I also think the method can matter. Some other posters seem to disagree, though.I think the method can matter.
I think though if the GM is frequently having things happen simply because the PCs suggest it, over time, they may start to suspect their ideas are driving the reality of the campaign.
Both these posts seem to asssume that there are only two possible resolution systems for determining if the PCs find sect members at the teahouse: the GM decides based on his/her beliefs about the gameworld, or the GM "says 'yes'".It's when a disproportionate number of purely speculative actions pay off - i.e. coincidence gets stretched too far - that things quickly start becoming less believable. This can happen in a few different ways:
- the players are more or less subtly being led by the nose and don't realize it; or
- the GM says yes far too often, and-or
- the GM is letting the players make up the story and just going with whatever they suggest rather than enforcing setting constraints and-or plausibility.
That is, they seem to assume that play will be driven simply by GM decision-making.
I find that to be an odd assumption to make, but unsurprisingly I agree that running a game that way will tend to make for a mediocre play experience.
(One reason I find it an odd assumption: the first RPG system I know of that explicitly deals with the issue of trying to find certain sorts of people in urban situations is Traveller (1977), and it assumes that the outcome of such attempts will be affected by rolls that are affected by skills like Admin, Streetwise and Leadership, with subsequent supplements adding further relevant skills like Carousing and Recruiting. It doesn't say anything about the referee just decding what happens.)