This whole thread has wandered off into strange directions.
I think that the examples in the ADRP rulebook are supposed to show how an interaction might occur, but are not the definitive authority on any one point. Clearly, the GM could have said something "better" in some cases, but I'll bet that most of the examples came from actual game logs and the GM didn't have the luxury of a "do-over".
1. As far as background goes, a general background is fine to determine general skills and player should never be able to just pull skills out of his butt in the middle of an adventure. A general life sequence should be determined, and if the player wants to add to the list it should be in between game sessions and after GM approval.
If a player was a thief for ten years, it would be appropriate to assume that he had skills in lockpicking, picking pockets, lurking in shadows, dealing with a fence, being interrogated by authorities, and so on. There is no reason why a player would have to assemble a comprehensive list of all actions taken or skills learned.
However, if the player decides that he was such a good thief that he never got caught, deciding later on that he could beat a lie-detector would be cheating.
And after failing to pick a lock nine times, a player shouldn't be allowed to add the thief background later in anticipation of the tenth lock because this would be contrary to events established in previous game sessions.
Deciding that a character could pick locks because he was Lord of Chaos is just dumb. It's a poor example, and those sorts of things should be cleaned up in a 2nd edition because they are misleading.
2. On the lockpicking example in general, just because the players can’t get through the locked door right now doesn’t make it railroading. As a GM I enjoy putting challenges in front of the players and hinting that they would like to beat these challenges, and then they spend a lot of time coming up with good ideas (most of which get shot down) on how to beat the challenge.
Eventually they win if they are persistant enough, and they feel good about their victory. Since we are only seeing a small slice of the campaign (and an example of how to make the characters fail at something) we don’t really know
why the door was locked and by
who and therefore shouldn’t whine about not allowing the players to succeed.
Part of the problem in ADRP is that players get so used to success that they often whine if they fail at something. This doesn't happen in a diced game because they know "the odds" before they try an action, but in diceless they can just blame the GM.
3. As far as "danger sense" example goes, my interpretation is that a player has been using this ability far too much and the GM is trying to shake things up a little. Should the GM have said it better? Perhaps, but the important thing is to give the player the sense that he doesn't "know it all" because the GM is trying to maintain some level of unknown and curiosity.
A good player might curse or rant for a moment because of the failure of the ability, but then wonder "okay, so why didn't it work this time" and take the adventure off into new directions as he tries to solve this latest puzzle. A poor player will sulk or quote rules or continue arguing about why life isn’t fair.
If the GM
never lets the player use "danger sense" it would be railroading, but as shown it's probably more of a plot device.
The GM is the one arguing.
Instead of flat off deciding "No, the object flying through the window didn't constitute a danger. Lets move on.", he goes off on the stupid "who is asking this?" debate, stopping the scene in its tracks.
4. When the GM asks "who is asking this?" it’s not stupid at all. The GM is trying to keep the scene going; trying to remind the player to play the game rather than argue the rules. I would say that the GM is staying “in character” while the player is metagaming to argue a point.
A few years ago, I slipped on ice on my driveway and broke my leg. At no point did I look to the sky and scream “No! My dexterity is too high for this!” but that’s what the player just did.
Just my two cents.