It sort of depends. If the fight was taking place in a semi-dark warehouse with lots of cover I'd allow a Stealth check for a player who was in a reasonably realistic position to do so. If it was broad daylight and out in the open, then I wouldn't. Also, if the player wanted to stay hidden I'd let him make Stealth checks on subsequent rounds, possibly with some setback dice added for each manoeuvre he spent moving (or limiting the number of manoeuvres he could spend moving to something determined by his Stealth check).

OK. My point was imo there's no such thing. Using the dice results to justify or create the circumstances/environment for its use strikes me as time travel.

You come from a very traditional gaming background don't you? That makes sense from that point of view, but you might want to consider it less like time travel and simply a piece of terrain not yet mentioned. I find that a scene rarely gets covered in complete granularity when it is first described. Plus what you are imagining may not be exactly what your players have in their heads. Keeping the scene loose and letting the players include stuff too makes for a more exciting game. I can't think of everything, nor can I describe everything I have thought of before one of the players is chomping at the bit to continue. "Enough Flavor Text B.A., I waste 'em with my crossbow!" - KODT

I always like to suggest that people check out FATE for a few new ways to run games. It may not be your style at all, but you might find a few new ways to run a game like STAR WARS. They have a free download here and there so you don't have to spend anything to get some neat ideas.

I prefer to inspire critical thinking as to how skills are applied. It's relatively easy for a player to tweak numbers and get their dice pool to the point where they can essentially turn invisible and then just make up reasons. The problem is that's too much suspension of belief for me and it quickly throws a bucket of water onto the PCs even bothering to plan something when they know their dice pools are good enough to just make some absurdity up as they go. If there is to be a challenge, particularly as characters level, it requires a GM to step in and make decisions about when and how skills may be applied.

In the OPs scenario it isn't reasonable imo to even attempt to sneak into the middle of a firefight. Not only is it not reasonable, it's just plain dumb. All a PC at my table would have to do in order for that skill to be used would be to utilize the Mk 1 computer in their skull and say " I want to double maneuver around the flank and try to approach from a side they aren't watching and use Stealth." Someone 'actually' skilled in Stealth would know you don't try and sneak into a place where people are watching.

I just don't run my table where the dice and narrative game play replace common sense, if that's traditional gaming so be it.

I prefer to inspire critical thinking as to how skills are applied. It's relatively easy for a player to tweak numbers and get their dice pool to the point where they can essentially turn invisible and then just make up reasons. The problem is that's too much suspension of belief for me and it quickly throws a bucket of water onto the PCs even bothering to plan something when they know their dice pools are good enough to just make some absurdity up as they go. If there is to be a challenge, particularly as characters level, it requires a GM to step in and make decisions about when and how skills may be applied.

In the OPs scenario it isn't reasonable imo to even attempt to sneak into the middle of a firefight. Not only is it not reasonable, it's just plain dumb. All a PC at my table would have to do in order for that skill to be used would be to utilize the Mk 1 computer in their skull and say " I want to double maneuver around the flank and try to approach from a side they aren't watching and use Stealth." Someone 'actually' skilled in Stealth would know you don't try and sneak into a place where people are watching.

I just don't run my table where the dice and narrative game play replace common sense, if that's traditional gaming so be it.

Who said anything about not using common sense? Who said anything about not planning?

Traditional gaming comes from a mindset of "I must explain every last detail of opening that chest /door or I may be in danger of missing the activation of that trap". It comes from a desire of the GM to have an excess of minutia and extreme detail. I have seen plenty of arguments start because the players or GM did not fully or clearly explain one tiny intricate detail and it devolve. I prefer not to experience that again, so I tend to prefer more "narrative games" with a bit of reasonable common sense being applied.

My suggestion was just that, a suggestion on if you want to see a few more options on how to play. I am the kind of person who loves reading new systems and learning the philosophy behind the mechanics. Not knowing you, I offered a suggestion.

Sneaking into a firefight is not dumb depending upon the circumstances and the terrain. Yes, a bare and open area with good lighting would be suicide to try and sneak into. I would hope that isn't the situation as the OP described a jungle environment with a river.

The mechanics are really what we are discussing here. The assumption is that the narrative and common sense will apply modifiers and limits to those mechanics. I don't believe that anyone in this discussion was considering it to be a video game.

I prefer to inspire critical thinking as to how skills are applied. It's relatively easy for a player to tweak numbers and get their dice pool to the point where they can essentially turn invisible and then just make up reasons.

But nobody is arguing they should be allowed to. In a firefight where everybody can see each other, or there is minimal cover, trying to use Stealth would be stupid (or...I suppose in the spirit of "yes, but...", 5 big reds and a DP flip). I don't think anybody disagrees with that. However, that seems to be the only scenario you're willing to entertain, and there are plenty of others where Stealth could be legitimate.

In a warehouse filled with crates, if a player ducks down one aisle, he can pop out the other side, climb them for a better vantage point, or take the next T-junction and do something there. He might be out of sight, but Stealth prevents him from making noise and giving his position away. It may take a couple turns for the character to make something of it, I can't see a reason they couldn't try it.

Traditional gaming comes from a mindset of "I must explain every last detail of opening that chest /door or I may be in danger of missing the activation of that trap".

I don't think that's the issue, and it's a pretty stretched assumption. Our pirate friend was involved in the F&D alpha, I doubt he'd get an invite if he wasn't fully versed in narrative gaming.

Traditional gaming comes from a mindset of "I must explain every last detail of opening that chest /door or I may be in danger of missing the activation of that trap".

I don't think that's the issue, and it's a pretty stretched assumption. Our pirate friend was involved in the F&D alpha, I doubt he'd get an invite if he wasn't fully versed in narrative gaming.

It could be, but after reading the posts in this thread I came to that conclusion. You can still be a traditional gamer and be extremely narrative. They don't exclude each other, and in fact they tend to be more aligned than you think. Traditional gamer does not equal mechanistic, that is reserved for the rules. Narrative games tend toward looser mechanics, but not every player who employs narrative... I think I need better terms than narrative game and gamer.

Think about it, if you are concerned with describing the situation down to the eensiest detail, you are following the traditions of old school gaming. Every detail mapped out, every thing you do described in detail just in case it matters.

The thing is, some groups love it that way. I am no longer one of them (unless I am playing Hackmaster), but there is a fine tradition of it. Some groups prefer looser play. That's just a style and preference thing.

The important bit I was trying to get at though was his assumption that we are suggesting that his group not have a plan or using common sense is just wrong. No one is suggesting that at all.