PS: No I wouldn't. A player being mildly irritated can happen from anything or a ruling by a GM that we can't forsee or make rules about/nor stop on this forum. It is as inevitable as teh sun rising and setting. I refuse to worry about that.
Physical pain is unavoidable too, but putting thumbtacks in your shoes is still daft.
I see no reason why the rules should be set up to annoy me here.
However, full invincibility in an RPG would likely be viewed by people as a negative desire. I would lean that way, but in an effort to remain diplomatic about such things i will refrain from giving my full opinion.
Regardless the fact remains that I can't see anyone taking a power seriously that grants full invincibility. I just can't.
Say whatever you want, I'm not going to get hurt.
Even if you'll never use full invincibility, some people will. In fact, I'd say most people would if they needed to run a fight scene involving Mab. They wouldn't use a full set of numbers for it, but that's beside the point.
This is a bit like the Social Immunity thing. Even if it does not appeal to you at all, as long as it makes sense and is balanced it ought to be an option.
I see no reason why the rules should be set up to annoy me here. (EDIT: Bad copypasta.)
That is why I think a catch of some sort is required. Likely linked to high concept to force the catch to be sensible.
Actually, that just makes the problem worse by telling people to make their High Concept incoherent too.
The root of the problem is that a +0 Catch can be anything from a sizable weakness (like Nicodemus's noose) to something completely unfair (like the knucklebones of a specific caveman, wrapped in leather made from Mab's skin during a solar eclipse by a transgendered were-squid).
When you tell people to choose between a large weakness and a small one, you should expect them to pick the small one.
But in this case, the small weakness is terrible and bad for the game. So we don't want them to pick it. So why would we set up the rules to make people do exactly that?
If we're seriously going to go around in circles on this. Mention the catch as optional for some gaming groups and I'll shut up about it.
However, since I was willing to back down about social immunity and made other minor concessions here and there, I'm going to put my foot down. I started the thread, I suggested the rewrite, I want the power considered seriously by players and GM's alike. I don't feel full invincibility is something a player should have and I doubt I am in the minority. If we can't come to a compromise on this matter then scrap the project and let the thread die.
Okay, at this point I lose track of what you're saying. Could you rephrase that?