The Catch Rewrite

[Tedronai]

Without presenting some evidence to suggest that Evil Hat ignoring their own rules failed to cause a problem, the fact that they did ignore their own rules is not meaningful evidence that ignoring that rule won't cause a problem.

[Sanctaphrax]

They did it years ago.

There seem to have been no negative consequences in the time since then.

I'd call that evidence.

[Tedronai]

Whereas I'd call it another patently unsupported claim.  Feel free to provide that support, or some other line of logic arriving at the same conclusion, any time you wish, though.

[Sanctaphrax]

Okay, let me rephrase.

In years of hanging out here and hearing people complain about pretty much everything about this game, I can't recall any complaint about this.

So why should I believe that it's a problem?

[Becq]

I think its better to assume that those characters actually do have Catches, but that they are simply 'unknown' -- possibly because Jim Butcher didn't want to publish the information, or because Evil Hat wanted to leave some unique NPC's Catches up to individual GMs to create as a pleasant surprise for their players.  The characters in OW often have too few aspects, rarely have Troubles, etc -- this is not an invitation for player characters to follow suit "because if it's good enough for Evil Hat, it's good enough for my PC".

[ways and means]

If people don't want to have a catch for limited toughness then they could just say there catch is sufficient damage to overwhelm their toughness (+50 stress = 0 catch) or say a +0 catch of a thermonuclear bomb.

[Becq]

You could play that way, yes.  Though I'm reasonably sure that The Catch is meant to be a type of thing, not an amount of a type of thing.  So your Catch would be radiation or fire, not a thermonuclear bomb, for example.

But that's just my opinion, not RAW.

[ways and means]

Even if you go with that interpretation that still leaves swords of the cross, Heavy Hitters (pick your poison) and Old Ones as options for catches that make a zero % difference to any fight involving the catch. You also have the option for extremely selective no-lethal catches in extremely bizarre and hard to reach places for example "The very first bloom of the delightfully sented flower that blooms inside the stomach of the immortal outsider furthest away from reality etc.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think its better to assume that those characters actually do have Catches, but that they are simply 'unknown'

There are places in OW where characters are said to have unknown Catches. And then there are places where characters have no Catches.

If Gard was meant to have an unknown Catch, why would they not say so?

[Silverblaze]

There are places in OW where characters are said to have unknown Catches. And then there are places where characters have no Catches.

If Gard was meant to have an unknown Catch, why would they not say so?

Devils advocate here: It could be a typo that passed the editors.  Typo in this case meaning oversight ( they simply forgot).  People do make mistakes.

Non devils advocate: Toughness says everythign has a catch.  Period.  This leads me to beleive the catch is simply unknown.

Then again.  My actual perspective is one of apathy.  I don't care if some toughnesses do not have a catch.  You just need to hit harder.

[Sanctaphrax]

Then again.  My actual perspective is one of apathy.  I don't care if some toughnesses do not have a catch.  You just need to hit harder.

Same here.

Anyway, if the company writing the game ignores a rule and nobody cares...then maybe that rule shouldn't exist.

[Becq]

If Gard was meant to have an unknown Catch, why would they not say so?

Or you could just as easily say "If Gard was meant to have NO Catch, why would they not say so?"  But whatever...

[Radecliffe]

For me it is a matter of scale. 

For Inhuman Toughness or Recovery I see a Catch as more trouble than it is worth.  The powers themselves are useful to have, just not so powerful they require a shortcut to get around them. 

For Supernatural Toughness or Recovery I see it as an optional situation depending on what accompanies it.  A character with only Supernatural Toughness may not need a catch.  All defense and no offense just means the character dies a little slower than most.  A character with Toughness, Strength and Speed on the other hand is a whole different situation.  A character like that definitely needs a catch of some sort and preferably a significant one. 

For Mythic Toughness or Recovery a Catch is pretty much a must in my book.  Even an otherwise average character can do a lot of damage if he can shrug off almost everything that can be thrown at him. 

[Sanctaphrax]

Or you could just as easily say "If Gard was meant to have NO Catch, why would they not say so?"  But whatever...

They did. They listed her Powers, and The Catch was not one of them.

[Silverblaze]

I'm still saying I bet it was a typo.

An oversight.

I'm pretty sure when a book contradicts itself in the same volume or on the same page it is an error.


I see Becq's point.

I think Sanctaphrax is ignoring the fact tht it also does not expressly say that she has no catch.


In any case.  I see no use for a rewrite of the catch. Especially if the one advocating the rewrite is thinking of doing away with catches.