Though with the Cover thing, it gets a little tricky. Is the block your action of getting behind the upturned table--where one can argue that popping up to shoot constitutes the "do something else" that removes the block--or is it the upturning of the table--meaning it persists even as you pop up to shoot?

That's where I was getting hung up too...  Until I took a different point of view and decided that invoking/compelling the aspect constitutes that particular bit of luck when the shot hits the cover, or you just happen to duck down behind the cover at the right time.

Well, tomato-tomahto. The book suggests that unmet shifts go into the time units to make up the difference rather than a straight fail in some cases.

If the difficulty of a Contacts roll to find a piece of information is, say, 8, a mortal rolling a 5 might mean "I know just the guy, but he's a couple towns over. I can talk to him in a couple days." On the other hand, a wizard can put together a ritual for those 8 shifts and get that information by the end of the day from some willing spirit (or a trip through the Nevernever).

Fair enough.

I don't think that makes any sense for a non-evocation block. If you overturn a table and crouch behind it, the table isn't going to suddenly not be there anymore 20 seconds later if you didn't put a little extra effort into flipping it in the first place. The table, and your cover, will keep protecting you until either you move or it's destroyed.

Right...  You see, that's the conceptual trouble I was having with using Aspects for cover...

You flip a table over and hide behind it.  It helps you for a few moments, and then suddenly it stops being useful unless you spend a Fate Point or take additional action.

In end, I can always rule that cover gives a benefit...  Either a bonus to defense or as impromptu armor.  I just couldn't find any actual rules for it, and was wondering if there were any.  Or, in their absence, if there were existing rules that could be easily adapted (evocation blocks/shields/armor/barriers seemed a good place to start).

How do you guys handle this?

It would seem most appropriate to start with a Maneuver and then tag the resulting aspect.  But...  If the character wants to STAY behind the cover and continue getting the bonus, he either has to A) spend a Fate Point every round, or B) spend his action on a new Maneuver.

The other way, I suppose, would be to use the character's Stealth skill to block all attacks against him.  But again, the character would be constantly using all his actions to block.

Is there a good way to allow someone to, for example, shoot at an enemy from around a corner and still gain some benefit from hiding behind that corner?

Thoughts?

I'm impressed.

Someone changed the name of the thread due to derailment.  That should send a message.

     (Not that I didn't make my own contribution to the derailment...)

Actually, I'd be terribly interested in opinions and suggestions for using DFRPG supernatural powers in a Science-Fiction setting...  It seems that many of the powers would be suitable for use as "psionic" powers, and most of the "monster" powers could be used for creating alien races and creatures.

One thing to adjust for is just how much slower everything is. Nowadays, traveling 60 miles is an hour's trip (40 minutes, if you're a little nuts). Back before the 1900s, it was a day's trip. This is going to affect the scope of whole campaigns all the way down to what would be relatively simple actions nowadays.

Of course, that'll make traveling through the Nevernever that much more useful.

I think those are close enough to the present to translate without problems as far as the Skills listing goes.

No computers, though...  at least, not of the usual sort.

Okay, I think it looks like everyone's getting tired of this.

The sad part, for me, is that I don't think anyone actually understands what I've been trying to say. Orladdin, Mr. Death, both of your posts demonstrate that you believe that I believe things I don't actually believe.

This is probably my fault, mostly.

It's part of of what sucks about trying to debate over the internet...  It's slow, and there's practically way to use the usual body language to convey contextual attitude.  I know I often feel the same way.

First, I'm not invoking Stormwind here. I'm using an example to demonstrate the power of mechanics to control behaviour. Wizards with Mediocre casting stats are mechanically discouraged, and as a result hardly anyone plays them. A similar effect will occur if you discourage something else mechanically. That is the entire substance of that argument.

Yep, exactly...  And there nothing necessarily wrong with that.  That's why employers have a list of experience and education requirements when they post a job opening.  If you are going to do a job professionally, you should be good at what you do.  That's why I've never had a problem with my players doing a little bit of optimizing -- I expect them to, to a certain degree.  In most games, they are professional heroes and adventurers.  They should be good at what they do.  If they weren't, they'd stay home and be NPCs.   

What I said is that you don't get to pick whether you get compelled. You make a character concept and then you get whatever compels are appropriate for that concept. Even self-compels depend on GM fiat. If you have the power to avoid a compel effortlessly, then you don't get that compel.

Also: I may have given the impression that I believe compels are a good thing. I don't. Compels are neither good nor bad, they're just a thing. Opening yourself up to them has its benefits perfectly negated by its drawbacks.

From my point of view, it seemed like you were over-emphasizing compels as the only way to make a troublesome situation happen for the players -- in this instance, claws or a weapon being noticed by a bouncer. 

But, then...

And Mr. Death, you seem to be suggesting that we bend/break the game deliberately, in order to control player behaviour. And you know what? That's okay. That's a standard part of game design.

But I see no sensible reason to bend/break the game against people with weird natural weapons. That sort of thing should be reserved for when it's really necessary and when it can be done elegantly.

That's speaks to what I was trying to get at earlier:  In my view, at least, Aspects are there, purposefully, to allow the players and GM to break/bend the game deliberately in order to control player (or NPC) behavior...  Especially when it comes to compels.  Compels are there to try to force a player into a certain type of behavior, or to avoid a certain type of behavior.  They concretely reward the player when they do what you what them to, and penalize them when they don't. And you know what? That's okay.

But, by the same respect, I saw no reason to compel a character with weird natural weapons, unless it's really necessary and can be done elegantly.

Is that all clear now?

Clearer, at least...   

PS: Does anyone actually care this much about Claws? This has been about deeper principles, I thought.

I don't, at least...  For me, it was partially about "What's the big deal about changing the fluff on a power, so long as the mechanics stay the same?" and then later trying to understand "How, when and why should we be using compels?"