difficult for people to actually enjoy themselves or find friends.



Doesn't it? I'm sure it's quite easy for Michael Phelps to find people who want to be around him and would like to call themselves his "friends", but how many of them would actually be what most of us would consider good friends? And how easy will it be for him to tell the difference between the sycophants and leeches and the people who really would be good friends?

Now imagine that instead of an elite athlete, he's a superhero with superhuman powers who defeats supervillains and saves people's lives every day. I'd say it would be pretty difficult in those circumstances to have normal human relationships that the rest of us "mundane" people take for granted.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Beautiful work, Celebrim, and I am sorry that I cannot XP you for it at the moment.
> 
> 
> RC




I did it for you...


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Only their secret identities have friends. Even if those secret identities are messed up, they still have access to friends that the super identity will never have.




I can name a few friends of Batman... but none of Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne doesnt actually drink he fakes it... Bruce Wayne dropped out of colleges because he was looking for the better teaching available in a different school (but he did so by getting horrible grades or acting up on purpose).. each one of those ...not well adjusted elements used to describe Bruce.. is a falsehood. The only friends the character has are indeed when he is being a super.  He is an opposite.

Batman's friends indeed are not everyday joes. Unless you count Robin and Alfred.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ah, but Dash isn't an ELITE athlete.
> 
> Half of the reason why we admire elite athletes is what it takes to GET to be an elite athlete.




Well, first, I think you vastly overestimate the public in that regard.  I think that for the most part atheletes are admired simply for their ability to perform heroicly.  Atheletes are generally excused for pretty much any other failing by an admiring public provided that they win, and if not fully excused then at least excused more than they would be otherwise.  Another bit of evidence in favor of the theory that for the most part we don't care how they win just so long as they win, is that most people don't spend a whole lot of time watching someone practice and generally don't interest themselves that much in what people do to get to the point that they are winners.  The curiousity you predict just doesn't seem to be much in evidence.  Finally, we don't generally give out medals for 'tried the hardest' or 'trained the hardest'.  It happens, but not that much.  I think the most you can say is some of the reason that some people admire some atheletes is the displine that is required to attain such a high degree of skill.

This seems like a good time to address some ideas that are floating around.

Alot of people see an injustice in the 'super' competing against the 'normals' and are calling it 'cheating'.  Some of you even picked up on the idea that when someone blows away the competition to a great extent and in a trivial manner that people percieve it as 'cheating' when what they mean is, "We ought to change the rules to make that illegal."  The problem raised by 'supers' in atheletic competition is that such competitions become uninteresting and pointless.  If Dash participates in the race, the race becomes meaningless because the outcome is basically obvious and we cannot be surprised by it.  Watching a race with Dash running in it is even less interesting than watching an atheletic competition in rerun - all the thrill is gone.



			
				Deep Space 9 - 'The Emissary' said:
			
		

> The rules aren't important...  what's important is -- it's linear.  Every time you throw this ball a hundred different things can happen in the game... he might swing and miss, he might hit it...  the point is you never know...  you try to anticipate, set a strategy for all the possibilities as best you can... but in the end it all comes down to throwing one pitch after another... and seeing what happens.  With each new consequence, the game begins to take shape...



 - 

My suspicion is that if we had 'supers' and if we could not screen the supers so that we could say, "Ahhh.. you carry the mutant X gene, therefore you as a mutant can't compete in the 'baseline human games'", then atheletic competition as we know it would be both destroyed an revolutionized.  

But even if we could exclude the supers, I think for the most part people would just stop caring that much about who was the fastest normal human.  Dash destroys the race whether he competes in it our not, because even if we exclude him from participating we still know that its just a race for second place anyway.  Athletes might still compete, because already 95% of those that compete know that they'll never win and 99% of them know they'll never even compete at a high level, but normal sports would hold little interest to the spectator.  What people would care about and pay to see would be competition between supers.  People watch athletic competition to see 'the best', 'the elite', to witness the highest level of performance.  Most of the sports in the Olympics we don't care the slightest about except during the Olympics when the worlds best are gathered together.  Athletic competition would adjust to compensate.  People would watch the Olympics to see something amazing - which is the reason we watch the Olympics now - and they really wouldn't care who was 'super' and who was 'normal' because from the perspective of a normal person every Olympic champion is already a 'super' capable of doing extraordinary things.


----------



## Mark (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> On the contrary, he's unhappy when he is not participating at all. He seems perfectly happy at the end of the movie when he is participating, but not necessarily dominating.





Oh, I don't think being resigned to something is the same as being happy about it at all.  Dash has grown, which is a requirement of the narrative, but he can still in no way find fulfillment or happiness in the competition with the slower schoolchildren.  He and his parents have come to an understanding and his being given some leeway helps him to adjust.  His happiness derives from his new arrangement with his parents which marks of rite of passage for him.




Ourph said:


> Mr. Incredible and Elastigirl had secret identities even before the supers were outlawed. They were unfulfilled because they were prevented from being heroes, not because they needed their hero identity to be their ONLY identity.





Unless we concede that within that universe the duality paradigm is the only one available to supers.  In which case it would be impossible for them to ever achieve happiness except as an artificial construct required as part of a movie aimed at an audience primarily of young age and thus not really mature enough to grasp the concept of pathos.  It, of course, resolves somewhat differently in your Superman/Batman analogies where the supers are meant to be in such an extreme minority that it is largely inapplicable.  Look toward something like Hancock for that model to be more fully explored, particularly in regard to the physics of that universe being set up to exploit the pathos.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> If you want to play a game with your 3 year old nephew where the goal is 'fun', then I suggest you find a game that you can compete more as equals than floor hockey.  I get beat by my 4 year olds in 'Monkey Madness', 'Disney Yatzee', and so forth.




My son when he was 6  managed to beat me in chess... after many many games where he did not. (the boy qualifies as a genius and was memorizing the moves of the pieces at age three when the Harry Potter film came out)  but there was no doubt he won fair and square, I did not play as well as I sometimes do but no doubt about it he earned it. This win was a hell of a win... but I can barely get him to play me now... ;( I think he accomplished his goal...


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Ah, but Dash isn't an ELITE athlete.
> 
> Half of the reason why we admire elite athletes is what it takes to GET to be an elite athlete.




You are engaged in wishful thinking if you believe that elite athletes don't have a natural advantage over the rest of the populace that is almost frightening in scale. Or that there aren't professional players who aren't lazy slobs who let their natural talent carry them (they don't usually become superstars, but they are out there).



> _Phelps broke the world record for the number of gold medals and his training regime started when he was 11. Similarly, Usain Bolt has been a runner since he was 14.
> 
> And we're not talking 1 hour at the gym here. We're literally taking 6-8 hours of training every day for meets that happen every 3 months._




Yeah, its cool and makes for a decent story. But most people wouldn't care if they had jumped in the pool/walked on the track with no prep at all and done what they did. In fact, it probably would have made them _more_ famous and admired, not less.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> Wouldn't it be farcical to call them competitors at that point? If no one can conceivably beat him, especially normal elementary school children, let alone actual Olympic level athletes, how are they competiting against him? At that point they could just give him a Gold Medal for "showing up" and not bother racing against him at all.




Maybe it would be and maybe they should. But it would also be fair. Was Sergei Bubka behaving unfairly when he dominated his sport to an extent no one could even come close to competing with him for the better part of a decade? All Flash (or Dash) would have done is elevate the level of competition dramatically. To compete, the bar is now set differently.



> _How is beating a bunch of people that are relatively mediocre not just a different way of celebrating mediocrity? Challenging oneself is a way to excel. Showing off by winning without really trying isn't._




So pretending that the mediocre is deserving of victory isn't celebrating mediocrity? Your definition of celebrating mediocrity (the best at the skill being tested actually wins) seems odd.



> _Exchanging mediocrity with underachievement by relying on natural talents without actually trying to excel or improve oneself isn't really a good goal. Instead of everyone getting a medal for showing up, only Dash gets a medal for showing up ... but you still have a reward for doing nothing, just in this case, the reward is also for being born lucky._




Chris Long was born lucky. We don't keep him off the field. Cassius Clay was born lucky, we didn't keep him out of the ring. Lew Alcindor was born lucky, we didn't keep him off the court. We also didn't check up to make sure they'd actually worked hard either. You are setting a new requirement to compete (you must work hard to be deserving of being allowed to compete) that simply has never applied (nor should it).


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Doesn't it? I'm sure it's quite easy for Michael Phelps to find people who want to be around him and would like to call themselves his "friends", but how many of them would actually be what most of us would consider good friends? And how easy will it be for him to tell the difference between the sycophants and leeches and the people who really would be good friends?




And yet somehow these athletic superstars somehow manage to get by, have friends, get married, and have lifestyles that are envied by millions. Sounds really like it would be much too tough for anyone to handle. I'm sure if he had it to do all over again, Phelps would have given up swimming as a preteen to avoid all this terrible fame and attention.


----------



## Afrodyte (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Now imagine that instead of an elite athlete, he's a superhero with superhuman powers who defeats supervillains and saves people's lives every day. I'd say it would be pretty difficult in those circumstances to have normal human relationships that the rest of us "mundane" people take for granted.




I just got a sense of foreboding about a live-action Aquaman movie.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> Good point. Since The Dark Knight Returns (the graphic novel by Miller and not the movie from last year), the comics have REALLY pushed that the Bruce Wayne persona is the actual mask and that Batman is the actual real person.




It was true way back when the character was created .. Miller reconnected the bat man with his roots as well as giving a sense of time .. it brought the character forward.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Huh?  No it isn't.
> 
> The definition of cheating is to defraud and decieve.  Dash cheats when he loses.  He does not cheat when he wins.  When he wins it is because he is legitmately faster than the other students, not because he's gained an unfair advantage.
> 
> ...




Handicaps are quite common in many, many sports.  Would it be fair for someone who is 50 kg to box someone who is 120 kg?  After all, it's not the bigger's guy's fault he's twice the size.



> I'm quite at a loss to see how anything fraudulent or deceptive takes place.




It is 100% fraudulent and deceptive.  Does he tell anyone of his abilities?  Does he not keep his capabilities 100% secret?  If Usain Bolt dressed up in disguise and gave fake ID, would he be guilty of deception?



> Alot of people see an injustice in the 'super' competing against the 'normals' and are calling it 'cheating'. Some of you even picked up on the idea that when someone blows away the competition to a great extent and in a trivial manner that people percieve it as 'cheating' when what they mean is, "We ought to change the rules to make that illegal." The problem raised by 'supers' in atheletic competition is that such competitions become uninteresting and pointless. If Dash participates in the race, the race becomes meaningless because the outcome is basically obvious and we cannot be surprised by it. Watching a race with Dash running in it is even less interesting than watching an atheletic competition in rerun - all the thrill is gone.




Again, it's 100% cheating because the super's are being desceptive.  They have not stepped forward and said, "Yes, I can run at the speed of sound".  Neglecting to tell people that you are a profession skater and then winning a low level amateur figure skating contest benefits no one.  Those whose abilities are actually at the amateur figure skating level don't learn anything and the professional is way beyond their capabilities.

We have differing levels of competition for a very good reason.  Dash should not be competing with normals because he's not normal.  There is no competition here.  None.  There is absolutely no way he can lose.  

How is that even remotely in the spirit of competition?


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> It is 100% fraudulent and deceptive.  Does he tell anyone of his abilities?  Does he not keep his capabilities 100% secret?  If Usain Bolt dressed up in disguise and gave fake ID, would he be guilty of deception?




Umm, running fast enough to win isn't being deceptive. Pretending you are slower than you are to come in second is.



> _Again, it's 100% cheating because the super's are being desceptive.  They have not stepped forward and said, "Yes, I can run at the speed of sound".  Neglecting to tell people that you are a profession skater and then winning a low level amateur figure skating contest benefits no one.  Those whose abilities are actually at the amateur figure skating level don't learn anything and the professional is way beyond their capabilities._




But Dash isn't pretending to be an amateur when he is not. He is an amateur. He's just a really good one. Does Usain Bolt have to submit a "my best speed" dossier before he competes? The difference here is one of degree, not one of kind.



> _We have differing levels of competition for a very good reason.  Dash should not be competing with normals because he's not normal.  There is no competition here.  None.  There is absolutely no way he can lose._




Where would you draw the line and have it be anything other than entirely arbitrary? Why is being really fast now a disqualification for running races?

I think the problem is this: when the superhero comic was being developed, comic book writers didn't want to think about the implications of having super fast, super strong and other wise super powered people in society. They just wanted to write stories about beating up bad guys. So they glossed over the fact that these guys would be unbeatable at sports, and then came up with silly explanations why they would not all be famous professional athletes in normal life, making piles of money. (Although I do remember a story in which Superman, as Clark Kent, played high school football and was a star player). And this idea has become so ingrained in our culutre that, for no real logical or coherent reason, someone with superior prowess in this manner is somehow behaving badly when, instead of becoming an extralegal vigilante and breaking a dozen laws by beating people up on the street, they instead choose to go into the sporting arena and compete completely within the rules and win. Its a stupid meme that just seems stupider the more you look at it.


----------



## FireLance (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Handicaps are quite common in many, many sports.  Would it be fair for someone who is 50 kg to box someone who is 120 kg?  After all, it's not the bigger's guy's fault he's twice the size.



I don't think they are common in competitive sports, though. Even in golf, I believe the handicap system does not apply to professional competitions. 

What most sports do is to use a league or category system (e.g. weight categories in boxing) so that individual competitors are more evenly matched, and so there is some uncertainty over the outcome of each competition. 

Exceptional sportsmen, while almost certain to beat "ordinary" human beings at their sport, are usually close enough to their nearest competitors that even the best (however you measure that) may be beaten by the second (or third or fourth, etc.) best from time to time. 

In a match where one competitor outclasses the others so much that there is not even the _hope_ that he could be beaten, such as a race between Dash and normal humans (yes, even Usain Bolt), then something else must be done to maintain interest. To a certain extent, the Harlem Globetrotters addressed this by playing to entertain instead of simply playing to beat their opponents. So, even if the outcome of the game is more or less a given, for example, a game in which Batman is guaranteed to beat the Joker , it simply means that you need to be more creative about ways to maintain interest in the game.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Nov 11, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Another bit of evidence in favor of the theory that for the most part we don't care how they win just so long as they win




I think that there are some baseball examples that would shoot that out of the water. Not only is there the issue of steroids, but lots of the homerun chasers had to deal with issues like the asterix because people didn't want to take the record away from the previous holder. The athletes attitude towards the press in many ways changed the way the "homerun chase" was shown. The personable guys were set as more heroic than the guy who just puts his head down and works hard at winning. While people who don't reach a certain level of ability will be flat out ignored, once they reach that level it is more than just their ability that is scrutanized. In some cases (running and swimming), it's more that so little attention is put on the sport that the only people recognized are the very best. In sports with a number of stars, personality counts.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> So pretending that the mediocre is deserving of victory isn't celebrating mediocrity? Your definition of celebrating mediocrity (the best at the skill being tested actually wins) seems odd.




I'm saying that it is still encouraging Dash to be mediocre. The only thing he is testing his skill aginst is his previous best time. 



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Chris Long was born lucky. We don't keep him off the field. Cassius Clay was born lucky, we didn't keep him out of the ring. Lew Alcindor was born lucky, we didn't keep him off the court. We also didn't check up to make sure they'd actually worked hard either. You are setting a new requirement to compete (you must work hard to be deserving of being allowed to compete) that simply has never applied (nor should it).




Correct me if I'm wrong ... have any of those people retired at the end of their careers having never even come close to losing?

I'm not saying you need to work hard to be deserving to be allowed to compete.

I'm saying that it isn't competiting if you have no competition. It's only competiting if there is some risk of losing. That is why matter of degree actually matters in this case. In many sports, it's very possible that the "best" won't necessarily win. Races, on the other hands, will come down to a matter of fractions of a second in difference. When Dash is able to beat any human being by a number of seconds, short of Dash injuring himself or tripping and falling ... how would he _ever_ lose a race.

At that point he shows up, they give him a gold medal, see if he breaks his previous record, and then move on to competing for the Silver medal. Since not a single one of them has a chance of getting a Gold medal short of Dash not showing up.

They still have men and women in seperate divisions. They still test for performance enhancing drugs. If superhuman abilities existed, they would potentially create a superhuman olympiad, or maybe not ... since superhuman really just means "more than human", there isn't necessarily a grouping that would provide for a real competition. Flash vs. Quicksilver, for example, wouldn't be a competition at all, since Flash can travel at near light speeds, while Quicksilver is closer to the speed of sound. 

Performance enhancing drugs push the limits of the peak of human ability, and they are not allowed. They don't disallow superhuman abilty ... because it doesn't exist. It isn't cheating because it isn't against the rules is a weak argument for a hypothetical argument. There are some things that are against the rules.

Ultimately, I am saying that if Dash were to go around and "compete" with people that have no chance of beating him ... he is trading "pretend to be mediocre so other people feel good" with "rub it in their face to make yourself feel good". If he really wants to _compete_ he should look for something that is at least in the same speed range as he is. Or, he can participate in different sports where his speed doesn't necessarily equate to him winning. Unless he doesn't want to compete ... he just wants to be acknowledged as being the best. He wants to be treated special just because of his power, not for actually using his power in any way that is productive to anyone other than himself.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

FireLance said:


> I don't think they are common in competitive sports, though. Even in golf, I believe the handicap system does not apply to professional competitions.
> 
> What most sports do is to use a league or category system (e.g. weight categories in boxing) so that individual competitors are more evenly matched, and so there is some uncertainty over the outcome of each competition.




Whatever you wish to call it, it's still a handicap system.  Or, as you say, a system to ensure that individual competitors are more evenly matched.



> Exceptional sportsmen, while almost certain to beat "ordinary" human beings at their sport, are usually close enough to their nearest competitors that even the best (however you measure that) may be beaten by the second (or third or fourth, etc.) best from time to time.
> 
> In a match where one competitor outclasses the others so much that there is not even the _hope_ that he could be beaten, such as a race between Dash and normal humans (yes, even Usain Bolt), then something else must be done to maintain interest. To a certain extent, the Harlem Globetrotters addressed this by playing to entertain instead of simply playing to beat their opponents. So, even if the outcome of the game is more or less a given, for example, a game in which Batman is guaranteed to beat the Joker , it simply means that you need to be more creative about ways to maintain interest in the game.




Because Dash hides his abilities, he's being deceptive.  It's pool sharking.  The win is meaningless because there is no possible way for him to lose.  If the facts were known, he would not be allowed to compete in this competition, he'd get kicked up to a higher league in order to compete with those who are closer to his skills.

But, he hides his skills.  He lies about it.  He wins, but, not by enough to actually show his capabilities.  

I totally agree with your final point though.  In this case, if his abilities were known, then something could be done.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> I see what you think the problem is. I just think that your position is untenable




Up until this point, I have been agreeing with everything you've written in this thread.  And then you had to go and add the insult



> , and pretty silly.




which IMHO is uncalled for.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I did it for you...




Thank you.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

TwinBahamut said:


> You're wrong. You're just adding stuff into the movie that isn't there, oversimplifying various aspects of the movie, and blatantly forgetting very important parts of the movie.



Um.... No, no... and no.

Thanks for trying!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Mark said:


> Oh, I don't think being resigned to something is the same as being happy about it at all.  Dash has grown, which is a requirement of the narrative, but he can still in no way find fulfillment or happiness in the competition with the slower schoolchildren.  He and his parents have come to an understanding and his being given some leeway helps him to adjust.  His happiness derives from his new arrangement with his parents which marks of rite of passage for him.




It is also noteworthy that the mixed messages Dash gets during the race mirror those the supers face throughout the movie.  Dash's race at the end is the entire film in a microcosm, including the idea that it takes an extraordinary event to actually challenge him, test him, and allow him to grow.



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> There is no competition here.  None.  There is absolutely no way he can lose.
> 
> How is that even remotely in the spirit of competition?




Are you saying that with Dash in the race, there is no "game"?


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Are you saying that with Dash in the race, there is no "game"?




/me begins beating RC around the head and ears with a dead fish.

Then again, I could argue that if a given game is as one dimensional as a foot race, then perhaps the issues are deeper than knowing the outcome at the outset.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Then again, I could argue that if a given game is as one dimensional as a foot race, then perhaps the issues are deeper than knowing the outcome at the outset.




Or, you could recognize how your statements here relate to your statements in the other thread, and realize that your arguments in the two threads demonstrate that your position in one of those threads must be wrong.


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Or, you could recognize how your statements here relate to your statements in the other thread, and realize that your arguments in the two threads demonstrate that your position in one of those threads must be wrong.




No, they are not.  

In an RPG, there are many, many elements that can be played with and explored.  I can do the most simple, basic kind of role play which is avatar play going through dungeon crawls, or I can go totally narrativist and explore the personal feelings and whatnot of my chosen persona or an almost unlimited number of choices in between.

In a foot race, I can run.  

In an RPG, knowing the result of an event before hand in no way prevents me from exploring other elements of the game.  In a foot race, it pretty much obviates the need for the race in the first place.

Unless, of course, you're trying to argue that there is only one possible way to play an RPG and all other ways are just not really the true way.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> In an RPG, knowing the result of an event before hand in no way prevents me from exploring other elements of the game.




Thank you for your shift in statements:  I would agree that knowing the result of an event before hand in no way prevents you from exploring _*other*_ elements of the game, provided that the event you have beforehand knowledge of does not impinge upon the victory conditions of what you are exploring in any meaningful way.



> Unless, of course, you're trying to argue that there is only one possible way to play an RPG and all other ways are just not really the true way.




No.

I am arguing that, in order to be _*playing a game*_, there must exist elements that make the activity a *game*.  I am not even arguing that one playstyle is more "basic" or "simple" than another!



RC


----------



## Hussar (Nov 11, 2009)

How can it be a shift in statements when I keep saying the same thing in, now, three different threads?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Hussar said:


> How can it be a shift in statements when I keep saying the same thing in, now, three different threads?




AFAICT, it's the first time you've acknowledged that foreknowledge prevents an adequate exploration of the element(s) you have foreknowledge of.  That is certainly a shift from the claim that foreknowledge will not affect you at all (i.e., that you could simply suppress it).


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 11, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> The problem raised by 'supers' in atheletic competition is that such competitions become uninteresting and pointless.  If Dash participates in the race, the race becomes meaningless because the outcome is basically obvious and we cannot be surprised by it.  Watching a race with Dash running in it is even less interesting than watching an atheletic competition in rerun - all the thrill is gone.
> 
> My suspicion is that if we had 'supers' and if we could not screen the supers so that we could say, "Ahhh.. you carry the mutant X gene, therefore you as a mutant can't compete in the 'baseline human games'", then atheletic competition as we know it would be both destroyed an revolutionized.
> 
> But even if we could exclude the supers, I think for the most part people would just stop caring that much about who was the fastest normal human.  but normal sports would hold little interest to the spectator.  What people would care about and pay to see would be competition between supers.




This was actually done in the Aberrant RPG.  Novas started appearing and some of them had ridiculous athletic potential and they quickly took over sports.  Why have 9 normal guys running around the track when you can have 6 guys with super speed, 2 guys in flames and 1 human cyclone lined up waiting for the starting gun?  Why watch a normal speedskater when you can watch someone actually made of ice do it?

Dash isn't involved in sports to win, he is involved to help fit in.  He gets to enjoy the camaraderie of his fellow team members.  His parents feel that if he just walks in and dominates that i would be a poor use of his abilities, plus it might make people question how he manages to be so good.  If he's working to limit his natural abilities, he is paying more careful attention to things and not being forgetful and blowing thru the entire race in under a second.  

The people ranting about all competition being destroyed are taking this all way too seriously.  It's a cover.  He is trying to be seen as a contender, but not to dominate.  He is striving to find a niche for himself, like so many of us in life.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 11, 2009)

I do think it's kinda amusing.  The message I see in the movie is so blatantly, over-the-top, ham-fistedly obvious, and it kinda boggles my mind to see people coming away with another message.  

Clearly I'm not alone in that; as one of the first reactions to my interpretation were to say that I misremembered and made up stuff.  Which is blatantly untrue; I referred to specific scenes and lines of dialogue _only_ when describing my takeaway from the movie, and my memory of it is crystal clear, thankyouverymuch.

However, clearly the original poster underestimated how "obvious" the message in the movie was, and how "obviously" the movie then undercut its own message, since the entire thread was completely derailed with the very first reply into a lengthy debate about what the movie really is about.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 11, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I can name a few friends of Batman...



OK. Name a few. And remember, we're talking about people who are friends with Batman only. If they know Batman is Bruce Wayne they don't count.



			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> Batman's friends indeed are not everyday joes. Unless you count Robin and Alfred.



Both of whom know that Batman=Bruce Wayne, thus disqualifying them from inclusion in the "friends with Batman only" category.


----------



## Ourph (Nov 11, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> And yet somehow these athletic superstars somehow manage to get by, have friends, get married, and have lifestyles that are envied by millions. Sounds really like it would be much too tough for anyone to handle. I'm sure if he had it to do all over again, Phelps would have given up swimming as a preteen to avoid all this terrible fame and attention.



Being famous and envied doesn't equate to being happy. Pick up a _People_ magazine next time you're in line at the supermarket if you don't believe me. 

I have to ask, are you seriously arguing that Superman goes out on a Friday night to have a few drinks with friends? He doesn't. Clark Kent does that. It's not a coincidence that Superman's home base is called the Fortress of *SOLITUDE*.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 11, 2009)

Hobo said:


> I do think it's kinda amusing.  The message I see in the movie is so blatantly, over-the-top, ham-fistedly obvious, and it kinda boggles my mind to see people coming away with another message.




I partly agree with this.  The movie does have several obvious messages, and one is definately what you and most people have picked up on.  On the other hand, I think the movie works at a great many levels on a great many themes, and so I'm not surprised that you and someone else see different themes as central.  

Syndrome's threat, "When everyone is special, then no one will be.", is one of those things that has several layers of meaning available from the context and depending on how you read 'special'.

The salient facts are:
1) The world of mid-movie is already a world where everyone is special (celebrating 4th grade 'graduation') but no one is allowed to be special (Dash and Violet must not only hide their powers but be ashamed of them.  Helen must encourage her children not to excel.  Bob is not allowed to help anyone and is continually victimized by people who are themselves pathetic, self-interested, and untalented.).  This world is horrible and oppressive for everyone.
2) Syndrome's intention of releasing his inventions is clearly intended to continue this oppression, not to alleviate people from it.  Syndrome's words are a threat because he's not threatening to release anyone from oppression but to deepen their general bondage.  
3) Syndrome's threat is not fully credible because he's clearly a hypocrit.  He is obviously not someone who cares for others and wants to help enable their greatness.  He has always used his talents to subjegate others and enable oppressors.  He's a weapons merchant that sells to people who use force to demand respect, and force and threats are the currency he deals in.
4) Syndrome is special himself.  Sure, he's not special in exactly the way that the heroes are, but as a gadgeteer his potentially a 'great person' capable of helping others and advancing the general well-being of the world.  But compare him to the good gadgeteer.  Edna shares her technology.  Syndrome keeps for himself.  Edna empowers others.  Syndrome empowers himself.  Edna empowers heros.  Syndrome empowers oppressive regimes.  Edna encourages others.  Syndrome uses others.  Ednas goal is to make others look good.  Syndromes goal is to make others look bad.  Edna is motivated by her art - she neither wants nor needs approval.  Syndrome is motivated by solely by desire for others approval.  Buddy could be a hero.  But Buddy lacks the heroic motivation.  

But I'm making this sound more Randian than it is.  The movie doesn't in fact advance objectivism, but something a good deal more complex and nuanced.

If there is one message you ought to take from the film that is central to what it wants to convey it is, "No capes."


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Both of whom know that Batman=Bruce Wayne, thus disqualifying them from inclusion in the "friends with Batman only" category.



No I would say that is not a given....  It is the opposite category.
Bruce wayne only friends that you have to assert exists.

They can know Bruce Wayne is a secret of batmans without "bruce wayne" being anything significant except in so far as revealing the connection would upset batman....  when they hear about Bruce Wayne being more scoundrel than anything else do they even feel like chiming in and say no he isnt.


That Bruce Wayne identity is not a facet of the whole person like Clark Kent is...

The defintion of "Bruce Wayne" is nebulous... he isnt the drunkard he isnt the guilt ridden chaser of tail or any of the other things of people who only interact with only Bruce Wayne think he is. That life as Bruce is not somebody presenting a facet of himself like superman does.

Actually I said that wrong... those bad features really are bruce wayne ... a very planned and carried out set of deceptions that keep people who would look close at him distant...


----------



## Ourph (Nov 11, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> No I would say that is not a given....  It is the opposite category.
> Bruce wayne only friends that you have to assert exists.
> 
> They can know Bruce Wayne is a secret of batmans without "bruce wayne" being anything significant except in so far as revealing the connection would upset batman....  when they hear about Bruce Wayne being more scoundrel than anything else do they even feel like chiming in and say no he isnt.



My assertion is that superheroes don't have friends. You apparently disagree with that. I think I'm perfectly justified in asking you to name people who are friends with Batman in his superhero identity only. If you can't, I don't see how you have any basis for disagreeing with me.



			
				Garthanos said:
			
		

> That Bruce Wayne identity is not a facet of the whole person like Clark Kent is...
> 
> The defintion of "Bruce Wayne" is nebulous... he isnt the drunkard he isnt the guilt ridden chaser of tail or any of the other things of people who only interact with only Bruce Wayne think he is. That life as Bruce is not somebody presenting a facet of himself like superman does.



I don't really see how this is relevant to the point of our discussion. I've already conceded that the Bruce Wayne public persona isn't necessarily the "real" Bruce Wayne. If your argument is that Bruce Wayne is the mask and Batman is the "real" person, I'll concede that too. It doesn't change the fact that everyone that Batman/Bruce Wayne is close to knows that Batman=Bruce Wayne. Batman has no friends who know him only as Batman.

Why is that? It's because people can't be "friends" with a superhero. As soon as they get within the friend "range" with Batman they want to know who is behind the mask and Batman wants to show them, because it's impossible to establish a real human connection while that wall is still up. Even if the personality doesn't change (i.e. the private Bruce Wayne is just like Batman), taking off the mask is an absolutely necessary step to maintaining and growing that relationship.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> My assertion is that superheroes don't have friends. You apparently disagree with that.




I will also disagree with that.  What I fail to understand, though, is what not knowing the secret identity of a superhero has to do with not being friends with said hero.

One could easily argue that you are more likely to know the secrets of your closest friends than you are to know those of mere acquaintances.  In this case, the idea that most of Batman's friends know that he is Bruce Wayne would demonstrate that Batman has more friends, rather than less.

In any event, in the current DC Universe, Batman's ID became public to people outside his inner circle with the events of the JLA story "Tower of Babel".  Prior to that, only the Bat-family, Ra's al Ghul, and Superman knew who Batman was.  Revealing his secret identity was intended as a sign of trust and greater friendship, to heal the fractured League (who voted Batman out after they discovered he was making plans to take them down if need be.....because Ra's al Ghul hacked the Batcomputer and used Batman's emergency plans against them!).


RC


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> OK. Name a few. And remember, we're talking about people who are friends with Batman only. If they know Batman is Bruce Wayne they don't count.
> 
> Both of whom know that Batman=Bruce Wayne, thus disqualifying them from inclusion in the "friends with Batman only" category.




Well, there's Commissioner Gorden. And Selena Kyle (though that relationship is a bit antagonistic as well). Harvey Dent was also, before going insane.


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Ourph said:


> My assertion is that superheroes don't have friends. You apparently disagree with that. I think I'm perfectly justified in asking you to name people who are friends with Batman in his superhero identity only. If you can't, I don't see how you have any basis for disagreeing with me.




Batman doesnt use his bruce wayne identity ... to connect to people or make friends with people at all if you concede that "Bruce Wayne" is a falsehood.... it makes for a crappy tool to connect with real people, he isnt revealing a real part of himself. 

The fact that he lets people he trust know about the persona nongrata bruce wayne does not mean he uses that identity to establish friendships (which sounded like the whole assertion of this)... it is indeed still a sign that he trusts them.. because he needs the identity. (it is so much less important to him than Clark and other secret but real identities are) 

What he is doing when he shares "Bruce Wayne" is not saying this is another part of me you can establish contact with or for me to share with you.. its more like I have this tool I trust you not to break it.

It is only marginally useful for connecting to other heros because there once was an 8 year old who died... when his family died.


----------



## Cadfan (Nov 11, 2009)

Psst...

[SBLOCK]It doesn't make sense to argue whether superheroes have friends, because superheroes aren't real and all of their traits are made up by authors who have different visions for their characters and the worlds in which they live.  So no matter what assertion you make, someone somewhere is going to have published a superhero story where your assertion is wrong.  Or if they haven't yet, someone could, and with the number of comics out there someday someone probably will.[/SBLOCK]


----------



## Garthanos (Nov 11, 2009)

Oh yup forgot that... thanks CadFan
heheh the story is "usually" presented as the opposite of supermans and many others giving it a flavor of uniqueness... there are indeed many interpretations by many authors...

There have been more than one reason given for supers to have a secret identity... but they arent all the exactly same... batman doesnt even seem to care whether he has a normal life in most cases.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 12, 2009)

Ourph said:


> Being famous and envied doesn't equate to being happy. Pick up a _People_ magazine next time you're in line at the supermarket if you don't believe me.




Yes, there are unhappy wealthy athletes, movie stars, and rock stars. Many of who are unhappy because of the isolation required for them to dsicipline themselves into achieveing their status. There are also many others (probably many more than the unhappy ones) who are quite happy being rish, famous, and loved by millions. Pretending that wealthy famous people are all miserable inside is just wishful thinking.



> _I have to ask, are you seriously arguing that Superman goes out on a Friday night to have a few drinks with friends? He doesn't. Clark Kent does that. It's not a coincidence that Superman's home base is called the Fortress of *SOLITUDE*._




No, he doesn't, because of a literary convention of 1930s era society that the well-off should pretend to be humble and avoid the spotlight. On the other hand, guys like Larry Bird, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, and so on have probably not had to pay for their own drinks for a decade. Which do you think is more likely to actually happen for a guy with Superman-like potential? That he become a thoughtful philosophical hermit who hides his identity? Or that he behave like a rock star?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Nov 12, 2009)

Storm Raven said:


> Which do you think is more likely to actually happen for a guy with Superman-like potential? That he become a thoughtful philosophical hermit who hides his identity? Or that he behave like a rock star?



Most will behave like rock stars.  1 in a billion or so will be raised by the Kent family and therefore remain grounded.


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 12, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Whatever you wish to call it, it's still a handicap system.  Or, as you say, a system to ensure that individual competitors are more evenly matched.




No, its a system to ensure that individual competitors are evenly sized. Their skill doesn't enter into the equation at all.



> _Because Dash hides his abilities, he's being deceptive.  It's pool sharking.  The win is meaningless because there is no possible way for him to lose.  If the facts were known, he would not be allowed to compete in this competition, he'd get kicked up to a higher league in order to compete with those who are closer to his skills._




He's only pool sharking if he hides his abilities and then later bets everyone a bunch of money that he can beat them _and then_ he reveals his higher skill level. Dash merely doesn't tell everyone that he's fast before he races.



> _But, he hides his skills.  He lies about it.  He wins, but, not by enough to actually show his capabilities._




Actually, Dash hides his skills by coming in second. Not by winning. The deception is what the movie lauds as the right thing to do.



> _I totally agree with your final point though.  In this case, if his abilities were known, then something could be done._




What? Banning really fast people from races?


----------



## Storm Raven (Nov 12, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> I think that there are some baseball examples that would shoot that out of the water. Not only is there the issue of steroids, but lots of the homerun chasers had to deal with issues like the asterix because people didn't want to take the record away from the previous holder.




The asterix was supposed to be tacked on because of the longer season. Later because of suspected performance enhancing drugs. However, no asterix is actually in the record books. But the question here is not that Dash is using drugs. The examples you give don't "shoot that out of the water" at all since they are entirely different thatn the sort of situation we are talking about here.



> _I'm saying that it is still encouraging Dash to be mediocre. The only thing he is testing his skill aginst is his previous best time._




And? The only thing Bubka was competing against was his previous best height. Why does it matter?



> _Correct me if I'm wrong ... have any of those people retired at the end of their careers having never even come close to losing?_




Explain how it matters. At all.



> _I'm not saying you need to work hard to be deserving to be allowed to compete.
> 
> I'm saying that it isn't competiting if you have no competition. It's only competiting if there is some risk of losing. That is why matter of degree actually matters in this case. In many sports, it's very possible that the "best" won't necessarily win. Races, on the other hands, will come down to a matter of fractions of a second in difference. When Dash is able to beat any human being by a number of seconds, short of Dash injuring himself or tripping and falling ... how would he ever lose a race._




You have yet to explain why this would matter, and why it would be a question of fairness. 



> _They still have men and women in seperate divisions. They still test for performance enhancing drugs. If superhuman abilities existed, they would potentially create a superhuman olympiad, or maybe not ... since superhuman really just means "more than human", there isn't necessarily a grouping that would provide for a real competition. Flash vs. Quicksilver, for example, wouldn't be a competition at all, since Flash can travel at near light speeds, while Quicksilver is closer to the speed of sound._




And? How would it be unfair for Flash to beat Quicksilver? (I note you are mixing comic book universes by the way). He's simply faster. The rules of the race presumably say "competitors must run, and the person who reaches the finish line first wins".



> _Ultimately, I am saying that if Dash were to go around and "compete" with people that have no chance of beating him ... he is trading "pretend to be mediocre so other people feel good" with "rub it in their face to make yourself feel good". If he really wants to compete he should look for something that is at least in the same speed range as he is. Or, he can participate in different sports where his speed doesn't necessarily equate to him winning. Unless he doesn't want to compete ... he just wants to be acknowledged as being the best. He wants to be treated special just because of his power, not for actually using his power in any way that is productive to anyone other than himself._




Why should he not want to use his speed to benefit himself? Why should he not want to be treated as special for something about him that _is_ special? Why should he be expected to forego setting a dozen world records just so that "normal" people should be allowed to continue to pretend that they are the fastest and continue to have the record books be a sham? How is this not a celebration of mediocrity.

Sure, winning all the time might be boring for Dash, and it might make the sport boring. But that doesn't make it cheating or unfair.


----------



## SSquirrel (Nov 12, 2009)

Superman outraced the Flash once.  Blame Mr Mxyzptlk


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Nov 12, 2009)

Ok, as for Batman's freinds who don't know he is batman...this is way to simple almost every named gothem PD member (I said almost) but mostly Gordan... Metamorpho (in the newest outsiders he may know) Looker (in newest outsiders she still doesn't know) Joe Public (really for years after bloodlines) 

However by saying they can't know you do cut out some great friends... selina Kyle is in love with batman...NOT BRUCE WAYNE, womder woman, superman, heck the whole JLA are mostly friends of Batman...

(exception: clark lois and bruce are shown to be friends...so that might break the need)


----------



## resistor (Nov 17, 2009)

I hate to necromance this thread, but I _finally_ pinned down what bothered me about this whole discussion: the quote's not originally from The Incredibles!

The earliest I'm aware of it is from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Gondoliers (1889): "If every one is somebody, then no-one's anybody."


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 16, 2021)

resistor said:


> I hate to necromance this thread, but I _finally_ pinned down what bothered me about this whole discussion: the quote's not originally from The Incredibles!
> 
> The earliest I'm aware of it is from Gilbert and Sullivan's The Gondoliers (1889): "If every one is somebody, then no-one's anybody."



The reason the quote is villainous is because it comes from the very selfish view that you cannot appreciate what you have unless others are deprived.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 16, 2021)

Holy thread necromancy of a thread necromancy.  Wow!  12 years.  That's impressive.


----------



## aramis erak (Oct 17, 2021)

I've seen older. 15+ years, over on COTI.


----------



## J.Quondam (Oct 17, 2021)

The "how to pronounce EN World" thread  was necro'd yesterday. It's about three months shy of 20 years old.


----------



## Argyle King (Oct 17, 2021)

Intense_Interest said:


> Lately, I have noticed that the talking-point criticism of the 4E system has been a co-opted quote from the movie *The Incredibles*, in that "When everyone is special, no one will be."
> 
> Lets ignore the fact that the source of the quote is a deranged maniac; the quote itself, when applied as it has been here, is completely dismantled by the actions of the movie.
> 
> ...




The last part of what you said is what sticks out to me: "...divorced from the world around them..."

In the past, most of my criticisms of 4E came from that.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Oct 17, 2021)

Especially weird for me, because I just signed on today after years of not paying attention to ENWorld, and I see a thread marked with my little dot and had to wonder if I'd totally forgotten coming here recently.
--------------------------------
I also have to say, I think I'm someone who prefers to be special because of how my character acts rather than because they're by-the-rules-stand-out.


----------

