Kurkistan wrote:One general quibble I have (though I'll try and stop talking and let other talk for a bit) is this:
Quickly dashing around the battlefield, ducking behind cover and jumping out to fire - both modeled by the normal rules for tapping 10+ charges to move extra steps during a beat.
I don't think this is quite right, in large part because there's no real concept of "cover" or "advantageous positioning" in the MAG, beyond maybe a spare Circumstance. When you narrate fight scenes between muggles, it's not going to be "the two stood 30 feet apart and took turns shooting at each other. Bob rolled poorly on his defense and so Alice's aim was true". The very fact that you get to roll Defense dice means something more must be going on. You'll spice it up with "Bob ducked out of cover to line up a shot, then quickly pulled back behind the tree, cursing, as his own shot went wide and Alice's clipped his shoulder."
The mechanics for attack/defense already bake in the concept of dodging, using cover as obstructions, etc., in my opinion. The act of taking a Step and increasing/decreasing distance between characters is fairly distinct—both narratively and mechanically—from that.
You are of course right, and I didn't do a very good job of making myself clear. fSteel is of course the king of dodging bullets, and nobody disputes that you can tap charges for extra dice/nudges/outcome when dodging. I was referring more to setting up shots, sort of like how:
Shadows of Self Spoilers (in case they're needed)
Bleeder zips around and shoots people at point blank range.
or alternatively, jumping out from behind a building where the bad guys can't shoot at you at all, taking a shot or two, then ducking back behind the building before they can even fire (which for simplicity's sake I could see modeling as taking 1 step out, firing, then taking 1 step back).
Kurkistan wrote:P.S. As I typed this I determined that it was silly to re-hash the half-recalled circumstances of the original fSteel debate, so here's the original fSteel debate, though here in the context of melee combat
FYI your link doesn't appear to be working.
Kurkistan wrote: So as a parting thought I encourage you to objectively think about fun and game balance as your final deciding factors, ignoring how I might grumble about the simulation being off.
Ditto. I know for me personally, I don't like playing uber-powerful characters that can curb-stomp any baddies that come there way. It's just not my play style. I like combat and etc. to be a challenge, and to have a real chance of failure, so I have a bias to try to curtail the rules so that it's never too easy for one side to win. However, I realize that some people DO like playing uber-powerful characters, and there's nothing wrong with that. So that's why halfway through my "essay" a few posts ago I started backing off and adopting the position of "I could see handling the rules either way, which would you guys prefer?"
P.P.P.S. Though as a parting shot I'll remind everyone how much I hate "let's make it a stunt!" as an answer to anything.
I know, I KNOW!
I knew you were going to say that. But it's hard when stunts fit the situation so darn well. "A little bit of specialized training and practice allows you to do this awesome thing that your run of the mill character wouldn't be able to do" is exactly the purview of stunts, and so whenever I come across such an ability my natural tendency is to stuntatize it.
I could be okay with making one or two of the stunts I proposed (particularly the SR Aiming one I outlined) native abilities to any steel runner, but it still kinda feels like buffing up a particular power just because that's the one we like using. You could argue that things like "multi-target" for aSteel and "Unconscious burning" for pewter are innate powers, yet Crafty still decided to make stunts out of them, largely for game balance. That's kind of how I feel about these abilities...