(New RPG) Rogue: Clandestine Operations (comments are welcome)

[Snowfire]

On the subject of shields, I would argue that normal sized rounds shields wouldn't be at all amiss to a bodyguard. If you're guarding someone, you don't want him/her getting hit. And a shield will help you stop that.

Shields are also, quite frankly, absurdly easy to make when compared to the man hours and material required to create something like chainmail. They're also verging on dirt cheap.

Then there's the really interesting fact that you can use them with a polearm without using a hand. And they're actually reasonably effective. You use the strap on the shield to loop it over your shoulder and let the shield hang down to cover the side not covered by your weapon. Then when an enemy closes you down, you drop the polearm, grab the shield with your off hand and pull your sword with your primary.

Takes about five/six seconds for the whole evolution, and you've got a shield covering you from shoulder to knee for most of that time - becoming a true, moving cover about half way through.

I also have a question. The way you've described it, a knightly sword seems more akin to a bastard sword. And I think that's what it would be, all things considered. A bastard sword is the sort of weapon that you would give officers and other high muckty-muck military figures.

So this leads to my question. What about the normal longsword? I'd see that as a weapon that is restricted - alike to the short sword - but I don't know what you think there. A longsword would be something akin to a mark of an extremely good bodyguard - they made the money to buy one. Admittedly, I can't see a great deal more then that, but it could be interesting. Make them medium, restricted, +2 a/d/p. But add in a fun little side note about them being - quite rightly - a status symbol. They're not inherently better than a shortsword, they just mean more.

And continuing this line of thought...axes. You see, there's an interesting little thing about most weapons of war. Almost all of them are utility tools in addition to being weapons. A spear is - or was originally - a knife tied to a stick. And a knife was used for just about everything. I would argue that you could, if you wanted, carry a throwing knife openly as your knife. It's a little ornate, but hey, as long as you dress right for it you won't get a second glance. A bow...well it's obvious really. Hunting.

And then we come to axes. Hand axes are everywhere in a medieval style world. They're used for dozens of tasks and are more seen as tools instead of weapons. It would not be out of place for country folk to carry axes for personal defence and for all the other things that axes are useful for in the wilderness. And this would carry through - to a degree - to the big two handed axes used by woodsmen. They're tools. Not weapons.

And then, finally, you come to the only true weapon in the medieval arsenal. The sword. A sword was a weapon of a warrior. It was a symbol that showed that you were a fighter. That you knew exactly what you were doing on the battlefield and that you had proven it before - you had to have to have even gotten your hands on the sword. Why, you ask? Because metal is expensive.

I'll put it this way. A sword? That's a Ferrari. Chainmail? A nice second home in the country. Well equipped warriors were rich. And they earned those riches with blood.

/end medieval history infodump

Yeah, my brother does medieval re-enactment semi-professionally. As does his partner. And they talk about it a lot. I pick things up. I've also done a smattering of it myself, so that helps too.

Hope this helps

[Kensen]

Thanks for the info. The knightly sword is actually another name for the arming sword, and it's not that much bigger than the short sword. Longsword is a rather ambiguous term, and in a historical context it usually refers to the two-handed swords (the short sword < longsword < bastard sword < greatsword continuum only exists in D&D and other RPGs). In the setting they're exceedingly rare much like better armor types and I haven't statted them out because I don't want anyone lugging around one of those beasts.

I know that spears and axes were cheaper and easier to make, but I didn't want a huge list of weapons in a game where the main difference between the different melee weapon types is their +x bonus. Fighting is just one of the eight skills and it would be unfair to give melee fighters a huge list of options when Gadgetry specialists only have two or three.

Seriously though, I chose swords because they are the most iconic medieval fantasy weapons. I suppose I could add axes that have worse defense and parry values the swords of the same size but are easier to acquire and require no license to carry.

I don't know what medieval throwing knives looked like, but the modern throwing knives I've seen have distinct shapes that make them better balanced for throwing. And usually there's no crossguard which many knife and dagger designs have.

[Snowfire]

Ah, was wondering about that.

And that's fully understandable, don't want to make things slanted.

Ah, now there I can help. A medieval knife and a medieval throwing knife have very little in terms of differences. Admittedly, this is talking from early medieval period POV, but I think it counts.

[Yitzi]

Same with nito (two-sword style) in kendo (Japanese fencing art). The few times I've fought a nito kendoka, I noticed that it's very hard to find openings because with two swords you can protect the target areas much better. It's also much faster to parry with the shorter and lighter shoto (short sword) than with a bigger sword and you can still attack with the daito (long sword).

So that raises the interesting (though not really relevant to the game) question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of a second weapon as compared to a shield in terms of defense?

[Snowfire]

A shield is much easier to use for one thing. A good round shield will cover your entire facing body from shoulder to knee with very little difficulty. And they're also much better for actual battles. A well formed shield wall beats just about anything as long as it can hold its flanks.

[Eldest]

However, a second weapon can be used to attack with far easier, compared with a shield. So a shield should provide a bigger bonus to defense and parry but nothing (or just the ability to do lethal damage) for attack.

[Snowfire]

However, a second weapon can be used to attack with far easier, compared with a shield. So a shield should provide a bigger bonus to defense and parry but nothing (or just the ability to do lethal damage) for attack.

I would disagree with that, actually. A shield can be used as a weapon in and of itself reasonably easily. I will admit, I do not have a great deal of experience with two weapon fighting, so *shrugs* I'm not that sure how the style of fighting translates across.

Regarding a/d/p I would say that a shield gives a small bonus to attack, but can only do stun damage. Lethal damage with a shield is somewhat difficult

[Laura Eternata]

Épée, not very helpful, foil, very much so. You're basically supposed to hold the main gauche in close to your body where they have to hit, so you can actually parry with it, while Épée you generally target the back of the hand, which you can't parry. Make sense?

I guess I can see the potential value in that. I personally have no dexterity in my left hand, which could explain why off-hand weapons never helped me.

Now I want to take up fencing again.

There are no rules for shields (yet). The in-game reason is that shields are heavy and you only want to carry one if you expect to get into a fight. In times of peace, you don't have to protect yourself against volleys of arrows, or fight in tight formations, so most people favor mobility over heavy protection. For the same reason, I haven't included rules for armor types heavier than mail armor (="chainmail") or weapons bigger than the knightly sword. I'll cover polearms with a single entry in the next update, but really, they're not well suited for recon/infiltration/assassination jobs because they're so big. But many guards still use them so it makes sense to have them statted out.

A lot of guards used shields, too, since armor was so expensive. It would be useful to have stats for shields even if just for NPC use.

Another reason for not statting out shields, heavy armor, etc. is that I don't want the players to think that they're equally good options and start making "builds" based on stacking different bonuses until no-one can hit you, so they can just walk in and destroy everything.

A valid concern, leading me to...

By the way, did you decide that the defense bonus is negated for the weapon you attack with because it felt more balanced that way or because it felt more realistic? Did some characters have too good melee defense values, for example?

I ruled that shields give +5 defense and +5 parry, so defensive scores were pretty high. I don’t know enough about weapons heavier than epees to say if it’s realistic or not, but removing the defensive traits from weapons that were just used helped with game balance.

The targeted shots system looks nice and detailed, but I wonder if is necessary to have so many options. It' may be a good optional rule, though, if you want more options. How often did the players use called shots in your group and in what kind of situations?

I came up with those rules before the third session of our five session game. Those three sessions only included four combats, so there wasn’t a huge amount of time to test out the rules, but a couple of my players seemed to really like them. The melee guy in particular found aiming for the sword arm to be an efficient way to reduce the threat of an opponent without dealing any hit point damage.

I'm not sure how I would merge targeted shots with focused attacks. I'd have to test a few ideas I have before suggesting something.

[Yitzi]

A shield is much easier to use for one thing. A good round shield will cover your entire facing body from shoulder to knee with very little difficulty. And they're also much better for actual battles. A well formed shield wall beats just about anything as long as it can hold its flanks.

And the advantage of a second weapon is what? Just that it can also be used for offense?

[Snowfire]

And the advantage of a second weapon is what? Just that it can also be used for offense?

At risk of sounding truly insulting - sorry if I cause offence here - because it looks pretty.

The vast majority of European two weapon fighting styles came out of 'court' sword fighting, which is vastly removed from the type of fighting that actually got done on battlefields, by warriors and soldiers. It was out of this that a great deal of the known fencing styles and suchlike grew; court and 'stylised' swordplay.

It was meant to look good, to wow crowds and woo women. To dazzle kings and queens with flashing displays of shining steel. To get so close to what those shielded from war thought was conflict that they became convinced that sword-dancing was war.

Now in the East, maybe it was an actual functional on-the-battlefield style. I don't know. My area of knowledge doesn't extend there. But in Europe...in Europe the majority of warriors left two weapon fighting to the dilettantes. It looks pretty, yeah. But pretty doesn't help much when you run into a wall of spears and have nothing to hide behind.

[Eldest]

I would disagree with that, actually. A shield can be used as a weapon in and of itself reasonably easily. I will admit, I do not have a great deal of experience with two weapon fighting, so *shrugs* I'm not that sure how the style of fighting translates across.

Regarding a/d/p I would say that a shield gives a small bonus to attack, but can only do stun damage. Lethal damage with a shield is somewhat difficult

No, it's very easy to attack with a shield. But a weapon is made to attack with, and a shield is made for defense. Now, out of those two, which is better on defense: a dagger or a buckler? On offense?
How about a kite shield compared to a longsword?
How about a tower shield compared to a claymore?
My point is that yes, a shield can be used to attack. But it is not as effective at attacking as a weapon. So shields should give a better defense bonus, but less of an attack bonus, than weapons. Which, on a buckler, is comparable to a dagger. Daggers give 1a/1d/1p. So, loose one attack and add one defense and one parry, and you get 0a (but still able to do lethal damage), 2d, 2p. Which is what I suggested, Now, from a game-design point, I'd suggest keeping the parry the same as the paired weapon, so that shields do not have better stats than swords.

I'm sorry the claymore picture sucks. Google failed me.

Now, in real life, shields were great, because they stopped attacks. And the main aim of people is to survive wars.

[Snowfire]

No, it's very easy to attack with a shield. But a weapon is made to attack with, and a shield is made for defense. Now, out of those two, which is better on defense: a dagger or a buckler? On offense?
How about a kite shield compared to a longsword?
How about a tower shield compared to a claymore?
My point is that yes, a shield can be used to attack. But it is not as effective at attacking as a weapon. So shields should give a better defense bonus, but less of an attack bonus, than weapons. Which, on a buckler, is comparable to a dagger. Daggers give 1a/1d/1p. So, loose one attack and add one defense and one parry, and you get 0a (but still able to do lethal damage), 2d, 2p. Which is what I suggested, Now, from a game-design point, I'd suggest keeping the parry the same as the paired weapon, so that shields do not have better stats than swords.

I'm sorry the claymore picture sucks. Google failed me.

Now, in real life, shields were great, because they stopped attacks. And the main aim of people is to survive wars.

You have me there on bucklers. I concede the point

My main argument here is making round shields at least something that is reasonably normal - for bodyguards at least. As I would argue they are.

Stats would look sort of like this (taking from short sword):

Round shield (large, restricted) +1 attack, +3 defence/parry, stun damage

Does that look ok?

Anything bigger and we get into not going to be used in covert ops areas. At the same time as we get into utterly absurd defence/parry scores area.

[Kensen]

I'm not an expert on shields or off-hand weapons for that matter, but my best guess is that fighting with two swords gives you more combat options (easier disarming or binding, alternating angles of attack, and so on) while sword & shield offers better protection even if you're not very proficient. I think that the shield size is also an important factor - the smaller the shield, the more the fighting style resembles fighting with two swords. A small shield has to be used "actively" like a parrying dagger whereas a larger shield protects you quite well even if you just hold it in place. A small shield does not weigh much, so it's possible to punch with its boss or hack with its rim.

I don't want to make two-weapon fighting too complicated, though, so I think rules-wise there isn't going to be a huge difference between the off-hand weapon options.

[Kensen]

Round shield (large, restricted) +1 attack, +3 defence/parry, stun damage

Does that look ok?

Anything bigger and we get into not going to be used in covert ops areas. At the same time as we get into utterly absurd defence/parry scores area.

I ruled that shields give +5 defense and +5 parry, so defensive scores were pretty high. I don’t know enough about weapons heavier than epees to say if it’s realistic or not, but removing the defensive traits from weapons that were just used helped with game balance.

I came up with those rules before the third session of our five session game. Those three sessions only included four combats, so there wasn’t a huge amount of time to test out the rules, but a couple of my players seemed to really like them. The melee guy in particular found aiming for the sword arm to be an efficient way to reduce the threat of an opponent without dealing any hit point damage.

+5 is way too much, but removing the defense bonus from weapons that were just used does help to maintain balance. I'd rather not go there, though, because it may get confusing just as you said before. I'm trying to avoid conditional bonuses and penalties that change from round to round.

If shields are added, the defense bonus should be somewhere in the +1...+3 range. I'm worried, though that including shields (particularly the +2 or +3 shields) will lead to an arms race between the guards and the rebels. A fairly inexperienced guard (3 ranks in Fighting, Mobility and a few other skills) with a short sword (+2), brigandine (+2), steel helmet (+1) and large round shield (+3) has a melee defense value of 21. A rebel with 5 ranks in Fighting and a short sword (+2) has to roll 13 or more to hit the guard. The rebel who's probably wearing gambeson (the only armor type with no Mobility/Stealth penalties) wielding a short sword (+2) has a melee defense value of 18, which means the guard also has to roll a 13 to hit. If the rebel faces two or more guards or a more experienced guard (5 skill ranks), he's in big trouble, unless... the rebel also has a shield, helmet and heavier armor.

But frankly, I don't want an arms race. I don't want the characters to don Invictus uniforms or carry bodyguard licenses each and every time simply because otherwise they cannot use the best armor and shields. So if shields are allowed, I'm going to have to come up with ways to discourage their use, whether RP limitations (look, that guy is carrying a shield, let's check his license and harass him a bit!) or mechanical disadvantages (heavy Mobility & Stealth penalties), or both. To be honest, the idea of an infiltrator carrying a glaive made me cringe a bit, but I allowed it because it can be justified within the current scenario.

Anyway, the melee guy in Laura's example basically wanted to disarm the opponent. The new system doesn't cover that yet, but I do intend to write rules for that. Thanks for the input.

[Snowfire]

Good points on the shields issue. I guess I just wasn't thinking that far ahead... I would suggest a mobility/stealth penalty however. Moving easily with a shield is, whilst fully possible to do, much more difficult than moving easily without one.

Regarding glaive, I understand. However if I survive this mission and you allow us to start carrying more hard-to-get stuff as a reward I will move onto the spring loaded 'pop-out' style

[Kensen]

Good points on the shields issue. I guess I just wasn't thinking that far ahead... I would suggest a mobility/stealth penalty however. Moving easily with a shield is, whilst fully possible to do, much more difficult than moving easily without one.

Regarding glaive, I understand. However if I survive this mission and you allow us to start carrying more hard-to-get stuff as a reward I will move onto the spring loaded 'pop-out' style

Yeah I guess it's possible to make a staff with a "pop-out" blade. Glaives have quite big blades, so it's going to be a spear-like design unless you can think of a clever way to hide the blade...

Anyway, I've been thinking about a more detailed system for item availability than the simple Common/Rare/Very rare rating. Basically, all items have a price tag based on how easy it is to acquire or safely possess an item. All characters have a personal resource pool for items. These items become your own and as a reward for completing missions you get more points with which you can buy personal items. If you sell (or lose) personal items, you lose resource points, so it's better to choose items you know you're going to need.

In addition to your personal resources, the team gets a number of resource points for each mission. It's up to the team members to decide how to use the resources. If you acquire disguises, you'll have a lot less to spend on other equipment. These items belong to the Resistance, so if any of them happen to disappear, you'll probably get less resource points for the next mission. But these resource points allow you to customize your equipment for each mission.

So, what does this have to do with shields? Well, shields will be fairly easy to get. But getting a fake license that allows you to carry a shield, weapons and other restricted equipment will cost so much that you have to think twice if you really need them. Most of the time, it's a good idea to just choose items you can hide easily. On the other hand, if you have to ambush someone in the forest, you won't be needing any licenses, you'll just need the best protective equipment and most effective weapons available.

How's that sound to you?

[SamBurke]

I can make a spring-loaded one. My best shot would be a short, almost Cutlass-like blade on a sword with an unusually large handle (two feet, maybe?) that springs out.

Alternately, a thin, more awesome way to do it would be a spring loaded Naginata. Hide the blade inside the handle, (maybe even two blades, just for awesomeness' sake?), call it a walking stick.

[Snowfire]

I wasn't implying a pop-out blade. Sorry, went back and actually had a look. I meant a spring loaded collapsible staff with the glaive blade on one end. It could be used to good effect as a small, close in weapon (+1 a/d/p, maybe +2) and in serious situations I click a button and the staff expands out to full length. I now have a concealable polearm.

Likely heniously illegal, but hey, as long as they don't work out it's actually a glaive in disguise then I should be fine. The short weapon I would see as being...theoretically legal. However if a guard works out what it really is...

Alternately, a thin, more awesome way to do it would be a spring loaded Naginata. Hide the blade inside the handle, (maybe even two blades, just for awesomeness' sake?), call it a walking stick.

First, ninja'd. Darn you!

Second, dear god that sounds awesome. I want one.

[SamBurke]

It's yours after this mission. I may scrap a few times until I can get up over TN 25, as I expect it'll be a tough build.... but seeing that blade slide out with a satisfying thunk in my head, will be epic.

Can't wait for you to slash some people up with that.

[Eldest]

I'm going to repeat my thing about shields probably needing to have their parry or defense boosted, not both. For game balance.
And in the above scenario, if the guard would have a shield, for it to be balanced the rebel would have either a knightly sword (two-hander) or two weapons (twice the chance of hitting) or a shield (better defense). If none of those are true, the rebel isn't a combat specialist, and would have trouble hitting anyway. But you're forgetting the rebel's best stratagy: run. You're more mobile than the guard, move away and reengage on your own terms.
I like uncontroversial tactics and strategy, if it's not apparent yet.

[Kensen]

I'm going to repeat my thing about shields probably needing to have their parry or defense boosted, not both. For game balance.
And in the above scenario, if the guard would have a shield, for it to be balanced the rebel would have either a knightly sword (two-hander) or two weapons (twice the chance of hitting) or a shield (better defense). If none of those are true, the rebel isn't a combat specialist, and would have trouble hitting anyway. But you're forgetting the rebel's best stratagy: run. You're more mobile than the guard, move away and reengage on your own terms.
I like uncontroversial tactics and strategy, if it's not apparent yet.

I'll think about it. If there'll be a third playtest, you'll get to playtest shields and a lot of other new equipment. You're right about the rebel's best strategy, but there are situations where you cannot run or cannot take your shield and best weapon with you for a reason or another. But you people got me convinced that it's necessary to write rules for shields so I'll do that.

As for collapsible glaives, the most important thing, of course, is to make it balanced. I do appreciate it, though, if it's also a design that would work in real life. We can work out the details when the playtest is over.

[MintyNinja]

Hey, I've been keeping up with this game and it's playtests for a while now and I think it's about time I add my two cents.

As awesome as collapsible weaponry is and defensive bonuses from shields, what about the other seven skills?

Gadgetry: Improvised Tools (breaking out of a cell with a piece of hay), Oil drops (Greasing a component of a trap to lessen the TN of disarming without noticeable marks), sand (Impair the components of a trap to render it useless).

Awareness: Magnifying glass (specific situations that need attention to detail, like noticing a forgery), Collapsible telescope (to spot movement of an ambush in the woods down the road).

Mobility: Cleat-like shoes (better grip when running or climbing).

These are just some of the ideas I could come up with on the spot. I'm sure a few poisons wouldn't go amiss either, for those times when the dice hate you and you can't seem to hit someone a second time.

[Kensen]

Thanks MintyNinja, all the equipment you suggested would be useful additions. The next time I update the lists, I'll be sure to add new equipment that you can use with the other 7 skills.

The playtest hasn't progressed as quickly as I hoped, but I hope both groups finish the scenario, one way or another... Anyway, MintyNinja PM'd me earlier about joining the playtest and since we haven't heard from Cieyrin in a while, I thought he could join the Rooks. I checked his sheet and it looked ok.

I hope the pace will pick up soon and we can finish the playtest in a month or two. I guess I'll only choose the most active players for the next playtest phase, and I'll probably use very short and less open-ended scenarios if the problem is that you're not quite sure what you should be doing.

Anyway, a really major rules change that I've been thinking about... I'd like to hear your opinions on it too: The use of 3d6 instead of d20. It's more "realistic" in the sense that you roll average results more often. It's generally less random than d20 where all results are equally likely to happen. It basically means that you can defeat easy challenges even more easily but tough challenges become even tougher. Average challenges don't change much. For example, an average person who has 4 ranks in a skill he needs often still has a 50% chance to succeed at a TN 15 task. Because player characters usually have 6 or more ranks in their best skills, it means that they succeed more often. But on the flip side, skills with less ranks become even less useful.

It would also mean that mooks become weaker but bosses become stronger. That's what some of you wanted all along, eh?

Do you want to try it (in this playtest or the next)?

[Eldest]

Yes. I do prefer the bell curve model to the d20, because A) I was introduced to GURPS first, and B) like you said, it's a better depection of average. And by the way, you have 50% odds to roll a ten or lower. So you might want to do some number shuffling and make it so that you want to roll at or under some TN, and your skill ranks raise the TN from the base of (say) 8. So even 2 skill ranks will let you succeed on average tasks half of the time, but we rarely try the average difficulty stuff.

[Kensen]

So, instead of: Roll 3d6+mods, compare with TN (higher rolls are better)
you suggest: Roll 3d6, compare with TN+mods (lower rolls are better)?

I think "higher is better" is more intuitive. At least to me it is. Adjusting the TNs is possible, of course, but it doesn't require reversing the action resolution math in my opinion.

[Snowfire]

Ahhh, so you're looking at something like the old Traveller style system for rolls, Eldest?

Interesting. And it could work. The problem with it is that it generally throws most people for six the first time they see it because they're so used to "higher is better".

Also, regarding the playtest, I would really love to post but I can't really work out a way to interject into the story at this point. The way Invictus seems to work implies that speaking up - myself being a common soldier - would be a Bad Idea.

If I'm wrong though, don't hesitate to tell me and I can put something together. I'm just trying to play things safe.

[MintyNinja]

I like the idea of 3d6 over 1d20 because it feels like these trained professionals would be much less likely to botch a roll with the new system as a reflection of their skill.

Example: Stealth = 7
3d6+7 = 10-25
1d20+7= 8-27

Sure, We'll never be able to score as high as a d20, but we'll never roll a 1 again either.

Also, Please let me know when you want my character to step in IC.

[Eldest]

Ahhh, so you're looking at something like the old Traveller style system for rolls, Eldest?

Interesting. And it could work. The problem with it is that it generally throws most people for six the first time they see it because they're so used to "higher is better".

Actually, it's GURPS 3e to me. I haven't played Traveler.
While it isn't very intuitive, it does model stuff better, in my opinion. You have the bell curve, your skill gives you the TN, and more or less difficult stuff gives bonuses or penalties to the TN. So Lydia would have a 14 skill in gadgetry. So she can open most locks, with a 90.7% chance of it working out. Which makes sense, because she's got a +6 in Gadgetry, and that's a fairly large amount. But a difficult lock (say, a safe) might be a -3, and the lock to a vault or something of that nature would be a -6. Which gives her a 62.5% chance of getting into the safe (she's a thief, she should be able to do that) but only a 25.9% chance of getting into the vault. And the base number doesn't have to be 8, it's just that you have a 25% chance of getting an 8 or under on 3d6 and I though having a 25% chance of getting it right if you are completely untrained is about right.
It's really that you want to TN to be really high, instead of your roll. That's the only shift in thinking you need.
Also, one thing with the 3d6; a 3 always worked, or at least gave some progress, while (the more important thing) an 18 always failed. That meant that the highest chance you have of getting something where you had to roll is a bit over 99%. So that level of skill (10 ranks or more) is very good, and higher ranks only matter when there are penalties. Such as the aforementioned vault: Somebody with an 18 in Gadgetry can go through locks like a knife through butter, but with that vault the chance of opening it on the first try is "only" 74.1%. So that's where the extra points come in handy. Not boosting your chance of success, but helping you deal with harder and harder things.
By the way, here's the full chart of success chances.

Spoiler

Show

3 or less: 0.5% chance
4 or less: 1.9%
5 or less: 4.6%
6 or less: 9.3%
7 or less: 16.2%
8 or less: 25.9%
9 or less: 37.5%
10 or less: 50%
11 or less: 62.5%
12 or less: 74.1%
13 or less: 83.8%
14 or less: 90.7%
15 or less: 95.4%
16 or less: 98.1%
17 or less: 99.5%

[Yitzi]

I think I prefer 3d6 to 1d20.

[Snowfire]

Actually, it's GURPS 3e to me. I haven't played Traveler.
While it isn't very intuitive, it does model stuff better, in my opinion. You have the bell curve, your skill gives you the TN, and more or less difficult stuff gives bonuses or penalties to the TN. So Lydia would have a 14 skill in gadgetry. So she can open most locks, with a 90.7% chance of it working out. Which makes sense, because she's got a +6 in Gadgetry, and that's a fairly large amount. But a difficult lock (say, a safe) might be a -3, and the lock to a vault or something of that nature would be a -6. Which gives her a 62.5% chance of getting into the safe (she's a thief, she should be able to do that) but only a 25.9% chance of getting into the vault. And the base number doesn't have to be 8, it's just that you have a 25% chance of getting an 8 or under on 3d6 and I though having a 25% chance of getting it right if you are completely untrained is about right.
It's really that you want to TN to be really high, instead of your roll. That's the only shift in thinking you need.
Also, one thing with the 3d6; a 3 always worked, or at least gave some progress, while (the more important thing) an 18 always failed. That meant that the highest chance you have of getting something where you had to roll is a bit over 99%. So that level of skill (10 ranks or more) is very good, and higher ranks only matter when there are penalties. Such as the aforementioned vault: Somebody with an 18 in Gadgetry can go through locks like a knife through butter, but with that vault the chance of opening it on the first try is "only" 74.1%. So that's where the extra points come in handy. Not boosting your chance of success, but helping you deal with harder and harder things.
By the way, here's the full chart of success chances.

Spoiler

Show

3 or less: 0.5% chance
4 or less: 1.9%
5 or less: 4.6%
6 or less: 9.3%
7 or less: 16.2%
8 or less: 25.9%
9 or less: 37.5%
10 or less: 50%
11 or less: 62.5%
12 or less: 74.1%
13 or less: 83.8%
14 or less: 90.7%
15 or less: 95.4%
16 or less: 98.1%
17 or less: 99.5%

And I haven't played GURPs. But the experience with Traveller helps me see where you're coming from. And I agree. Oh, the stats and suchlike help, but it just feels 'right' when you look at it.

I would definitely support a change to 3d6 for all the reasons outlined about - it's fairer. And I would also support the bell curve modification.