The Catch Rewrite

[Sanctaphrax]

As we all know, The Catch has issues. Its costing doesn't work all that well for some weaknesses, and sometimes it creates bizarre situations where there's no reason to take less than 4 Refresh worth of Toughness.

And its mandatory-ness causes headaches for, so far as I can tell, no good reason.

Plus, the Catch rules are not always followed in canonical materials. There are some Catchless Recovery Powers out there, and some of the Catch values don't follow the rules.

Fortunately, this is easy to fix. Here's how you do it:

1. Replace the costing formula with one based around the question "how frequently will the Catch matter?"
2. Replace the rules requiring a Catch with rules strongly recommending one, remind GMs that they can Compel through Toughness if need be.
3. (Optional) Make the Catch rebate into a percentage of the Refresh spent on Powers.

Anyway, that's the approach I'm going to use when I rewrite the Catch. (Which will be soon.)

Unless, of course, someone points out some kind of flaw.

This thread is for people to point out flaws, and for me to hear what people think of step 3. Is it worth the increase in complexity?

[ways and means]

A lot of that would be a judgment call and some of it would nurf toughness though I imagine that's the intent. See if we assume cold iron with only come  up 25% in combat that would mean that catch would fall from a +4 to a -1 or -2 and most of the non-common catches (true magic, holy etc) wouldn't even be worth a point of refresh.

[Sanctaphrax]

What?

How did you get that from what I posted?

[ways and means]

What?

How did you get that from what I posted?

Well I didn't get that I just ran with a percentage model in my head and got odd results and decided it wouldn't be a good idea. Basing the catch on a % of relevance will be a very fiddly thing to work out and very debatable. 

[Tedronai]

W&M seems to have assumed a direct:
% of instances where toughness is likely to be bypassed
=
% of cost of toughness powers refunded

[ways and means]

W&M seems to have assumed a direct:
% of instances where toughness is likely to be bypassed
=
% of cost of toughness powers refunded

Pretty much, logically it works but it gives weird numbers even with rounding.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yeah, I don't intend to do that.

That aside, what do people think?

[UmbraLux]

I think the last question in your first post is the sticking point.  Complexity.

The only simple fix I can think of loses some of the flavor.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'd be interested in hearing where you're going with this.

[UmbraLux]

I'd be interested in hearing where you're going with this.

This appears to be a non sequitur - or perhaps an Eliza clone.   

In the interest of clarity, I wasn't "going anywhere".  I simply agreed your question "Is it worth the increase in complexity?" is a sticking point and noted I didn't like my own ideas on simple resolutions.

[Tedronai]

I believe it was intended as a prompt to share your ideas anyway, in the hopes that they might be improved upon by the community.

[Sanctaphrax]

I believe it was intended as a prompt to share your ideas anyway, in the hopes that they might be improved upon by the community.

Yeah, this.

Plus I thought you might have some insight on what parts were over-complex and how that complexity could be avoided.

[Adin]

I'm working on a Fate based urban fantasy game, tentatively inspired by the DFRPG.  I originally had something similar to the catch but scrapped it due to the issues you noted.  Instead, I replaced it with a system of weaknesses.  Rather than bypassing toughness powers, a weakness inflicts extra stress beyond what it would have dealt.  It also inflicts one point of stress per round with simple contact. 

Translated into DFRPG terms, pricing for weaknesses is +2 for an obtainable or common weakness that inflicts double the stress it would have otherwise.  It is +1 for somewhat uncommon and +0 for rare. 

There are also Environmental weaknesses which inflict one stress per round of exposure.  +2 for a common environment that would be harmless to a mortal (or mostly harmless) like sunlight or submersion in water, and +1 for a somewhat uncommon environment. 

Finally, there are power drain weaknesses.  These work similarly to environmental, but instead of stress, exposure renders you unable to use any supernatural powers for the rest of the scene. 

A character can only have one of each weakness type, any additional weaknesses of the same type give +0.  You could require anyone with a toughness power to take the first type of weakness, but anyone can take a weakness even without a toughness power. 


Just my two cents on one possible solution, I hope it gives you the germ of an idea. 

[UmbraLux]

I believe it was intended as a prompt to share your ideas anyway, in the hopes that they might be improved upon by the community.

Yeah, this.

Ahh, my apologies...had already discarded the idea so it didn't click with anywhere I was 'going'.   Communications breakdown. 

It was simple though: 
 1. Catches do not give a rebate to a power's cost.
 2. Instead, they earn fate points from the GM's endless stash for each instance used in play.

It's simple and gets rid of the issue of costing and any issue of under/over use in play.  But it makes those powers much more expensive - might work for a low level game where everyone is a one trick pony but not as well for Dresden. 

[Sanctaphrax]

@Adin: Not a bad idea, but not what I'm looking for here. The idea that Toughness can be bypassed with a specific means is a good one, and one that I think the Catch represents pretty well. It just has a few oddities that I'd like to straighten out.

@UmbraLux: Yeah, that does lose some flavour. I'd rather just make Catches optimal and let GMs Compel away Toughness.