The guys that are a bit better can beat me about 3 out of 4 times. A relatively small difference in skill makes a big difference in who wins the fight. Maybe it's because real life doesn't use dice, aside from the rare environmental factor it's pretty deterministic.
Now you're saying real life is...
diceless?!
What you're saying is an argument for some sort of comparative system. Roll the dice, add skill, highest wins. Given the right choice of dice range and skill range you'd get that result. It'd also depend on what each roll means, since given enough exchanges even a small difference will become obvious.
For example, we could imagine a simple d6 vs d6, with the highest roll defeating the foe, ties being resolved as "play on." let us further imagine that they add +0 to +2. Of course, the +1 or +2 could be due not just to skill, to one being on higher ground, one being armoured and the other not, one being wounded and the other not, one drunk and the other sober, and so on. For the purpose of argument let's consider it as much the same thing - you get a +1 or -1, and call it "skill difference." With d6+modifiers vs d6+modifiers, a +1 vs +0 or +12 vs +11 give the same result.
- If neither adds anything, then A wins 15 times out of 36, ties 6 times, and B wins 15 times. Of all interactions with a result (ie excluding ties), A wins 50%.
- If A has a +1, then we get A winning 21/36, ties 5/36, and B wins 10/36. Of all interactions with a result, A wins 68%.
- If A has a +2, then A wins 26/36, ties 4/36, and B wins 6/36. A wins 81%.
- A+3 means 91% victory.
- A+4 is 97% victory.
- A+5 and above makes victory certain, and this is also the last time B can even hope for a tie.
With comparative rolls, when the range of skill difference is equal to the range of the dice, then a single step up or down makes a big difference to the likely result.
Some skills can be rated by objective measures. How much can you do of X, Y and Z? The nature of combat skills is that we mostly rate them
comparatively - did you beat the guy? So it's a bit difficult to rate abilities exactly the way it is for, I dunno, calculus or language or something.
Well, that is the trick isn't it? To make the design process even more fun, everyone has their own ideas about what is realistic, reasonable, and fun. It's absolutely impossible to please everyone.
Of course, because there is so much misinformation out there, especially in the form of movies. As for combat, what has been noted recently is that some "realistic" war movies are popular among those who have been to war, and some among those who haven't.
Generation Kill and
Hurt Locker are the two best examples. Twenty minutes into
Kajaki I realised it was based on a true story, why? Because it was a bit boring, and the guys were talking shit. The fictional ones are either lighthearted gungho, or Terribly Serious And Emotional.