Let me begin by admitting that I am starkly terrified of posting on The Forge, primarily because it opens my system up to criticism that may very well cause it to sink because of the glaring holes that I am too close to to see. However, that being said I have been impressed with the level and quality of feedback other indie designers and developers have received on this forum and I recognize that if my system cannot stand up to scrutiny from gamers, and especially from experienced gamers, then it is ultimately a failure. I also recognize that other than play testing (which I am presently doing on a small scale), critical feedback from gamers is the only other way in which I can be certain that my system holds water.

With that being said let me get to the meat and potatoes of my post: the Organic game system.

I've not yet chosen a name for my system. In one word "organic" sums it up nicely but I'm not sure how gamers will respond to that name. So that first thing I would like to know is what does the word "organic" communicate to you as the name for a roleplaying system? If you saw it in a hobby shop or online would you even give it a second glance?

What is my game about?
From reading through various recent threads this seems to be the first question forum members want answered. Here follows my attempt to answer this all important question.

My game is a core system of rules for building interesting and heroic characters who are well equipped to adventure in a fantasy world: solving mysteries, exploring ancient ruins, gathering wealth, prestiege and power, battling evil warlords and devious wizards, rescuing the weak and helpless, and generally enjoying playing interesting and heroic characters who are well equipped to adventure in a fantasy world.

What does my game system do for players?
The core system provides rules and guidelines for building and improving any kind of character a player can imagine. The core system also provides rules and guidelines for determining the outcome of skill based tasks or actions in both non-combat and combat situations.

What does my game system do for GMs/DMs/Storytellers/Referees?
The core system provides all of the above tools to help a GM assist his players in building the character of their dreams, as well as the rules and guidelines for determining the outcome of skill based tasks or actions. The core system also provides guidance and instruction on how to use the game system to create an organic gaming experience.

What kind of experience does my game system seek to create?
The core system seeks to create a gritty, unique and enjoyable roleplaying experience that emphasizes; the inherent danger of mortal combat, the pure wonder of magic, the impressive nature of a man or woman who is an expert in their art, and the value of creativity and dedication in roleplaying skills.

What do I think is most unique, or different, about my system from other systems out there? Emphasis on "I" because this is only my opinion.

An exciting combat system that meshes the strength, agility, and most importantly skill of the combatants, with the type or class of weapon, and a combat outcome model based on locational damage (damage dealt to specific target areas on the body).

A magic system that encourages roleplaying, creativity, and with which no spell or power ever becomes outdated.

Okay, I imagine I have generated more questions than answers. Given the broad nature of the question: "What is my game about?" that is the best answer I can give without agonizing endlessly over syntax, as important as syntax is.

Questions? Comments? Useful criticism? I am prepared to discuss my core system in depth.

Rules?

Welcome to the Forge, John!  I know the terror of which you speak, but I think you'll find that nobody here's in the business of telling you that your game is full of holes (unless it's with the intent of offering you material and tools to fix the holes with).

I could use a little more from you.  It is important to state your goals (which you've done well).  But it's also really helpful (to help us help you) to have some specific question that's been perplexing you in terms of mechanics or design.  That way we can all offer useful commentary on specific rules of your system, and whether they serve your goal.

If you say "Does 10d10 vs. a fixed target provide enough wild outlier points to represent a chaotic give-and-take melee?" then I can give some pretty straightforward answers and recommendations about whether that system fits your design goals.  But if you just say "Here are my design goals, what do you think of them?" all I can say is "It doesn't matter what I think of them, I'm not the person who is going to write and love the game."

Thanks for the friendly, non-threatening response. I started vague because it seemed (from my reading) that anyone who began with their rule set was immediately asked the "What is your game about?" question. So on to some specifics. And I would still appreciate an answer to my question regarding "organic".

Combat
As stated in my first post my combat system meshes together a lot of elements in order to determine the outcome, with the idea of organic, fluid, common sense, lightning fast and interesting combat being central to the system. In brief, here's how it works.

Simultaneous combat
A battle is a fluid event. There is a natural ebb and flow to battle but the one thing that remains constant throughout is the passage of time. Whether a battle involves two opponents duelling, or two-thousand hacking and slashing all of the participants take part simultaneously. My combat system seeks to model this by having seamless combat that does not involve rounds.
Instead, participants act on an action by action basis with all actions being resolved simultaneously. Some acts require multiple successive actions to complete whereas others can be completed with one action. One of the affects of this is that it makes time an important factor in the combat equation.

Range
It is my feeling that all things being equal the range of an attack is the primary factor influencing--for lack of a better word--initiative. My combat system assigns a range to each and every combat action. In a nut shell the longer the range of your action the sooner it will have its impact in a combat situation. Now, not every action has a range--for instance tightening your pants--these types of actions are usually actions that are performed by combat participants on themselves. Attack, defence, and magic all have a range that decides not who gets to act first but who sees the effects of their actions felt first. In basic terms ranged attacks like bows and ranged spells affect combat before a melee weapon like a sword, and a participant that weilds a longer weapon like a spear always strikes an opponent with a shorter weapon like a sword first. In addition, combat melee actions have a limited area of effect--that is--they operate at their specified range and one range increment below, but outside of that range they are ineffective. What this is intended to model is a melee situation where two participants face off against one another. One weilds the aforementioned spear, the other weilds the aforementioned sword. The spear strikes first because it has a greater range (or reach if you like) than the sword and while the sword cannot strike back at the same range as the spear it can defend itself. However, if the sword manages to close the distance between itself and the spear it can then attack at which point the spear cannot be weilded effectively because it requires a base distance between it and its target. One of the affects of this is that it makes range an important factor in the combat equation.

Combat skills
Every possible weapon or method of attack is represented by a skill. Mace is its own skill, claymore is its own skill, longbow is its own skill, Punch is its own skill, and so on and so forth. A character that is combat focused will have multiple Combat skills that will give them a versatile range of possible tactics. A well rounded warrior in my system will have combat skills that allow them to fight at multiple ranges so they can quickly adapt to changing situations. Given that a large combat might involve multiple opponents with attack options that engage at multiple ranges a participant who can only operate within a limited range will find themselves at a disadvantage. One of the affects of this is that it elevates combat focused characters--ie. the good old fighter--to positions of authority and respect in combat situations. Characters that focus on areas other than combat can quickly find themselves over their heads in battle.

Weapons
Aside from range, weapons also have several other factors attached to them that influences their effectiveness in combat. A weapon's range has a significant affect on the amount of damage it can dish out. This is an attempt to model the effects of momentum and weight in powerful two-handed weapons. Weapons also deal one or more types of damage that make them more or less effective against certain types of armor. One of the affects of this is that it makes the choice of weapon for a combat participant an important factor in the combat equation. Choose the wrong weapon against the wrong opponent and you could be in for a nasty surprize.

Armor
The armor system is very straight forward. Wearing armor slows you down and makes you an easier target but when you are hit you take less damage. Simply put armor grants the wearer damage reduction so they can slug it out in battle longer.

Mechanics
The mechanics of my combat system are very simple. The random element in deciding outcomes in combat is the 1d8. The reason I selected the 1d8 is because it provides a narrow range of randomness. I feel that while random events can be decisive factors in determining the outcome of a battle, on the whole they have a significantly lesser impact on outcome than the actual skill of the participants. The narrow range of the 1d8 means that if a participant is much more than only mildly outclassed in a melee situation they have a serious problem and need to find a way to turn the odds in their favor or they will be defeated. There are a number of ways a participant can affect this "turn of odds".

When two or more participants engage in melee combat the participant with the longest range strikes first. Assuming all participants are at equal range the participant with the quicker reflexes strikes first. Combat skills have an attack score called Thrust and a defense score called Parry. When you make an attack you roll 1d8 and add it to your Thrust score. Your opponent rolls a 1d8 and adds it to their Parry score. To hit your opponent your Thrust score must exceed their Parry score. If it does your attack is successful and you deal damage that is equal to the base damage of your weapon plus your strength-based damage bonus (if any) plus the difference between your Thrust score and your opponent's Parry score. If you deal enough damage your opponent will be incapacitated or dead in which case you can move on to other things. If your opponent is still standing you have the option to press the attack or disengage and perform another action. As long as your attacks are successful you may continue to attack an opponent and they can only defend until they defeat an attack. This is an attempt to model the momentum that an attacker builds as he scores successful hits on his opponent. If your Thrust score equals or is less than your opponent's Parry score your attack has been defeated and it is now your opponent's turn to attack. Combat moves back and forth in this manner until a final outcome is reached. This is a very pared down and basic description but is more or less how combat works at its heart. When I refer to Thrust I could actually be talking about any number of methods of attacking from stabbing with a sword to bashing with a mace to punching an opponent to wrestling with an opponent to strangling an opponent to using a judo-type throw on an opponent. Thrust is a generic term for an attack.

Questions? Comments? Useful criticism?

Since you mentioned it twice, John, when I saw the title of the thread I thought this was some sort of game where biology would play an important role. The title gave me the expectation of a game that might deal with bacteria, animals, or something along those lines: a game sans technology, as it were.

As for your combat system, it may just be me but it appears that it is rather cumbersome. That is, a player has to take into account a range and a skill with that particular weapon. Once the enemy is out of that range they have to take into account another range and another skill. Adding weight to a weapon is interesting, but it also adds another factor for players to take into consideration. Having weapon type v armor type is yet another complication. None of this is bad, mind you, but the more things a player has to be aware of, and the more variables a given situation has, the slower combat will be. Since you indicated that you want lightening fast combat this is something to take into consideration.

Additionally, you indicated that a d8 is the random element, however you didn't state how that random element is included. Does a player roll for every aspect of battle (roll to hit, roll to defend, roll to damage, roll to soak damage, roll to counter attack, etc)? Or, perhaps, one only rolls once, at the start of battle, and that random modifier is then used throughout?

Just some things to think one.

~Joel

Hey John,

On "organic." I don't think it's a bad word to use to describe a game system. When I don't like a set of rules, I call them things like clunky, broken, incoherent and nonsensical. Organic things aren't clunky, broken, incoherent or nonsensical.

I'm not entirely sure it's a good game title. It carries a lot of food connotations. It makes me think organisms, which makes me think biology, and not the air of wondrous fantasy I think you're shooting for. However, that "organic, fluid, common sense, lightning fast and interesting" sounds like a hell of a tag line to me.

As for the combat: from what you've described, I don't think it would be cumbersome in actual play. You do have several modifiers that go into a character's combat effectiveness, but once the math is done during prep, it sounds like you have a three numbers for each weapon: thrust, parry, range. One die roll from each combatant per exchange, then add, compare, subtract, subtract (or mark off?), next exchange. With the attacker continuing until his attacks fail, combat is probably over quick, but could allow for the possibility of complete reversals, which keeps things interesting.

Questions:

Am I correct in assuming that each combat action is resolved by the player of each combatant rolling one die?

Where is the locational damage? That is historically a big time sink, and I'm not sure how much it really adds to fantasy combat.

Are you using the skill+d8 winner goes again mechanic everything, not just combat?

Let me address J Tolson's comments first.

I understand that the system can sound cumbersome when described on paper. In play it is very fluid because all of the various modifiers that affect combat are already calculated into the equation and all that is required is the 1d8 to determine the final outcome. A weapon's range is intuitive, so even if a participant is picking up a weapon for the first time they will know what range it operates within. Most but not all swords are in the same range group, as are axes, as are clubs, as are polearms, etc. It is no more challenging to remember the range of your weapon that it is to remember the type of weapon you are carrying.

Using the spear vs. sword example:

Spearman                                  Swordsman
Spear                                        Sword
Thrust: 5/7                                  Thrust: 6/4
Parry:  4/4                                    Parry: 5/5

From this we can see that the spearman makes his first attack in combat at +5, and his second at +7, so he is stronger on his followup. He makes his first defense in combat at +4, and his second at +4.
The swordsman on the otherhand has a stronger first attack +6, and then a slightly weaker second attack +4. His first and second defense is better than the spearman's at +5 and +5.

The spearman knows that he has the drop on the swordsman because a spear operates at a longer range than a sword. Assuming that neither man has magic, and assuming that neither man has a ranged attack they can use they then square off. Effectively what happens is they advance on one another simultaneously and when the swordsman comes within range the spearman stabs with his weapon, rolls a 1d8 (5) and adds it to his first Thrust value (5 + 5 = 10). The swordsman rolls a 1d8 (6) and adds it to his first Parry value (5 + 6 = 11). The spearman had to score higher than the swordsman to hit him so his attack failed. Now it is the swordsman's turn. He slips inside the spearman's guard and attacks. He is so close that the spearman cannot bring his weapon to bare. In this case he must draw his backup weapon. We'll assume that it is a sword. The swordsman rolls a 1d8 (6) and adds it to his first Thrust value (6 + 6 = 12). The spearman uses his sword to defend and rolls a 1d8 (4) and adds it to his first Parry value (4 + 4 = 8). That's a hit for the swordsman. There are no damage rolls in combat, weapons deal a base damage, in this case the swordsman's weapon deals +6 damage, he get's a +2 strength-based bonus, and the difference between 12 - 8 = 4, so total damage is 6 + 2 +4 = 12. If the spearman is wearing armor the armor value indicates how much damage is reduced. Assuming the sword deals crushing damage and assuming the armor value vs. crushing damage is -4 the actual damage dealt to the spearman is 12 - 4 = 8. The base damage a weapon deals and the strength-based bonus to damage is constant, the only value that changes is the difference between the Thrust and Parry scores. And the spearman knows how much damage his armor saves him from so the exchange is very quick. Since the swordsman hit he continues to attack. This is his second attack so he will use his second Thrust value (+4) and he get's a +1 bonus for the momentum he has built as he now has the spearman on the defensive. The spearman uses his second Parry value. If he is not an experienced swordsman he may have +0 as his value in which case he is in trouble and better hope he has a friend close by who can assist him.

As for the weight of weapons, it's not a factor players need to be cognizant of. It is already reflected in the base damage of the weapon.

Regarding your question about the 1d8. Each combat action that involves conflict, i.e. I am trying to hit you with my sword and you are trying to stop me from hitting you, or, I am throwing a knife at you and you are trying to dodge out of the way requires opposed 1d8 rolls. In combat there are many different skills but you are always either attacking or defending. If you are performing some other miscellaneous action like moving, reloading a crossbow, rummaging in your backpack for an item, etc., you are assumed to be competent enough to perform these actions without making a roll--unless someone is directly opposing you.

Does that answer you questions sufficiently?
And thank you for your comments. They are appreciated.

Now on to Joe's comments.

There's no value assigned to range. Just think of range as initiative in a way. If my weapon extends 4 ft. from my body and yours only extends 2 ft. then I can reach you before you can reach me. That's all range is. Otherwise you understand combat perfectly.

Am I correct in assuming that each combat action is resolved by the player of each combatant rolling one die?

You are correct. The situation you end up with in combat is groups or clumps of combatants working oneanother over. In a one on one situation you only have one combination. With say a group of five against three you have two of possible combinations: two on one, two on one, one on one, or, three on one, one on one, one on one. Combat at its most basic level breaks down to opposing rolls between two people. When you have a situation where one group outnumbers the other, as with a two on one combination the combat still operates at a one on one level but the two gain significant advantages and bonuses to reflect the fact that the odds are in their favor. There are also more tactics available to participants who fight in pairs or greater. They can flank an enemy, they can use formations: one man uses a spear, the other man uses a sword, as the enemy approaches the spearman jabs. If the enemy slips inside his guard the swordsman engages him while the spearman backs off and stabs again. I designed my system to not only decide combat quickly, but to offer participants many many different options for employing tactics and strategy in battle, rather than just standing there and bashing away until one or the other is dead.

Where is the locational damage? That is historically a big time sink, and I'm not sure how much it really adds to fantasy combat.

When a combat participant attacks a target they can also specify a target on the body. This is not required. The default target is the torso because it the largest target ergo the easiest to hit. It can also absorb the most damage. The attack has the option of attacking literally any part of their opponent's anatomy: their head, their left leg, their right hand, etc. Targeting specific areas of the body incurs a penalty to the attack roll. A hit to these areas has various different effects on the enemy. If you hit their head and do sufficient damage you will either knock them unconcious or kill them outright (that's why warriors like to wear metal helmets). If you hit a leg and do sufficient damage you might just lop it off and your enemy wont be able to move around very well and they may just bleed to death. If you hit their swordarm and disable it they are plumb out of luck as if they cannot swing their sword they aren't much of a threat anymore are they. Attacking a specific target on the body is very simple. You declare the target before you attack, then you make your roll, add it to your Thrust value, subtract the penalty to hit and if your Thrust score exceeds your opponent's Parry score you hit. The target that you hit has a baseline level of damage it can take before it is injured. If you beat that baseline you disable the target point and your opponent suffers more than just damage but their combat effectiveness is immediately reduced. The locational damage model also has implications outside of combat because if a character survives combat but has an injured leg they then have to deal with getting around by limping, and they wont be able to perform mundane tasks like jumping, running, slimbing, etc., until the leg heals. That's where a comrade with healing magic or medical knowledge really comes in handy.

Are you using the skill+d8 winner goes again mechanic everything, not just combat?

Good question. The short answer is no. Other tasks outside combat that involve a random factor to decide the outcome use a percentile roll.

Hi!
  OK, first things first. To me Organic is a marketing term used to sell things to new age yuppies. Outside of that context, it usually has positive connotations. In an RPG perspective, it would be hard to tell if the title was an ironic/commedy game about 21st century hippies or a vague title.
  Ultimately, the title does not really evoke any feelings that correspond to what your game is about. Maybe something like Untamed Valor might capture that.

Say ... What choices do the players make during these exchanges?

Or, put another way, imagine you created a computer program to resolve the mechanics as quickly as possible, so it handled all of the dice and made any decision where there is one clearly optimal response.  What inputs would this program need from the user?

Specifically in combat, because that is what we are discussing here:

Each participant decides what action they will take: attack, defend, move, cast spell, etc. Then all actions are resolved simultaneously on an action by action basis. You can have for instance two melee participants facing off, one attacking, one defending, except the "defender" decides he isn't going to take it and instead of defending "Parry" he attacks his attacker using his Thrust. He takes a penalty to do this because he is coming from the defensive but it means he can proactively affect the outcome rather than passively. However that's getting a little deeper into the mechanics than I wanted to right off the bat.

The point is that the only choices players make during combat are "What action will I take now?"

And the answer to this question is often based on the actions of other participants of the combat. While you can't "know" the immediately intentions of an opponent, you can see that your buddy is getting whupped on and needs help so you make a choice: "Do I stay to finish off my opponent, or do I disengage and move to help my buddy out?"

Is that clear?

Based on my perusal of the "What's the best way to present a mechanic for discussion?" thread I'd like to clearly state the following:

1. This is a 90%+ finished product.
2. I intend to self-publish in .pdf form on lulu within 6-months time.

Thanks.

Hi!
  OK, to specifics. You stated that you do not want to have randomness be too big of a factor. Bur from your example, randomness plays a huge factor. The factor it plays is in relation to the range of other numbers. If the random numbers range from 1 to 8, and the skills reach from 0 to 8 or 10, then randomness plays as much of a factor as skills does. Possibly more at lower levels.
  As s side note, spears can be weilded in close quartersm if you hold it differently you cna still stab and swipe and if worst comes to sorst, you can still use it as a staff.
  One semantic issue I have is you say there are no rounds, but there are actions that function exactly like rounds. I am not sure what you are trying to emphasize, but the way it is written it feels like you are saying the equivalent of "Our cars don't need gas to run! They are powered by petroleum distalate!" I am not trying to flame or be mean, but the wording and the effect do not match up. Maybe it is just because of the brevity of the description. Oh and on the same word play issue, with parry and thrust being used in the same sentance so often in combat, the Daffy Duck jokes are going to get old fast, lol
  The advantage of the system you have is the math is easier since all of the numbers are on the same scale.
  Finally, you want to think about your skill system from a different angle. Warriors will need several weapon skills, dagger, long sword and bow as a bare minimum and potentially many more if the character wants to be proficient in many weapons. do other character types have this same barrier to entry? Do mages and priests need a minimum of 3 or more skills and several skills to run the full gamut of their profession? If not, you may be providing a disinsentive to play fighters. Even though a great amount of thought and energy has been placed in the combat system.
  I hope I didn't sound too harsh, I am new here too and am trying to participate in a meaningful way, good luck man, sounds like you have the foundation of a good game.

Addressing dindenver's comments.

The random factor. Each attack/defend action a character takes has a modifier from +0 to +10 attached to it. If you look at an example of two participants who have equal or about equal skill, say: 5 & 6 then the second participant has a +1 advantage over his opponent which is not significant. They are more or less evenly matched so the random element is going to be the primary deciding factor.

In another example we have two participants who have disparate skill, for whatever reason, say 2 & 6. The second participant has a +4 advantage over the first participant which is significant if the range of the random element is from 1-8.
Participant one can score one of the following: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Participant two can score one of the following: 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
If you look at the actual possible combinations of numbers participant one is at a significant disadvantage. If he is attacking he has only 3 of 8 (37.5%) possible combinations that would allow him to score a hit on participant two, assuming participant two rolls the worst possible defense result which is a 1 out of 8 chance (12.5%). And it only gets worse for participant one. There is a 7 out of 8 (87.5%) chance that participant two will score better than the worst possible defense roll which then reduces participant one's chances of scoring a hit to 2 out of 8 (25%) or worse.
The point being that when participants are of disparate levels of skill the random element while still deciding the outcome weighs in much more heavily in favor of the more skilled combatant.

I'm not sure I understand your cars-running-on-petroleum-distalate analogy. I guess you could liken "actions" to "rounds". The point of my assertion that my combat is roundless goes hand in hand with the simultaneous combat idea. My combat system is designed to provide fluid encounters. Actions do not stand by themselves but flow from one action to the next. As you attack an opponent for example you swing your sword, your opponent opposes you by deflecting the attack, he then counter attacks and scores a hit which he then follows up with a second attack, which you deflect, and counter attack, etc. Combat should be one continuous, fluid encounter rather than a segmented beast where each activity takes place independently of every other activity. To use a boxing analogy; if you successfully punched an opponent three times you would have dictated three actions but the actual effect would be a left jab, a right jab, and a left hook. That's how combat using my system should be viewed.

Re: the Thrust and Parry issue. These are just descriptors for attack and defense values. In battle you wouldn't necessarily say "I thrust at my enemy," but rather you would say something like "I kick my enemy," or "I stab with my sword," or "I loose an arrow on my enemy." The Thrust and Parry values just tell you which modifier to apply to the roll.

Addressing you question about the Skill system might lead us off into other game concepts like magic that I am trying to keep out of this discussion, but very briefly to address your concerns:

There are three categories of skills in my system:
1. Combat skills
2. Miscellaneous skills (any skill non-combat and non-magical)
3. Magical skills

Each category of skills has a different cost attached to it based on its overall usefulness in the game.
Combat skills are the cheapest skills to purchase, Miscellaneous skills are more expensive, and Magical skills are the most expensive. The reason for this is because Combat skills have a limited application, i.e. only in battle, Miscellaneous skills aren't particularly useful in battle but they make a character far more versatile outside of combat and therefore are considered overall more valuable. Magical skills are the most expensive because magic allows the the laws of nature to be broken or turned on their heads, something neither of the other two skill categories can do.

FYI there are no "priests" persay in my system, by priest I am assuming you are referring to a D&Desque cleric? There are certainly Magical skills that can mimic abilities and skills that are traditionally considered priestly, but a priest is less of a descriptor of a skillset and more of a station for a character. Priests wield a lot of social power because of the nature of their profession. They are counselors and wisemen. So in terms of gameplay a priest is a well respected, and cherished member of his society but his priesthood is not necessarily connected to his abilities be they combat or otherwise.

Thanks for the comments and keep them coming.

Hi!
  Just so you know, here are the odds of rolling against another player. Diff is the difference needed, Chances is the number of combinations that make that exact difference, % is the percantage chance of getting that exact difference and T% is the total chance to get that difference or better.
[tt]Diff Chances  %    T%
-7    1    1.6 100.0
-6    2    3.1  98.4
-5    3    4.7  95.3
-4    4    6.3  90.6
-3    5    7.8  84.4
-2    6    9.4  76.6
-1    7  10.9  67.2
  0    8  12.5  56.3
  1    7  10.9  43.8
  2    6    9.4  32.8
  3    5    7.8  23.4
  4    4    6.3  15.6
  5    3    4.7  9.4
  6    2    3.1  4.7
  7    1    1.6  1.6
[/tt]
  Anyways, all I was trying to say is if you wanted to totally eliminate luck as a major factor, don't roll at all or use higher skill levels in comparison to the range of die rolls, maybe have skills range from 0 to 20 or roll 1d6 to reduce the impact luck has on combat. Currently, the way the odds work if two evenly matched warriors face off, it's a coin toss if one will hit the other, but even a novice swordsman with a lvl 3 has a chance at hitting a dauntless expert with a lvl 10, is that how you want it to work?

  Also, on another front, Having both attacker and defender roll adds more chance to the mix. You go from having a random range of 1-8 to -7 to +7. I am not trying to say this is a bad thing or a bad design, just that your stated goal of reducing the impact of randomness on combat is mitigated by the low skill levlel values and the hig potential dice range. Maybe it works exactly as you want it to, but it just doesn't seem to match exactly what you are trying to say in my mind.

  Also, you said it was simultaneous, so if in one action a character is killed, does his action still get to be played as if he wasn't killed yet, since it is simultaneous? When I think of simultaneous actions, that's what I imagine. The idea being that you both swing and hit around the same time frame, but just for the sake of convenience you roll them one at a time. Is that what you meant?

The 1d8 roll is the deciding factor in combat. Looking at your explanation I'm having trouble understanding this -7 to +7 range you are referring to. You'll have to excuse me but math is not my strong point so if this is a stats thing you are going to have to explain it to me in very basic terms like I am a child.

My main concern with addressing the random element is that the dice roll be much smaller than say a 1d20 which has a huge range of variance, but not as small as say a 1d6 which has a range that is too narrow. The idea is to give participants who are not facing overwhelming odds at least a shot at overcoming their adversary. Maybe they get lucky and he trips on his shoelace or slips on a banana peel or maybe the underdog does something unexpected and surprizes his opponent. The point was not to remove randomness altogether but to reduce its impact on battle. Now, you contention is that I have done exactly the opposite which is interesting and bares some looking into on my part. Can a character with a +3 attack modifier hit an expert swordsman with a +10 defense modifier? No, absolutely not because the difference between their skill is too great. I'm not sure if that is what you were referring to with the lvl 3 and lvl 10 swordsman or if you were being less specific. If you're asking if a low level swordsman can defeat a high level swordsman because of the variance in result the answer is possibly but not likely. This is because the higher level swordsman will not only have more options for tackling his less experienced opponent but he will also have more staying power. I explain this better in the next paragraph.

Another factor that influences a character's effectiveness in combat is the ability to chain attacks together. Essentially speaking  the bonuses for each consecutive action be it attacking or defending must be purchased as part of character improvement. Being able to chain together a series of techniques is the signature of a combat-focused character because they can go the distance so to speak. For example:

Combatant A                                Combatant B
Punch: 8/8/8/5                              Punch: 10/10/2

This is an interesting combination. In the initial stages of a boxing match between these two characters, Combatant B has an advantage over Combatant A assuming defensive values are equal. But if the engagement between these two lasts longer than 2 actions Combatant A then has the advantage.

Re: Simultaneous combat

Your specific example doesn't translate well into my system for the simple fact that if two combat participants are allowed to wack each other and disregard defense the stronger combatant will almost always triumph because he can dish out more damage. It is also counter intuitive because few people are suicidal enough to allow themselves to be hit in combat.

This is a better example of what I am talking about:

Picture two archers. Both draw back their bowstrings and fire on oneanother. Archer A has faster reflexes than Archer B and gets his shot off sooner. He hits Archer B and kills him. Now, in an initiative based combat system Archer B now dead cannot complete his action. My system assumes that Archer B got off a shot before he was killed because he was firing more or less at the same instant as Archer A. Archer B may hit or miss but the point is his action still impacts combat.

John wrote: You'll have to excuse me but math is not my strong point so if this is a stats thing you are going to have to explain it to me in very basic terms like I am a child.

Hi!
  Well, I hope I am not derailing your thread too much, but to clarify, There is actually 2d8 involved, right? The attacker rolls one and the defender rolls one. They both add their skills and mods then the attacker sutracts the defender's total from his own. So, all other things being equal the possible die totals are The defender rolls 7 higher than the attacker (Defender rolls an 8 and the attacker rolls a 1 or -7) all the way through the spectrum of the attacker rolling 7 higher than the defender (Attacker rolls an 8 and the defender rolls a 1 or +7). The odds of this happening are listed in the table on the previous page. The numbers under T% are the chance of getting that good of a result or better. Notice that "0" says 56.3% that means if two characters are exactly equal, 56 times out of 100 the attacker will roll equal to or higher than the defender.
  Well, from the information supplied, the example I gave was suppposed to be "real" the way everything is presented,
  If the attacker has a measily lvl 3 skill and is dumb enough to attack a perfect 10 swordsman, he will hit one or two times out of 100. It sounds about right, but still seems to me that luck then is a real factor.
  Or to put it another way, if two clones each fight each other, randomness allows one of them to roll seven higher than the other and thus do 7 extra points of damage or more damage than most swords!
  I don't know, I am not trying to harp on you, just trying to point out that what you want to compare is the maximum value your dice make to the skill levels or any other factors that you add to dice to determine who hits.
  Your right on a "all things being equal scale" d8 is alot less random than a d20. For sure, no question. But that is not what we want to compare, let's compare Luck vs. skill. Luck has a max value of 8, skill has a max value of 10. Meaning no matter how much you train, practice and actually experience your skill used in real life you will rely on luck almost as much as your training to get that coveted perfect 18 (8 out of 18).
  As an alternative, if the maximum skill level were 20 and the maximum luck is still 8, than you rely on luck alot less, right (8 out of 28 for a total perfect move)? Or if your maximum luck is 6 and the maximum skill stays at 10, than a master in his profession is only relying on a little less luck to get the best rolls (6 out of 16), right?
  Again, I am not trying to say your system is bad or your idea is bad, just that if you want to make luck a less important, you may have to adjust the numbers involved. The premise of your game sounds fun and it seems like you have the flash of combat feel down pat.
  Good luck man!

I think where you may be getting tripped up is over the lvl business. The proportional relationship between the modifiers is the important factor rather than the modifier itself. The +3 vs. +10 example illustrates that with a 7-point gap in skill level the best the underdog can hope for is a tie and long term his luck is sure to run out. While luck can certainly favor him with the tie and luck can frown upon the favorite, the favorite with his superior skill isn't really relying on luck because his level of skill has made him untouchable rather than the variance of the dice roll. Unless the favorite has the worst day of his life and rolls consecutive 1s to the underdog's consecutive 8s the favorite is going to triumph. Does that make sense?

In the case of combat participants who are evenly matched in skill, yes, luck is a decisive factor. The greater the margin of success, i.e. the larger the number between the successful attack and unsuccessful defense score the more damage dealt. It is an intentional design decision: to reward a solid blow as opposed to a glancing blow. The closer the attack and defense rolls the more energy the defender was able to deflect.

The question here being: If two swordsmen are matched in skill what factor in the battle decides who wins? Is it luck? Is it fate? Or is it some other factor that we don't know about? My system uses luck. And oftentimes it seems that luck is the only way to make it through a harrowing ordeal.

The other thing you may be getting tripped up on is looking at the range of skill 0-10 and thinking that's it? Each modifier is in of itself a separate action. The modifiers are recycled between combats but not within combats. Combat-focused characters not only have high modifiers for their Combat skills but they also have modifiers for multiple actions. Characters that are not combat-focused may have several actions with high modifiers but after this their modifiers drop off. What this means is in the initial stages of a battle they are more or less on an even keel with more combat-focused characters, that is they can stick at it for the first few attacks and counter-attacks, however if they aren't victorious at this early stage their effectiveness wanes and they are at the mercy of their opponent who is still at the height of his power and going strong. It's not just individual skill that counts but also the ability to maintain that level of skill during a protracted encounter.

Interestingly, initially the d6 was the die involved but I later increased it to the d8 to add a little more randomness to the combat system. With only a d6; characters who are not strongly combat-focused fall behind so quickly that they have no chance of keeping up. And of course the effect of this was to polarize characters making them either highly focused on combat or having no combat skill at all. As the system currently stands, and as you have already discerned, as long as you are not totally outclassed you still have a chance at triumphing.

The mark of a warrior in my system is one who can sustain a high level of skill in their combat techniques over a protracted period of time and they can use a wide variety of weapons and fighting techniques to defeat opponents.