"Terminology for bravery/courage tests" Topic

In a wild west game if there was a "Gutless" statistic on a character profile and a matching "Gutless Test", what would you think of it? Would you assume you want lower or higher values for Gutless? Would you think the test was roll > Gutless = pass or roll < Gutless = pass.

Just trying to change a rule and wanted some blind feedback on how well a non-standard term would work.

Change the term to a "Gut" check rather then gutless. Higher then the Gut statistic and the character fails. (unless every other test in the game works the other way).

Perhaps Grit would be a better term. I would keep resolution consistent with other parts of your game.

But then having a lower Gut score would be better, which doesn't seem to make sense? Or with Grit if higher was better then rolling lower would be better.

I'm looking for a stat that rolling higher = better, since every other roll is like that in my game. But that means a lower stat is better, which is why I was considering Gutless.

So all your stats are negative?

Idiocy
Wimpiness
The Slows

Even if good stats low, high stats bad, call them normal names or you'll confuse the hell out of people. Do i want to pass a Gutless check or fail?

But if it's a Gut Check i want to pass. Gamers get the whole "low stat is good" thing pretty easily in my experience.

One way to make attributes better as the number increases is something like this…

You roll 2 regular dice and add the results to your "Guts" or "Grit", say with a value of 5.

You need a 14 or greater to succeed when "Testing Your Guts."

Obviously a "Guts" attribute of 8 makes this an easier test to pass.

You don't think improving Guts by lowering it is confusing? And yes the stats that are better lower do have names that help people understand that. So "Ranged Miss Chance" instead of "Ranged Skill" where lower is better.

What about calling it a Guts Check but having a Gutless stat?

If only having stats as a target number could somehow work out that higher stat = better AND higher roll = better.

I think "grit" or "sand" would be more appropriate.

@religon: I like that idea, since it allows for higher stat = good and higher roll = good, which is what I'm after. Trying to roll a 1 or 2 to pass a test seems unnatural to me in most cases.

Roll a D6. Consult table. Apply Results.

YOU ARE A…
1= Yellow Dog
2= Mangy Cur
3= Town Drunk
4= Little Lady
5= Cowpoke
6= Marshal Dillon

Gut check is a contemporary term used by most SOF forces. Gutless is a staff puke. A gut check is a test of ones resolve. Gutless is lack of a backbone. YMMV

VR
James Mattes

Skeedadle Check

Thanks for the help, I ended up going with a Gutless stat, where lower = better and it's the base target number for morale checks. Maybe not traditional, but I'd rather have a name that implies the score you want.

link

^Pretty good compilation of Old West slang. I use "Guts" for my morale/courage value, and thus it's a Guts check.

@Thunderbird,

I would be critical reviewing a commercial product with your non-traditional attribute adoption. It seems conceptually awkward. Imagine Basic D&D if it adopted this method…

A Fighter with Leadership potential:
Weakness 3
Stupidity 11
Foolishness 10
Clumsiness 16
Puniness 9
Ugliness 4

I'll all ears for an alternative. Like I said the target number needs to be set because there could be 6 or 7 dice rolled at once, so having a static target number and the attributes being a bonus to each roll becomes even more unwieldy.
D&D works with a flat AC target number because you're only rolling 1D20. If it was 6D20 and you had to add +8 or +12 (or whatever your total mod is) to every roll I think the system wouldn't feel as smooth.

Would naming the stats (all lower = better) like this make more sense:
Ranged Target Number
Melee Target Number
Bravery Target Number

They are more generic and less flavorful, but at least it gets away from the "negative statline" you talk about.

Not sure what to suggest as an alternative, but I must admit that I prefer a game where there is consistency. In Gutshot, for example, we have a simple statement that covers our philosophy (and mechanics): "Whenever you roll the dice, you want to roll high."

If mixing your stats would allow you make a simple summary statement like that regarding your rules, then I think it's okay to mix high and low stats. Just keep in mind that doing so might make your rules more difficult to teach and remember.

Mike Mitchell
Hawgleg Publishing

I have to agree with Mike – consistency is always key. My game system takes it to a bit of an extreme. :D