I came up with an idea that I really like, but it has a big flaw and I wonder if there are any ways around it?

A attacks B; both are effectively fighting each other, they are going toe to toe either melee or ranged it doesn/t matter. A rolls, B counters with his own roll. If A beats B then B takes a Hit. Once he's taken a few of these, he's out. No hit points, just a small tally of Hits (though they are eminently functional, I find HP a bit dull). If B beats A then B has the advantage and A has to roll again as the situation is reversed. Here we get the ebb and flow of combat. No real need, beyond establishing who goes first (which might be represented with a simple bonus to A's initial roll), for regimented initiative/turn based systems. This even applies to gunfights: you get the ebb and flow there too, like in a John Woo movie, blam blam!

Problem is what if A attacks B, but B is intending not to duel A. This system is great for a straight duel, but if B is attacking C and C is attacking A, what happens? Does A automatically hit B who automatically hits C who hits A etc? Maybe?

Not quite sure I understand. In the 1-on-1 scenario, you have two characters, one of which is attempting to injure the other character, and the other of which is attempting to maneuver into a situation where they are able to attempt to injure the other character, essentially swapping their position?

Sounds kinda like the way pro wrestling works, to me...

It also sounds somewhat overcomplicated, because you have to worry about who's on top, and it doesn't scale easily. I'd probably go for something like multi-combatant FF; one character is on top, and is rolling to injure.

So:

1. Everybody rolls. The character who is On Top is rolling for Offensive Initiative; everybody else is rolling for Defensive Initiative.
2. For each character whose DI is lower than the rolled OI, the character On Top can choose to assign A Hit to them, if that would make logical sense (Clunky rule, but it means the character doesn't have to hit anyone on his side, and scales for multiside conflicts as well as melee vs ranged situations).
3. The character with the highest initiative, either OI or DI, is On Top for the next round. Re-roll ties, or something.

It does mean that, potentially, a gang can swarm a lone hero, and that hero injure all of them in that combat round, but that's not necessarily a huge problem. If it really upsets you, you can give the swarming side a bonus to their rolls, or something.

Quote from: Ladybird;633695Not quite sure I understand. In the 1-on-1 scenario, you have two characters, one of which is attempting to injure the other character, and the other of which is attempting to maneuver into a situation where they are able to attempt to injure the other character, essentially swapping their position?

not quite, both are trying to attack each other: trying to land hits while trying not to be hit. One might land a hit, buyt they carry on.

Or one might solely be trying not to get hit and ultimately to escape, when he succeeds he just doesn't take damage and dishes none out.

QuoteSounds kinda like the way pro wrestling works, to me...

Sort of, I suppose, since it's a sytem optimised for a duel.

QuoteIt also sounds somewhat overcomplicated, because you have to worry about who's on top, and it doesn't scale easily. I'd probably go for something like multi-combatant FF; one character is on top, and is rolling to injure.

I don't know what FF means.

QuoteSo:

If a person isn't attacking back or defending against that person, because they are doing something else, would it not be an automatic hit?

I like the roll vs roll to determine who 'hits/gets advantage' as a simple mechanic.

Perhaps the higher roll chooses either to inflict a hit, or to increase his base roll in upcoming rounds? Momentum!

That would make people have to choose between hurting people and getting more powerful.


The multiple combatant issue is interesting.
I think you would always roll to defend each time anyone attacks you.

So person A would be attacking person B and inflicting wounds or building momentum, while person B might be attacking person C the same way.

I think that works.

There is an issue with order of actions. Initiative exists in games for a good reason:

Either you have combatants going toe to toe, duelling dice rolls one after the other, or you have them make their dice roll in response in order of initiaitve.

The problem with the former is that it doesn't allow any way to show what is happening simultaneously around them (hene the A, B, C example) - if A and B duel, when do we resolve C's action, which may or may not impact on their fight?

The problem with the latter is that it means B rolls, writes down his result, then C acts, then we go to A who has to refer to B's result and roll. Not quite so tedious in a three person example, but in actual play with everything going on it will be a festival of bookkeeping particularly for the GM, if he has to track multiple antagonists.

Your description reminded me of The Riddle of Steel.. Its also duel based, and also seems to get problematic once there are more fighers involved in the same fight. Its even got a different Initiative concept (here it mean who has the initiative of combat in a given moment, not necessarily who acts first)

But the way you describes yours looks simpler and more fast to me, something I particularly like.