Rolling Against the Universe

29 Jun, 2026

As I have been playing a lot of Classic Traveller lately, I have been reading over all the interpretations of various mechanics that changed over the editions. One that seems to be fairly entrenched in newer editions of Traveller are Characteristic saves and having Characteristics have a much larger impact on skill checks.

Classic Traveller does not really suggest any form of characteristic saves until The Traveller Adventure comes out and then it suggests

The referee should instruct the player character to throw the characteristic or less on two dice. The higher the characteristic, the greater the chance of accomplishing the goal. Relatively easy situations might call for rolling the sum of two characteristics or less; harder situations might have a positive DM to reduce the chance of success.

---- The Traveller Adventure pg. 28

I do not really like these kinds of saves that always are checked against some unmoving number and are likely to not change over the course of a campaign. I much prefer setting Target Numbers that make sense for the kind of challenge a task represents and having circumstances add or remove Dice Modifiers as is the way in Classic Traveller. And the keen eyed among you will notice that this suggestion offers that. But this rule moors the point of success on the characteristic of the player character, not on the task that's being attempted. While it may seem a point so moot to be meaningless, having the Target Number pegged to the challenge dictated by the task with the skill and circumstance bolstering the PC feels much more in line with presenting challenges that stem from the word. I have reworked this system to be more in line with my preferences here.

Something that works really well is another piece of advice laid out in The Traveller Adventure roll 2d6 to set TNs you're not certain of. Mr. Mann described it as: "In that way it’s an opposed roll vs the universe". And I happen to really like that framing of it. Your skill and natural ability can only matter so much. A good portion of success or avoiding danger is that sorcerer called fate choosing to kick you in the ass or not¹.

There is also the matter of games that rely on attribute saves or other fixed number saves feeling extremely punitive and with no hopes of improvement. I played a good chunk of Shadowdark last year and that game felt way more cruel than AD&D or OD&D because your save improvements are locked behind a random roll on level up! If you don’t roll the attribute increase results then you are stuck with those shitty saves forever because in that game the view of the world is rooted in the character, not like how CT’s view is rooted in the world and players are modifiers to what happens therein.

Classic Traveller’s lack of a unified system for resolution is similar to how uncertain even normal tasks can be in the day to day due to extenuating circumstances. Sometimes it’s fairly easy to pick a door, other times it’s hard as hell. I feel this way going to the gym. Sometimes the weight moves itself even on heavy days. And on some easy days it feels almost impossible to move it. I have remained the same, but the environment has changed me. It’s easy to visualize this in CT’s great DM framework. A +2 for sleeping well, -1 for worrying about work, a +1 for a nice cup of coffee before the lift. The weight and routine would affect the Target Number, days where I have to press more are of course TN A and days where I deadlift are TN 6.

I find this framework of resolution a lot more engaging and is something from CT I will definitely take with me to other systems.

Do other games roll against the universe? Since these are all basically saves and CT is a skill based system (true cool kids know that Skills are Saves) all we need do is look for other "hidden saves." After an exhilarating discussion recently I was thinking of the x-in-6 chances in B/X offer a similar resolution. The Surprise check can be seen as something detached from the world of the game if you just look at it as a base 2-in-6 chance that a given side is surprised, but that is a very sterile view that does not consider the oracular nature of play. Consider that this check only happens if it’s uncertain that a side would be aware about the other. This 2-in-6 chance can represent a lot of things: a group of bandits setting up a hasty ambush against the party, a wounded cat hunkering in some rubble, a fleeing band of orcs running headlong into the party, and so on and so on. Failures can also represent the fictional world you’re presenting. If you know the dungeon is sandy perhaps it’s a foe losing footing and making a noise, or a giant spider’s ichor dripping from the ceiling, or the goblin war-band letting out a mighty belch. A proceduralist might claim that all parts of the process must be respected in order to determine the fiction ie. only after rolling the encounter, surprise, and reaction can the referee begin to form the fiction. As an Oraclulist I make this argument: if the reality of the game does not have an answer for you then use the procedure and the resulting throws will speak with the reality of your table and experiences to derive context from. We pick up the dice when we are uncertain. Their results help bring things back into focus but only if we allow ourselves and the table to be willing participants in this.

The universe is as much a player at your table as the rest of you humans are. And in my games I prefer to leave some of the answers up to the world. In these old games it’s easy to see a bunch of mechanics that may seem like they don’t touch upon the reality of the game, but it’s our duty as referees to see how these rules speak for the world and give context for them.