Hey everyone. I had this idea for a CQB mechanic before bed last night:
Basically, each character's Hand-to-Hand skill is a die type, (d4, d6, d8, d10, d12), with d12 being the best.

When 2 characters enter combat, they each roll their skill die, and reveal their move. Right now (because I just thought of this) there are 3 basic moves: Strike (deals damage), Hold (grapple/ pin or hold), and Dodge (avoids incoming attacks). The highest roll wins.

So 2 fighters have d6 Hand-to-Hand, and Fighter 1 is making a Strike, while Fighter 2 is Dodging. The Strike rolls a 4, Dodge rolls a 6. The dodge avoids the strike. Now I would think dodging an attack would put the attacker off balance, so that dodger should get a bonus equal to the difference between the rolls on the next turn to Strike that same character. On the next round, Fighter 2 gets a +2 to his Strike against Fighter 1. Make sense?

Anyway, I think this idea is very simple and could use some fleshing out to make it interesting. Ultimately, I think there should be a "rock/paper/scissor" type system where there is always one move that will outshine one other specific move. I'm no expert on combat, I don't even watch wrestling or MMA, so I could definitely use some help.

I think it would be neat to have a chart with a list of moves, and each one has a bonus vs. a small group of other moves (like a Low Dodge is +3 vs. a High Strike), or something to that effect. The only thing is, this system should be able to be adapted to humans fighting monsters, too (Post Apocalypse game). Of course, monsters probably wouldn't get all the attacks humans get (giant scorpion body slamming a guy?), so I don't think it would be difficult to pull off.

Any suggestions or comments?

Hi John,

This sounds cool.

One thing to consider as a thing, not a criticism: using an integer as the carry-forward bonus can quickly overshadow die type, depending on specific rolls and skill combos.  I imagine that this will lead to fast, brutal resolution if opponents are mismatched in their initial choices for maneuvers.

Cheers,
Darcy

Might be a feature not a flaw, though, Darcy--I happen to watch a LOT of MMA, and, yep, if a guy shoots when his opponent tries the knee, the fight is very lopsided in seconds. Or a guy tries to dodge left and "dodges" directly into the right hook that sends him sleepy-time.

But THAT said, consider this fight: d12 v d4. There's a potential +11 there! At which point the d12 guy will never miss (+11 > 4 on a d4 every time).

Maybe what you want it not a flat bonus based on differential (which is a bit of a vicious cycle) but rather use multiples for pluses, one-to-one ratio:
Just beat your opponent's roll = +1 on next roll -- you take positional advantage; he's staggered; whatever.
Double your opponent's roll = +2 on next roll -- you are beginning to dominate; he's out on his feet; etc.
Triple you opponent's roll = +3 on next roll -- you're just setting him up for the killing blow, now; he's forgotten his own name; and so forth.

You'd have to have a caveat to limit it, though, or the 12 v 1 roll is still +11--NO!, +12!. So maybe cap it at +3, and make sure all of your Move Versus Move charts use +3 as a cap, too; i.e. if your opponent has forgotten his own name and you're just setting him up for the killing blow, then even a perfect counterattack versus your worst-chosen defense only makes for a "push" -- +3 v +3 --  and should you actually out-maneuver him to the utmost, you'll only be looking at a +6 --not too much, if most folks hover at a d8 "average."

Finally, why stop at d12? Just because of D&D? :P d14s and d16s are pretty easy to find online or in FLGSs, now; and that would make for more gradations in the system (i.e. 7 instead of 5... or 8 instead of 6, if you allow for d2s).

Hey David,

I'll underscore what you said (and coincidentally, also what I said).  This is a thing (my words), or a feature (your words).

Whether it's a flaw or not depends on John and his objectives.

Cheers,
Darcy

Well, after thinking about it for a bit, I'm going to tone down the bonuses. I'm going to add in height factor, as in Strike High, Strike Middle, Strike Low. If a character uses the best Dodge for that type (say a Low Dodge versus a High Strike) they get a +3 to the next attack. If it's a decent dodge for that type (Middle Dodge versus High Strike) they get a +1. If it's the same dodge as attack (High Dodge versus High Strike), there is no bonus.

And the reason I'm stopping at d12 is mainly because I don't want it to be too random. I want a character with d4 to at least have a chance against a d12 if they fight strategically.

And I also think I'm going to break it down Action by Action. So if character X has 3 actions, he can essentially attack up to 3 times during a combat round. Each attack he makes allows the defender to make a Dodge against it. That's all I have right now.

A few revisions:

Revision 1
Each attack and dodge type also is defined by the height: examples Strike High, Dodge Middle, Hold Low.

If an attack is Dodged, the defender gets to make a Retaliatory Attack (RA) that can be a Strike or a Hold, and that gets a bonus depending on the type of Dodge and the type of attack that was dodged:
If a character successfully dodges a High Strike/ Hold with a Low Dodge, they get a +3 to any Strikes with their RA. Middle Dodges only get +1 vs. Low and High Strikes/ Holds, but +0 vs. Middle Strikes/ Holds. Basically, the further the dodge is from the attack, the better the bonus on the Retaliatory Strike.

If the Retaliatory Attack is a Hold, the character only gets a bonus if they used a Dodge that is the same height as the attack (so a High Dodge vs. a High Strike), but they get a +3.

So it would work like this:
Carlos and Brad are fighting, they are evenly matched with d6 in CQC. Carlos does a High Strike and Brad does a Middle Dodge. They each roll, and Carlos' Strike rolled higher, so the attack hit.
Next round, Carlos goes for a Middle Strike, but Brad rolls higher with his Middle Dodge. Since the attack was Dodged, Brad gets a Retaliatory Attack, and decides to go for a Hold, since he'll get a +3. Brad rolls his d6+3 Hold vs. Carlos' normal d6 Dodge.
A little while later, Carlos pulls a High Dodge vs. Brad's Low Strike. The Dodge is success and Carlos uses his RA to Strike at Brad, getting a +3 to the attack.
Next round, Brad Middle Strikes while Carlos Middle Dodges. The moves are on the same level, so they simply roll their d6 CQC dice.

Make sense?

Revision 2
After looking at some other games (namely SLA Industries), I think a tick based combat system would work well for this. Basically, characters get a number of Combat Actions based on their Dexterity (or reflex/ agility/ whatever). The higher their Dex, the more Combat Actions they get. Each round is broken up into 5 Phases, and the GM starts at Phase 1 and counts up to 5 (or in reverse, it doesn't matter). Characters can only act in certain phases (dependent upon how many Combat Actions they have).

#combat actions....................Phases acted in
1..............................................3
2..............................................2,4
3..............................................1,3,5
4..............................................1,2,4,5
5.............................................1,2,3,4,5

So if a character has 5 Combat Actions, they can do something during every single phase, whereas a character with 1 Combat Action has to wait until Phase 3, and then they can only do one thing.

I think this will work well with the tactical combat I'm trying to portray, especially when firearms are brought into the mix and it takes 2 Combat Actions to reload, 1 to fire a wild shot etc.

Why not replace the +1/+2 bonuses with the chance to upscale the die or gain a "tick"

So I dodge high vs a low attack my die goes up from 1D6 to 1D8

Or my opponent loses a tick for each die of difference, or I gain a tick or maybe the player can chose (so in a best case scenario the attacker loses a tick, the defender gains a tick and the defender rolls a bigger die on the next action, in lesservicotries the player must choose one or two of these advantages).

If you can find a copy, you might check out "Swashbuckler" by Jolly Roger Games, which (as I recall) did something similar to what you're attempting.