Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game

[Numidius]

This isn't an entirely unreasonable way to look at it, and I certainly do this regularly, though since I use Savage Worlds and don't get to roll a d20 that often anymore, I typically do a straight d20 roll instead of a d100, but the basic effect is the same.

The real issue, and the reason I started this thread in the first place, was because I wanted to get ideas on how to do it better. Meaning, instead of just pulling out the d20 and saying, "Okay, on a 14 or higher, you get what you want," I wanted to find ways to make those "GM determinations" more connected to players' interests. I wanted to find ways to introduce scenes/fiction/obstacles that allowed my players the freedom to really pursue what they wanted without me as the GM simply throwing up roadblocks all the time.

Part of brainstorming for me meant asking how and where and why other GMs make these sorts of decisions. In some ways my situation is a bit . . . paradoxical. I find myself leaning towards less "traditional" GM-ing methods these days, preferring to allow the players more freedom to create more of the game world and to actively pursue character goals and trajectories. I'm very much NOT concerned with trying to create the "illusion" of a living breathing world, or adhering to some standard of "world simulation." Our group only meets twice a month for approximately 4 hours. We are all working adults with families. We don't have time to waste spending an hour of a game session "hunting for that one secret door" or aimlessly roaming through town looking for adventure hooks.

Yet despite my current GM philosophy, my preferred system of Savage Worlds is a fairly "traditional" sort of system in terms of action resolution. It does incorporate degrees of success and does give players some meta-game control with "Fate" points / Hero points / "Bennies", but the core mechanic follows a fairly straightforward action/task resolution paradigm ("I want my character to do this" / determine trait or skill that relates to declaration / roll and see if it succeeds, wildly succeeds, or fails).

Yet I'm fairly committed to Savage Worlds now, because my players want the discrete level of combat-based and skill-based rules that Savage Worlds has. We actually tried Dungeon World for 3 or 4 sessions at the start of the current campaign, but switched back to Savage Worlds when it became clear that they really did want to have a more tactical combat focus than Dungeon World really provided.

At some point I'm actually somewhat anxious to try Genesys, as it seems to fill a similar niche as Savage Worlds, but moves another step in the "narrative gaming" spectrum while still giving a solid groundwork for task resolution and combat.

Can you tell me about the combat in SW, how is it tactical and how bennies are used, if they are?
Also, the whiff factor is really an issue?
Thanks

 

[Sadras]

Which system?

Why which system? Your critique is on my 5e D&D roleplaying style being MMI, in that the character could not roll to persuade the FG due to DM opinion on the NPC. I'm asking you can the FG roll to persuade the character to give him the shard willingly in 5e D&D?

This is also a system issue. A good system, in my view, establishes ranges of DCs that I trust have been established as appropriate by a combination of mathematical analysis and play-testing.

I didn't ask you what a good system is in your opinion, I asked where exactly does MMI-style kick in?

You have been unbelievably pedantic on other topics such as the realism issue with @Bedrockgames, content generation by a paladin in 1e and the entire Vecna's imp conversation a few years ago, I'd like you to be equally as pedantic on this issue if you can. I repeat my quote here for your ease.

isn't the DM ascribing a lower or higher DC to a roll reflecting his/her opinion on what makes good or bad fiction?

EDIT: MMI kicks in if there is 0% or less chance of success on the player's action declaration, but 1% possible success or higher is ok?

I don't think that @innerdude has even indicated what system he is playing, let alone how action declarations work in that system, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at here.

I'm suggesting that a DM asking for more details regarding the action declaration does not make it MMI. It is very much part of roleplaying and may assist the DM adjudicating whether the action is successful or not, or determining the DC in the case of uncertainty.

Are you posting an account of how it happened at your table?

No, it reflects how I sometimes perceive a game lacking in roleplaying depth where all that matters are the numbers on the character sheet.

 

[Bedrockgames]

content generation by a paladin in 1e ...

I do feel this is something I should have commented on. Taking a single ability like that to extrapolate about declarations and content creation seems very shaky ground to me. Especially given how imprecise Gygax's language was in the AD&D books. Personally I find the lack of precision one of its most endearing characteristics. But it also means there are a lot of passage where you have to intuit what he intended, recognize he wasn't creating broad rules for the game from the corners of the system, and see that there is some room for interpretation. That rule has been there for ages, and Pemerton is the only person I've ever seen suggest it as tacit indication of players being able to create narrative content in AD&D. Maybe someone has made this argument before, but it strikes me as taking something that honestly could be due to a missed line edit/revision and building a style argument around it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

How is claiming that something is a de facto standard way of handling thing one-true-wayism? The statement was descriptive, nor prescriptive. It is either a correct observation or not.

It's not the de facto standard way, though, it's your way. Even in the games you've listed, it's not the standard way. You're positing DM as god, which, while popular, isn't standard, largely because no one enjoys playing under a power tripping fool. I strongly doubt you actually play that way, even, as I'm pretty sure there's a huge social pressure involved that means you aren't the "my way or the highway" GM you're proposing as the standard model.

Maybe you're a bit too fond of using that word here.

Maybe, or maybe you should be aware of how you're coming across with unsupported statements of "how it is".

I am demonstrating that the ultimate limit to GM power is in the willingness of his players to put up with it. There is no WotC police you can call to keep an unruly GM in check. Whether a rulebook states that a GM may break any rule or not is (a priori) fairly meaningless. What matters is what the players want and how much they want it: do they want a game strictly by the book? Or are they fine with the GM going against rules whenever he sees fit? Or do they want him to go by the book but not so much that they're willing to walk out? Or maybe they are willing to tolerate smaller infractions...

This is the ultimate limit of ANY social interaction, though. It's trivial to say "if I'm a jerk, people can leave." It doesn't define RPGs in any meaningful way, and instead pretends to be an argument defending a GM centered playstyle using bad behavior.

So if any rule in any RPG book has any meaning, it's because the GM is delberately sticking with it or the players' willingness to make sure it's being adhered to.

No. It's because the players, GM included, form a social contract as to what the roles in the game are. The GM retains any power because the players have allowed it, the game works because of the group decisions. You're actually positing a bully situation as the standard, which is bad.

Still, most of the above is a thought experiment and not likely real world scenarios, thank goodness.

Yes, you've posited a dysfunctional position as your motte, and are now venturing out to claim the bailey.

Gentle reminder that the debate has moved to the context of very traditional RPGs. Not in the context of, say, more recent narrative games which may have different approaches to player agency and/or distributed story-telling.

No, it hasn't. You'd prefer that it has, just as you'd prefer we all accept your claims of the standard way 'trad' RPGs run, because that supports your arguments. But, the problem here starts with your premises, so there is no 'moved on' to this debate.

And to make my point more clear with a less absurd example - I have seen GMs in games like Shadowrun or D&D go: "Ah, your characters movement rate is X... but that enemy is X+1 meters away. Ah, what the hell, you do make it into close combat. Roll for attack." The "fictional positioning" (LOL) didn't allow the PC to reach the enemy, strictly going by the rules. The GM just gave the guy a break. In traditional games, the standard mode of operations is that the GM can take such decisions. Single players can't and player consensus can't either.

Your example is just one where the rules of the game are ignored, it doesn't adhere that it's only the GM that can do so. Instead, you've presented a case where the social contract is that the GM can cheat but players are held to a higher standard. You can do this, sure, you can make any social contract for a game you want, but it's not an example of GM authority, it's just an example of how the table has decided to play. I can point to many similar examples where the rules of the game are actually enforced, and those don't point to GM authority at all, either.

Well, yes, if the entire group objects strongly to the GM's style, there is no game. That was part of my point. And this part of the discussion isn't so much about MMI but about whether players can declare actions or only intent. I hold that in your average RPG, it is the latter because GMs possibly can interdict the translation from intent to action. They might need a convincing fictional reason to keep the players from balking though, depending on group.

And the motte shows up again, back to 'bad behavior' as the argument. Let's, instead, example actually good behavior in games and look at how that works, yeah? Postulating jerks to make your point that your style of play means the GM is the biggest, meanest bully in the room isn't a good look.

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

It's not the de facto standard way

I maintain it is.

You're positing DM as god, which, while popular, isn't standard,

Well, first a caveat: I wouldn't call the GM a god in that standard model because he has to observe group consensus to some degree. But, yes, basically the GM is the final arbiter of what happens in the world, unless the players for the most part decide it's BS and make a sufficient fuss over it. The players, on the other hand, are masters of the intent of their characters. (And basic character design and all that.) Rules/mechanics form a mutually agreed way to resolve events but can be house-ruled on a permanent basis or adapted on the fly to custom situation. The adaptation is generally done by the GM but players often get to chip in their own opinion or make suggestions themselves. That's pretty much the standard way of gaming.

Secondly, which alternative approach does rival what I described above in popularity?

largely because no one enjoys playing under a power tripping fool.

Dude...

I strongly doubt you actually play that way, even, as I'm pretty sure there's a huge social pressure involved that means you aren't the "my way or the highway" GM you're proposing as the standard model.

I have never done that though. I was making the case that players declare character intent and I have used a few thought experiment to demonstrate how far-reaching the GM's power in theory is, only curbed by united player opposition. That was to demonstrate that rules-as-written hold no power unless backed up by the will of participants.

Maybe, or maybe you should be aware of how you're coming across with unsupported statements of "how it is".

My question for you would be if you can debate the actual issue dispassionately or not? Because what you're doing is at best responding to tone, and an ad hominem attack at worst. It would be nice if we could avoid making it personal.

I'm snipping the rest as I don't think you have followed the course of the prior exchange properly.

 

[pemerton]

I would say the ones you are listing here are, at this point and time pretty niche.

Classic Traveller was once the most-played game after D&D. The fact that it is no longer widely played doesn't make it "niche" or "specialised" or otherwise not count as an example of how mainstream RPGing can work.

I'm curious what is the subsystem for setting DC's and how does it eliminate GM determination of difficulty and NPC reactions??

I already posted the example of Admin skill upthread.

Here is Streetwise (p15 of my 1978 printing of Book 1):

The referee should set the throw required to obtain any item specified by the players (for example, the name of an official willing to issue licences without hassle - 5+; the location of high quality guns at a low price - 9+). DMs based on stretwise should be alowed at +1 per level. No expertise DM - -5.​

Extrapolating from the examples given, we can see that the DC for a 2d6 roll is likely to range between 10+ and 14+ depending on the "sensitivity"/"heat" involved, with a +6 for Streetwise-1, +1 for each further level of expertise,

As with Admin, the example highlights that for many (though not all) skills in Classic Traveller, the first rank has a much bigger impact than subsequent ranks. That makes sense in a system where skills are obtained via random generation and total skill ranks for a PC are often not all that high.

4e on the other hand specifically let's the DM set DC's so not sure why it's being cited as a game system that minimizes/eliminates this

From the 4e Rules Compendium (pp 126-27):

The following definitions help the Dungeon Master determine which of the three DCs is appropriate for a particular check. The goal is to pick a DC that is an appropriate challenge for a particular scenario or encounter.

Easy: An easy DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that do not have training in a particular skill. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting an easy DC of their level. An easy DC is a minimal challenge for a
creature that has training in the skill, and it is almost a guaranteed success for one that also has a high bonus with the skill. In group checks (page 128) or when every adventurer in a party is expected to attempt a given skill check, particularly when no one necessarily has training, an easy DC is the standard choice for the scenario.

Moderate: A moderate DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that have training in a particular skill as well as for creatures that don’t have training but do have a high score (18 or higher) in the skill’s key ability. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting a moderate DC of their level. In a skill challenge (page 157), a moderate DC is the standard choice for a skill check that a single creature is expected to make.

Hard: A hard DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that have training in a particular skill and also have a high score (18 or higher) in the skill’s key ability. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting a hard DC of their level. A hard DC is the standard choice for a skill check that only an expert is expected to succeed at consistently.​

This text appears beneath a chart of DCs by level. No GM who sets DCs following these guidelines is going to have trouble setting an appropriate DC (which is going to be well above a 1% chance of success).

 

[Imaro]

Classic Traveller was once the most-played game after D&D. The fact that it is no longer widely played doesn't make it "niche" or "specialised" or otherwise not count as an example of how mainstream RPGing can work.

Yeah... that kind of does make it niche....

I already posted the example of Admin skill upthread.

Here is Streetwise (p15 of my 1978 printing of Book 1):

The referee should set the throw required to obtain any item specified by the players (for example, the name of an official willing to issue licences without hassle - 5+; the location of high quality guns at a low price - 9+). DMs based on stretwise should be alowed at +1 per level. No expertise DM - -5.[.indent]

Extrapolating from the examples given, we can see that the DC for a 2d6 roll is likely to range between 10+ and 14+ depending on the "sensitivity"/"heat" involved, with a +6 for Streetwise-1, +1 for each further level of expertise,

As with Admin, the example highlights that for many (though not all) skills in Classic Traveller, the first rank has a much bigger impact than subsequent ranks. That makes sense in a system where skills are obtained via random generation and total skill ranks for a PC are often not all that high.​

So the referee sets the throw... is that akin to setting a DC? If so this is MMI, right? If not please in simple terms elaborate the difference?

From the 4e Rules Compendium (pp 126-27):

The following definitions help the Dungeon Master determine which of the three DCs is appropriate for a particular check. The goal is to pick a DC that is an appropriate challenge for a particular scenario or encounter.

Easy: An easy DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that do not have training in a particular skill. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting an easy DC of their level. An easy DC is a minimal challenge for a
creature that has training in the skill, and it is almost a guaranteed success for one that also has a high bonus with the skill. In group checks (page 128) or when every adventurer in a party is expected to attempt a given skill check, particularly when no one necessarily has training, an easy DC is the standard choice for the scenario.

Moderate: A moderate DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that have training in a particular skill as well as for creatures that don’t have training but do have a high score (18 or higher) in the skill’s key ability. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting a moderate DC of their level. In a skill challenge (page 157), a moderate DC is the standard choice for a skill check that a single creature is expected to make.

Hard: A hard DC is a reasonable challenge for creatures that have training in a particular skill and also have a high score (18 or higher) in the skill’s key ability. Such creatures have about a 65 percent chance of meeting a hard DC of their level. A hard DC is the standard choice for a skill check that only an expert is expected to succeed at consistently.​

This text appears beneath a chart of DCs by level. No GM who sets DCs following these guidelines is going to have trouble setting an appropriate DC (which is going to be well above a 1% chance of success).

It doesn't have to be 1% to be MMI or are you finally going to nail down where the difference lies? If I give hard checks to the places I as DM don't think the sect should show up but easy where I do... am I playing MMI, at least as it's been presented by you in this thread (GM directed outcomes that the players must figure out the right answer too), or not? I would argue maybe to a lesser extent but it's still there and depending on how many checks or the modifiers I can apply even with 4e's DC's it can still be done to the point where it is much more likely to find the sect where I as DM want it than anywhere else in the game world.​

 

[Ovinomancer]

I maintain it is.

The burden, then, is on you to show it, and you've so far offered nothing but your bald assertion.

Well, first a caveat: I wouldn't call the GM a god in that standard model because he has to observe group consensus to some degree. But, yes, basically the GM is the final arbiter of what happens in the world, unless the players for the most part decide it's BS and make a sufficient fuss over it. The players, on the other hand, are masters of the intent of their characters. (And basic character design and all that.) Rules/mechanics form a mutually agreed way to resolve events but can be house-ruled on a permanent basis or adapted on the fly to custom situation. The adaptation is generally done by the GM but players often get to chip in their own opinion or make suggestions themselves. That's pretty much the standard way of gaming.

No, you cannot have the GM as both final and absolute arbiter and have the caveat that they must observe group consensus "to some degree". You've contradicted yourself, here.

If you'd like to say that GMs are often agreed to have final decision on the rules, with the understand that they will use the rules as written (or agreed) as the baseline and only arbitrate in corner cases or in situations the rules do not cover, then, sure, I can be much more understanding of this as a common playstyle. But, it's very important that the GM rule is based on group agreement, so she's not the final arbiter of how the game plays, just of the ceded areas.

Secondly, which alternative approach does rival what I described above in popularity?

Almost every game played doesn't follow your model as presented. The GM as the referee is a common trope, yes, but that's limited by the group dynamic -- the idea that it's the GM's way or the highway is false, and not how it actually worked. If a GM began breaching the understood social contract, things occurred just like in every other case where someone breaches the social contract -- arguments and disagreements with social consequences outside of the game. It's ridiculous to state that RPGs altered the basic social underpinning of shared hobbies.

Take a referee in football, for example. You can make the same arguments you've made, but the reality is different -- if the ref isn't following the rules of the game closely and only making calls where they're allowed the judgement by the social contract, bad things happen. Refs in football are constrained by the rules just as much as the players.

Dude...

You postulated that jerk GM, why are you suddenly shocked by it's appearance? Or, are you personally identifying with the bad example you've presented, in which case... weird.

I have never done that though. I was making the case that players declare character intent and I have used a few thought experiment to demonstrate how far-reaching the GM's power in theory is, only curbed by united player opposition. That was to demonstrate that rules-as-written hold no power unless backed up by the will of participants.

I disagree that the right metric is united player opposition -- violation of the social contract is what I'd go with, as that varied from table to table and does not require a full mutiny. As for the rules holding no power unless backed by the players, this is a trivial statement that has little to do with your statements that the GM has all of the authority and the players can just leave if they don't like it. Please tell me you don't really see those two things as synonymous.

My question for you would be if you can debate the actual issue dispassionately or not? Because what you're doing is at best responding to tone, and an ad hominem attack at worst. It would be nice if we could avoid making it personal.

Huh? I'm not the least vexed, nor have I made an ad hom. I've responded directly to your presented (multiple times) points and challenged them strongly. Do not confuse strong opposition with emotional or insulting opposition. The only thing here that might have crossed a line is a mild bit of derision.

I'm snipping the rest as I don't think you have followed the course of the prior exchange properly.

I've followed just fine, I'm disagreeing that you can redefine the discussion with bald assertions and questionable limitations so that it supports your arguments. The funny bit is that the line at the end of the part you snipped was a challenge for you to present your case using only good behavior at the table. I reiterate that challenge. Can you assert that the GM is the final and sole arbiter of the entire game without resorting to an example of bad behavior and claiming that the players' only recourse is to flee?

 

[pemerton]

I am demonstrating that the ultimate limit to GM power is in the willingness of his players to put up with it. There is no WotC police you can call to keep an unruly GM in check.

As I already posted, all this is true of a cheating/abusive player.

What is a GM going to do if a player insists "I draw my sword" even though the GM has specified that there are no swords in his/her gameworld?

Continue the fiction otherwise. And if the one player insists, remove him from play ultimately. Remember that the GM is generally the one who has prepped the on-going adventure (and possibly knows the game rules far better than any player). Without him, the session either ends or ends up in collaborative story-telling by the players. But in any case not in a normal gaming session. Removing a player is, on average, less fussy.

And what happens if the player(s) ignore the GM "continuing the fiction otherwise"?

I mean, the GM is welcome to continue playing his/her own solo game, but that is no more RPGing than the players playing their own game. From the pretty trivial point that RPGing depends upon a degree of group cohesion, nothing follows about how RPGing and GMing can and should be done.

An analogy: no one analyses how playing chess works by considering the possibility of a player who will tip over the board if s/he finds him-/herself losing.

Once we stop pointing to pathological examples and ask how play proceeds when people follow the rules and principles of RPGing, we find that the proposition that the GM has the sort of power you posit is highly contentious - it varies across systems (AD&D 2nd ed and WoD are two highwatermarks for the approach you describe) and different RPGers have different preferred approaches.

Whether a rulebook states that a GM may break any rule or not is (a priori) fairly meaningless. What matters is what the players want and how much they want it

<snip>

So if any rule in any RPG book has any meaning, it's because the GM is delberately sticking with it or the players' willingness to make sure it's being adhered to.

This is ignoring the reality of how games are played.

It's trivially true that, when I play Forbidden Island with my children or my friends, what matters is what we want and how much we want it. But what we want is to play a game of Forbidden Island, and so we orient our behaviour and our expectations around the rules found in the box. Maybe over time we might develop some house rules or local conventions of play (eg we form the view that we don't like the way the Navigator plays and so we just drop that particular role from our repertoire of player options), but even those will be defined by reference to the game rules.

Likewise for RPGing. When I GM Prince Valiant I am playing Prince Valiant. I am looking for the experience that that game provides. So I follow the rules of the game; and I take my players through the rules to introduce them to the game; and when we aren't sure how the game should proceed (not something that comes up much in Prince Valiant, as it's a pretty straightforward mechanical system) we consult the rulebook.

You seem to be assuming that there is some notion of playing an RPG which is indepenent of any particular system of rules, techniques, participant roles, etc; and so a group might just sit down and do that (whatever "that" exactly is), with the GM drawing upon rules or mechanics from time to time as s/he thinks worthwhile and consistent with player expectations. But that assumption is in my view untenable in general, and obviously so in the context of this thread which begins with a request for advice on how to approach the game to produce a non-GM-driven experienc.

Gentle reminder that the debate has moved to the context of very traditional RPGs. Not in the context of, say, more recent narrative games which may have different approaches to player agency and/or distributed story-telling.

<snip>

this part of the discussion isn't so much about MMI but about whether players can declare actions or only intent. I hold that in your average RPG, it is the latter because GMs possibly can interdict the translation from intent to action.

No. You don't get to unilaterally specify what we are talking about.

In your first post in this thread you said "I am confused by the discussion" and in your second post you quoted me discussing action declaration and said "Players don't declare actions, they declare intent." Maybe your assumption that everyone is talking about what you apparently think they should be talking about is one source of your confusion. The OP doesn't specify a system and makes no reference to "average" or "traditional" RPGs. My reply (post 13) to the OP which the OP accepted as offering the most useful response to his query did not reference what you call an "average RPG" - it referenced Burning Wheel and Dungeon World.

Of course it's open to you to stipulate that by "traditional RPG" you mean an RPG in which the GM has unilateral control over all changes in the shared fiction - but you may find that many posters don't find that a very compelling definition, nor a very interesting premise for a discussion about GMing techniques.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], my understanding is that 5e D&D does not permit the GM to make social checks resulting from NPC behaviour in the fiction which then yield results that are binding on players in their play of their PCs. But I'm not an expert on 5e D&D, so perhaps there is an option to that effect that I'm not aware of.

As far as how to set DCs in 5e is concerned, it's not a system that I play, and one reason that I don't play it is that I think it lacks robust action resolution mechanics for anything outside of combat.

As far as your example of play is concerned, you are the one who posted it and (implicitly) invited comment. In your example of play, the player has declared an action - to the effect of I look at the giant imploringly and gesture with my hand for the return of my shard - and you have unilaterally decided the outcome of that action based on your conception of what is reasonable for a giant. You haven't spelled out all your reasoning (and obviously are not obliged to) - for instance, upthread I noted the possible relevance of alignment to the situation, and (I think) you XPed that post, but you haven't actually indicated whether your decision-making as GM was affected by a view that a CE being will never respond to imploring looks.

To me, a key feature of your example of play is that your conception of what is reasonable for the giant differs from that of the player - unless there is something else going on that you haven't mentioned (like the player saying something or making a face or whatever that indicated that s/he thought the action declaration was a try-on), the player clearly thought that it might be reasonable for the giant to respond to the request.

This feeds directly into the claim from you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] that there is no difference, to RPG play, between the GM unilaterally deciding an outcome and the GM calling for a check. That claim is, in my view, rebutted by the following point made by Vincent Baker:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .

Mechanics . . . exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

We can elaborate a bit: we have to assume that the action declaration and hence "negotiation" is sincere and made in good faith (something I already alluded to above, when I said I'm assuming that the player has not conceded that the action declaration is a try-on); likewise I am assuming that the use of the mechanics is done sincerely and in good faith.

To go back to the example of Streetwise in Classic Traveller, the rules state some example DCs from low "heat" (find an official who readily issues licences) to high "heat" (find a supplier of illicit guns). So everyone at the table already knows that for someone with Streetwise skill at level 1 low heat stuff is fairly easy (throw 4+ on 2d6, an 11 in 12 success rate, to find that official) and even high heat stuff is not too hard (throw 8+ to find the arms dealer, a 5 in 12 success rate); whereas for someone with no skill the low heat stuff is hard (throw 10+ on 2d6 to find the official, a 1 in 6 success rate) and the high heat stuff is impossible (throw 14+ on 2d6 to find the arms dealer).

This knowledge, and the actual play of the game in accordance with it, is what "ease and constrain real-world social negotiation" between player and referee about the outcome of the player's PC's attempt to make contact with shady/criminal elements. The GM is not exercising unilateral control over the content of the shared fiction. What comes next in the shared fiction depends upon the outcome of the dice throw, where the odds have been set in accordance with that prior, mutually understood procedure.

Are you posting an account of how it happened at your table?

No, it reflects how I sometimes perceive a game lacking in roleplaying depth where all that matters are the numbers on the character sheet.

OK. I'm not sure how that bears on what anyone is saying in this thread. Which poster in this thread do you think plays a game "lacking in roleplaying depth"?