pg 61 the first example given in the book states

"Netcat is trying to bypass the maglock on a security door. To break open the maglock
and mess with its interior, she needs to use her Hardware skill of 3 and its linked
attribute Logic, which she has at 5. The gamemaster determines that she has a +2
dice pool modifier to the test. That means Netcat’s dice pool for hacking the maglock
is 10 dice (3 + 5 + 2)."

Whats the +2 from the GM for?

Um...

On a light note: It's mostly so that when the GM says "have a 2 die penalty" and the player says "whats that for?" the GM can point at the book and say "Same place as that bonus, now roll the *Explitve Deleted* dice"

I'm fairly sure it is for the generic example of play mechanics for the players... pick something, lets say AR overlay if it makes you feel better. It doesn't give what the bonus is for because you haven't read far enough in the book for that yet.

I call shinanigans on that as the same page in the book has the following

"Fei is trying to see what is happening between two orks on a busy street corner. The
gamemaster calls for a Perception Test modified by the fact that Fei is currently talking
with a street vendor (–2 for being distracted) and that the street is busy (–2 for interfering
sights and sounds). This is a total of –4 dice to the Perception Test. Fei has
Perception 3 plus Intuition 3, so she rolls a dice pool of 2 (6 – 4)."

and they have yet to go over perception tests...
Saying "opps we missed that, or forgot, its supposed to be from AR" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

The GM has the right to adjust the odds at any time it seems appropriate. This could be an established fact (e.g. it was stated that NetCat has extensive experience with this model security system) or something happening that the players are not yet aware of (e.g. the facility's Spider is helping her get in this door in order to spring a nasty trap) or something entirely whimsical (e.g. NetCat's player had a particularly funny bit of role-playing leading to opening this door and the GM is rewarding her.)

The important thing to note here is that the GM is the ultimate arbiter of the rules.

You *are* within your rights to ask your GM if he wants to explain a particular bonus or penalty at the table, however.

Superior Tools and a lot of time?

And the GM is allowed to point to the rule where he can pick a modifier that feels right. It is about trust and faith in your GM. The GMs job is to be rational and reasonable and as long as he does that part he is not obligated to fight over dice. If you are fighting over every die instead of playing then that is an issue that needs to be addressed by talking outside of the game, but if the GM gives you +2 die bonus instead of +3 because he didn't feel like spending 10 minutes finding the rule then I consider it not worth arguing. It is when the GM says you get a -6 die penalty with a threshold of 3 for a simple mundane task it needs to be questioned.

It reminds me of characters who want to roll everything in combat to see how many hits they get. Fine you have a die pool of 20 and the threshold to hit is 2. Explain how you hit and move on, but don't roll the dice because it slows down the game.

It's beacuse she is so darn cute, and the player bribed the GM with a bag of sweets.

Lars

What are these player rights you speak of? Are they codified in the SR Constitution somewhere? Gamers Bill of Rights? When you are sitting at your GMs table in your GMs house, the only right you should be afforded is the right to leave if you don't like it.
/sarcasm

Seriously, though, nothing irks me more as a GM than rules lawyers. There are quite often going to be reasons for modifiers, which the character has no way of knowing. You can certainly ask the GM, if you like, but the GM is not obligated to respond with anything other that "Because I am the GM, now get to rolling." Questioning every little modifier thrown your way is a sure fire way to bog down a game and piss off your GM. In most cases, however, the GM will be more than happy to discuss it with you after the session/mission is over.

Absolutely. The foundation of a good game is some mutual trust - the GM shouldn't have to be spending the whole game keeping the players honest, and the players shouldn't be spending the whole game making the GM defend his every call.

In a game where there are a lot of new players learning the rules, it's perfectly fine to ask why the samurai's gun gives him a +2 (smartlink) or why the rigger gets so many dice (control rig + hotsim) - it's also good to check up on your teammates if you think they may have forgotten something. You're also allowed to politely check if the enemy should be getting penalties (I am still invisible, right?) because the GM is human too.

The GM has the right to veto anything, though. Maybe after swimming in through the grease reclamation system the GM declares you can't use your smartgun unless you spend a few minutes cleaning the sensor lens off. Fighting him on it wastes everybody's time and slows the game down. Besides, he might be building up to something - a chatty guard patrol wandering by the grease pit while you guys are cleaning your weapons could give valuable exposition.

The basis of (nearly) all problems in an RPG is a sense of "opposition" between the GM and the PC(s). If you want to play "against" the GM, then I suggest switching to a tabletop war game or board game. In an RPG, the rules are meant to facilitate a shared story experience.

From a personal perspective I found I fought over dice, etc because I lacked faith and trust in the GM. Instead of telling a story together it became the GM viewing us as trying to ruin his story and we were trying to figure out ways to get through his story. Nothing is better than having the big build up with players facing the boss and as soon as they got a glimpse the players running away. It shocked the GM, but it was totally in character and all he could do was laugh.

My greatest joys as a GM where putting up a threat and seeing how the players reacted and dealt with it. The more creative and in character they were the more fun it was. Same token as many combats I knew the players would wins hands down so I just verbalized the fight. Why waste time on a sure thing (please roll your dice to turn on your computer or start up your car)? The point of dice is as relatively random arbitrators of uncertain conditions. If it adds tension or suspense where the outcome it can be radically different then use dice.

Really, in the NetCat example, we really do not have enough information. However, I would be inclined to say it is either the result of her being able to interact with it
directly, since she is a Technomancer, superior tools(Well...that could be that she is a technomancer), familiarity with the type of locks, or that the lock is inferior,
or even a combination of all the above.

And, you know, I agree that the players should not have to call the GM out everytime he/she gives them a modifier. I have in the past used a "You have not found out
why yet." as a reason for a good or bad modifier when a player asked me about it. Of course, I like to put clues around the players...I mean, if you come to a
Maglock that is rather easier to open then you expected, and you have not run into any guards in the facility yet, when the facility is on high alert...would you really
want to step through that door?

Could it be she's using full VR and thus gaining the +2 bonus on all Matrix tests that gives her? Or does that not work because she's dealing with Hardware?

Or perhaps it's a weak maglock?

Side note: I once defeated such a device by using a flyswatter. Did it again (same company) by using a legal pad of paper.

They had their maglocks tied into a motion sensor... trippable all the way to the inside side of the doors.

*sigh*

Yes Indeed... These things do happen from time to time... some people just do not think through all of the intricacies (sp?) inherent in a security scheme...

Keep the Faith

The point is that when giving examples to illustrate play, every number must be sourced/footnoted/whatever, or the example will not serve it's purpose. Indeed, it may even cause greater confusion. Remember, examples need to be written (and read) from the point of view of someone completely new to the game and gaming.

...true...and what we have been trying to establish is that the only explanation you ever need is "The gamemaster determines". He's not the gamenanny, he's not your gamebuddy, and he's definitely not the rulebook's b**ch - he's the GameMaster, and what he says goes, period. If he explains why he adjusts a threshold or a pool, it's only because he's being polite.

You make a good point, in that this clearly caused confusion; however it also illustrated the point that a GM has the right to adjust things on the fly. If there wasn't at least one example of GM Fiat in the book, someone would take that as precedent that it didn't exist and the GM was cheating.

Being new to GMing 4e but having played and GMed plenty of RPGs I would prefer clear examples with all the details. Honestly most RPG books have soo many grammatical errors, indexing mistakes and other problems that I'm surprised anyone could get into the hobby without someone teaching them. Throwing in that the GM has ruled that netcat has superior tools see pg X would have made the example much more clear. Otherwise it would appear as I GM I just throw out bonuses and penalties at my whim. I don't like mages so all my mages get -3 to spell casting and conjuring. I'm sure that would go over well to someone who wants to play a mage.

(Facepalm)

The example is given from Netcat's point of view. Not from the GM's point of view. As such, it is supposed to appear as if the GM is throwing our bonuses and penalties at whim. The player can ask why, but that is a discussion beyond the scope of the example. Something made the task easier, and Netcat doesn't know what it is. Perhaps it was covering the GM's pizza, or shoddy workmanship on the lock.

I'm on the side of clear examples and sourcing each modifier. So, even if the intention was to say the GM just felt like giving a bonus, it should have been mentioned. Personally, I think it was just missed. I know every time I read an example, the first thing I do is see if I can source all the bonuses and make sure they add up. If I can't do that simple piece, then the example has failed.

"The gamemaster determines that she has a +2 dice pool modifier to the test because he is the GM and he keeps track of modifiers since he is privy to circumstances which the players do not and should not know."

ERRATA'ED

I believe the example is written that way because it is in a very early part of the book, and they did not want to burden a new GM with having to know where modifiers came from. The example was trying to simply show how dice pools are calculated: Attribute + Skill + Modifiers.