There’s a certain appeal among some groups for resolution with 50/50 probability (or Coin Toss). For it to become clear, we first need to unpack the appeal of the binary result in roleplaying.
Ah, Yes, The Two Genders: Success and Failure
The binary result presents a negotiation space between referee and player according to the situation that proves itself flexible in practice. A resolution procedure where three or more results are the norm (the standard example is a result range that presents partial success) means that, before rolling, three or more results must be properly established as consequences. They cannot be the same, nor close, lest one or more becomes irrelevant. This is minimized by a sober approach to rolling during play, but not erased.
The above is a problem to some and not others. The appropriate referee can, when running Freeform Universal, certainly think of six different results for every die roll that are different in enough degree that any of them is properly impactful. I wholeheartedly present myself as having a “skill issue”. Some that can’t feel comfortable with six still will do well with lesser numbers that are higher than two results.
Nor does the appeal of binary results means the referee doesn’t employ specific procedures with three or more possible results (the reaction roll) although most of those will certainly be pre-codified results, and their negotiation regards when they are activated instead of changing their meaning. What remains binary is the most common resolution method for situations where it’s unclear how the fiction proceeds.
What’s the appeal, then? The referee, analyzing the situation, may decide that it makes sense that a success is a success, and a failure is a partial success due to circumstances. In another, success is partial, and failure is failure. In another, success is success and failure is failure. In yet another, there are two possible results without qualitative values attached, or the discovery of some hitherto undefined information. Binary means there’s only two possible results, and those can be previously negotiated in any configuration.
Binary appeals, in summary, for the ease of determining two possible results recurrently during a session without extra mental burden and electing them as it fits the situation without specific prompts to follow.
The Coin Toss
“Coin Toss” refers to any resolution where probabilities are the same. A coin toss operating as main resolution will likely (definitely, for my purposes) be a binary method with 50/50 chance. Some opposing rolls, like d6 vs d6 and 2d6 vs 2d6, get close to a coin toss with the added feel of dispute between parties as a fun or tension factor (2d6 has added tactile pleasure for those holding two dice instead of one), but they usually aren’t employed as such (the application of modifiers, for instance). They often aren’t used in a binary fashion, with equal or close results being interpreted as a third result (“mixed”). If that’s not the case, equal results demand a re-roll, slowing play.
My example will be a literal coin toss, or a facsimile with dice, such as rolling a single d6 with 1-3 as a result (most read as negative) and 4-6 as another (vice-versa). 50/50 spread, no need for re-roll due to impasse, and let’s presume absence of modifiers. What are the effects and appeal?
I will not count “simplicity” as part of its appeal (although it is simple). I don’t see purpose in thinking simplicity itself, as well as synonyms (“unpretentious”), as a fetishistic object of desire. It’s not that making things simpler is undesirable, but the goal is making it impactful and adequate to the table. I don’t think “coin toss is good because it’s simple” constitutes an impressive contribution to a conversation. While I have used “minimalistic” in the past for ease in dialogue and defined some things as such (including here), it was merely convention, because that word isn’t functional either besides as a buzzword. Minimalist/maximalist are comparative terms in relation to some vague, undefined average. So, I also would not call a game employing coin toss as main resolution “minimalistic”, nor that as a desired quality.
Let’s move towards my point.
First, the coin toss serves as a prop to establish play expectations. The knowledge that main resolution will be so “coldly” resolved creates an observable effect, a strong desire to intervene within the fiction to guarantee the equally possible negative result rules as a partial success or less dire. This also contributes to the desire of preventing uncertainty, like what has been proposed by OSR theory with low probability rolls, yet somewhat starker due to presentation and complete lack of bonuses that could swing the die probability towards the player.
Second, it has a tangible effect of diminishing bookkeeping, as much of the data that must be tracked (on your average roleplaying game) in sheets by both sides of the imaginary (or literal) GM screen is related to modifiers and values that influence the main resolution methods. This is an appeal to some and a detriment to others; you know who you are. A side-effect of such is that the less player-facing mechanical information there is, the more a referee can come up with very specific resolutions to situations without stepping on any toes and harming any player who has a particular high number on anything related due to character creation and such. Most information to consider is what exists non-abstractly in the fiction.
Third, by consequence of the above-mentioned side-effect, all negotiations and rulings through the resolution method must by necessity go through evaluation of non-abstract characteristics of the characters and circumstances, keeping expectations.
A note: a roleplaying campaign employing the coin toss obviously does not need to use it as sole resolution method. I have seen around the Internet, this farm going as far as your eyes can see, such assumptions from people who subsist nutritionally entirely of a straw diet. A roleplaying campaign must use as many disparate resolution methods, “minigames” and such as the table’s needs demands. Some hold that hopefully such collection would be created from the ground up and no two campaigns in this universe would have even remotely similar rules. This post presumes the coin toss as the main resolution method, simply. A particular procedure that I can see people avoiding the coin toss is combat (I have spoken about how that is often bothersome to rule without specific separate mechanics).
Roll to Doubt 