All GM's have their own philosophy. It is not just a matter of tactics and policies, but a series of maxims they act by. I'll go first. Of course, with games such as Dark Heresy, one's philosophy is also influenced by how they understand the 40Kverse and the institutions of the Imperium.

1) the nature of Chaos- I know there are a lot of varying view points on the Chaos' insidiousness from the heretical munchkin thread. While I wouldn't say that all heresy is chaotic in nature, I view chaos a lot like the Dark Side of the force. "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to heresy, heresy leads to chaos. The heretic, purge, one must." The reason for the Imperium's dogmatism and closemindedness is to keep the subtle whispers of Chaos edging you on to do things. Even non-chaos cults like the Logicians and the Temple Tendency, I would say, are slightly influenced by chaos, if indirectly. The reason the Imperium sucks so much is because it's been a society under attack by what amounts to aggressive, sentient pschizophrenia for ten thousand years.

2) The nature of the Adeptus Mechanicus- While some people see hte mechanicus as completely incompetent and whose only success comes from dumb luck, while others view them as actual scientists with incense. I'm somewhere in the middle. the rank-and-file are purely ritualistic, but as you get higher up the chain, more actual science starts leaking in to the group, until you get to the top where you find the AI-worshipping muckity-mucks who actually know science and engineering and manufacture all the ritual parts to maintain a monopoly on technology, and pass down instructions disguised as religion so the wrench monkeys at the bottom. It's basically a giant technology guild/monopoly built inside a cargo cult, with only the people at the top having any knowledge of actual science.

3) The nature of the Inquisition- The Inquisition and the Rogue Traders are probably the only two groups in the Imperium that excercise independent thought. They have the paranoia of the Communist Party, the factionalism of the Libertarian Party, They're equal parts SS, Cheka, MIB, and the historical Inquisition, and every single one of them is Batman. They don't exist to confront direct threats, they go out and subvert secret conspiracies. Acolytes are chosen not for the payments, but because one day, if they survive, they too might become batman. Monodominants are 60's style Adam West Batman, Amalathians are Silver Age Batman, Radical's are Frank Millar's Batman, every single faction of the Inquisition has a Batman corrolary. They have to outwit, outmindf**k, and snuff out secret conspiracies of cosmic horrors and magnificent bastards ideally without anyone ever learning about it. They are the dark knights of the Imperium. Likewise, the players are going to need to smarten up and find their inner batman, if they want to survive. Gameplay should be cloak and dagger, not a complete spy drama, but not a dungeon crawl.

4) Disney Heroism- If a player burns a fate point to save a friend, I will reward them for their unselfish ways. Needless to say, one must make sure they don't figure that out. I will also sometimes reward authentic CMOA's in this manner as well.

*Kant's Revenge- A corrollary to Disney Heroism. If they try to cheat the good samaritan aspect of the system, penalize them.

5) The GM as the forces of Reality- I believe the GM should not be out to kill the players or be their guardian angel. Instead he should represent the forces of cold, uncaring, neutral reality. While I believe that the difficulty should increase the higher up the food chain should go, the street thug should not be armed with a melta gun and carapace armor for high level PC's, and the greater dhaemon should not have the power of a butterfly for low level PC's. I don't believe in rocks falling, mysterious killer thunderbolts, or railroading. One should have an open range, a sandbox, with only a little push given to the players every once in a while to get them in the right direction. The golden rule is that there should be logical Consequences to the player's actions. The rules should also apply to the npcs, no spontaneous escape routes, unkillable enemies, hobson's choices, noninteractive events, or uncontrollable cutscenes. If the big bad manages to get away using a secret passage, the secret passage better have been there the entire time and the . Also, one must try to give the impression that Life is going on. My main inspiration for this was the Fallout series, especially the first one, as well as well, you know, reality. Remember, realistic actions have realistic consequences.

6) GM as chessmaster- The GM should also be a chessmaster and the players are his playthings. Don't be a cheating gm and don't make things impossible, but it should be difficult and the players should have to think. Make them earn their happy ending.

7) Don't tempt fate- If a player should ever say something such as, "Things couldn't get worse", "It's all clear sailing from here", "God himself couldn't sink this ship", "It Could be worse", "Things could be worse", "At least it isn't x", etc, or anything that tempts fate, things will get worse. Depending on my mood it will be either plausible(ie: engine trouble, enemy reinforcements, etc) or absurd(ie: where did all these orks come from). Try to make it survivable, though.

what is your GM philosophy?

I more or less completely agree with 2) and 3).

I disagree with 1) as I do not like the idea of 'Chaos is behind every threat'. Actually, it sometimes even diminishes the actual horror. Let some threats be rather mundane and human (or xeno for that matter...) and not supernatural and influenced by Chaos and/or the warp. I love these 'non-Chaos' factions mentioned in DotDG (ie. Logicians, Beast House, Amaranthine Syndicate etc.) as Chaos is sometimes overused (even moreso in WFRP).

I disagree with 4), because it is not Disney, it is the 41st millenium and there is only war... Samaritans die horrible deaths in the hands of vile heretics or unhuman xenos. Reality kills. So, 4) at least partially contradicts 5). Maybe, I have a weak spot sometimes and reward your so called CMOAs with survival, but nothing more...

I partially disagree with 5), even though I was sort of an advocate for that thinking only a few years ago (I still completely agree with your first sentence though). But then I realized that too much realism can be dull and unsatisfying. We already have enough realism in reality (...), so let's get rid of it at least a little bit in our games. Still, I mostly agree with most of what you said in 5). It is just that I sometimes 'fudge' things to a more cinematic and therefore satisfying (for the players and the story) result. Otherwise my players would have headshoted a major villain (Logician Tech-Heretic) in the first tround after she finished her speech and would have horribly died by the 'hands' of a daemon they were not able to wound with their medicore weapons. For the first example I simply gave the villain the 'Touched by Fates' talent during play and in the latter example I let one player (who was targeting his Las-Pistol in frustration against nearby demo bombs) cause a major explosion that apparently killed the daemon when the roof came down and caused 3D10 damage to all players in the building. In my opinion, do not let reality stand in your way of a 'cool' and satisfying (for all) outcome.

I am not sure about the first sentence of 6), but I agree with the other two sentences, even though we might not think about the same regarding 'happy ends' (not in a Disney way of life for me...).

Doesn't 7) contradict with your view in 5) by sending in more opponents just because your players mumble someting? I try not to be influenced by what and when my players say something casually. They most probably realize this rather fast and become reserved in a way that is not good for an RPG and an enjoyable session IMO.

My GM philosophy is not one just for DH but for RPGs in general:

1. Our object is to have fun. Not to kill the PCs, not to enforce strict realism, not to make sure everything the PCs do has to be "earned" or difficult. I suppose it's much the same for most people, but it's common to lose sight of this overall goal when you take things too seriously.

2. Bad **** happens. Although it's not always enjoyable, it is necessary to keep the players on their toes and not let them think they can get away with anything or always be safe. lack of danger means lack of excitement and tension.

3. Fairness earns you respect and trust. Show the players that you don't make arbitrary desicions, but that you think it through when you can. Don't do favouritism, let the players exploit your NPCs weaknesses if they find them. Otherwise, follow the rules the player knows, and let them know in advance if you want to change them.

Theres probably more but that will do for now.

What is your GM philosophy?
_________

Ahh, on of the first really interesting questions I’ve seen here at FFG for a good long while.

There’s lots to answer on that of course, but I’ll confine myself to directly addressing the topic you put forwards.
_________

1) the nature of Chaos <snip>
_________

My approach to this has long been that ‘Chaos’ represents the status quo. It is the default that the universe returns to in the absence of expressed thought or will. This therefore establishes the 40k struggles as essentially the battle against inevitability, the triumph of will over apathy.

For me, the four Cardinal Powers of ‘Chaos’, are not in fact ‘chaos’, but simply a different iteration of Will that seeks to impose its own order. The Emperor is the ‘5th Cardinal Power’ – a balanced middle way, a perception of the order that needs to be imposed that is free from, but encompasses all of the various biases seen in the other Cardinal Powers.

To that end, the Emperor identified Humanity as the next prospective species that might bring about collective Will powerful enough to hold back the tide of chaos and bring a balanced order. The Orks failed. The Eldar failed. Humanity might just do it…

This leads to a moral whole, that Will is the moral right. That resistance to the base nature of the universe, and the imposition of order through Will is the moral good.

_________

2) The nature of the Adeptus Mechanicus- <snip>
_________

The AdMech are the rigid expression of Will, though and intent. Every machine is an absolute and tangible expression of Will, enshrined in the physical. To them, a star ship is not some passive construct but a glorious expression of thought and Will made real. The physical is the medium through which this imposition of order can be best permeated.

In a practical sense the AdMech build the solid expressions of reality that resist the natural return to chaos most effectively.

As to the Me-CAN-icus vs. Me-CAN’T-icus debate, for me the AdMech is firmly competent. They maintain the rituals as a method of enshrining and directing the Will of its members more effectively. A Tech Priest may conduct a Rite of Starting to get an engine going, but he fully understands the mechanics of it as well. In fact he understands it as a ‘molecular’ and ‘spiritual’ level. Where the real ‘ritual’ comes in is with the non-AdMech techs who know enough to keep things running but don’t really understand what the technology is or how it works.

The Mechnicus is therefore vital to the Imperium; practically they keep the construct of human civilisation running. Conceptually they maintain the Will and focus of the species in resisting the return to chaos.
_________

3) The nature of the Inquisition <snip>
_________

Eugenics.

The Emperor, before his destruction at the hands of Horus (an agent of a Cardinal Power that opposed the emergence of the ‘Middle Way’ the Emperor represented), was guiding Humanity towards psychic enlightenment to bolster the Eldar strength of Will in holding back the restoration of chaos.

Upon his ‘death’, he inspired the formation of the Inquisition to continue his mission. The Inquisition was established to identify the genetics required to bring Humanity into the psychic light, and to cull undesirable genes that caused corrupt psykers, debasing mutations, etc.

They were master eugenicists (akin to the Bene Gesserit in Dune, who ‘manipulated bloodlines to breed the Kwizadz Haderach – the super being’) whose only concern was weeding out the genetic chaff to guide Humanity into an Eldar-like species able to perceive and understand chaos and resist it more fully by the implementation of psychic Will.

Unfortunately, the Eldar fell (to Chaos), which tipped the balance and flooded Humanity with corruption.

Since then the Inquisition has lost its way and degenerated into a leaderless, unfocussed agency that simply follows the dogma of removing ‘mutants, psykers, aliens, corruption, etc.’ without really understanding why…

They remain however, the only agency able to act independently within the Adeptus Terra. They lack direct temporal power and organisation (to avoid the pitfalls of beuracratic inertia) and operate unseen by influencing the actions of others to achieve the desired goals. They are the puppet masters that the Imperium dances to.

_________

4) Disney Heroism- <snip>
_________

Not in Dark Heresy. Or indeed in 40k. For me this is predicated on a conception of morality that is fine for the real world today, but not for 40k. The imperium dances to a different moral tune. It has concepts of right/wrong, good/evil moral/immoral that are fundamentally different to us so I wouldn’t use the ‘Disney Heroism’ model.

_________

5) The GM as the forces of Reality- <snip>

_________

Of course. This is page 1 of the GM handbook (with a few exceptions of course. The GM must be the ‘force of nature’. In 40k terms the GM is chaos.
Of course, when playing the role of an NPC, this can be skewed. The GM/NPC will be trying kill the PCs..but even then he must maintain the neutral ground in determining outcomes….

_________

6) GM as chessmaster- <snip>
_________

Indeed. Page 2 !!
Once the gameworld architecture is constructed, the stories and events that play out must be fun! Making it entertaining and challenging is a must. However, I don’t agree that ‘the players are his playthings’. The PLAYERS should never be manipulated – they are stakeholders in the fun too. Manipulating the PCs however, is part and parcel of the game…

_________

7) Don't tempt fate- <snip>
_________

Well, this is part of the symbiotic engagement with the game that is essential between players and GM…without this, the experience is somehow less interactive, reduced to a real life video game….

My actual GM philosophy (not how do I way in on who or how do different factions operate or what they stand for etc) is that For a fun Balanced game I will fudge dice rolls in situations where it looks like my heroic players will go down due to my good die V their bad die in a mundane situation, and be more strict in epic confrontations etc.

That being said I will not protect stupidity or overly risky actions...If you want to try and wall walk up a 5000ft block and you fail a roll, ill let you fall and die.

I like the story to be fun, challanging suprising etc, so Will allow many bad things to happen, but try to prevent it from happening if theirs no benefeit to it, for the game or the campaign...

Luddite said:

I thought the same thing!

I know some folks are discussing their thoughts on the philosophies posted in the original post, but forgive me if I refrain. Because one of my tenets is that there is no right answer to this question. Just personal preferences. Iiiin fact, see below!

1. Every GM and player has their own style, and what is important is to compose a group where everyone wants enough of the same thing to enjoy themselves. This is why I post my GM philosophies on my website and ask my players to read them, and ask prospective players to read them. (The last 3 pages on my Rules section all start "GM Philosophies:.." ) If my players aren't having fun, I'm not having fun. But I'm also not having fun if I'm not writing stories that are not at least mostly the stories I want to be running.
2. My philosophies on gear, role in the Inquisition, and the nature of investigation are pretty well spelled out on my site.
3. Use both out of game and in game methods to resolve problems. I believe a GM should be comfortable addressing things out of game. Sometimes a character has every reason in the world to be doing something that is none the less detrimental to the fun of other people (you or the other players) OOC. Most players are very nice, reasonable people, and if you offer to work with them to come up with a solution that makes sense for the character but addresses the issue, they will work with you. For simpler matters, never forget you have the entire universe full of carrots and sticks to guide them along.
4. You are all telling a story, with the PC's as the protaganists. As such, they should shine, but you should also not be afraid to hurt them. Physically, emotionally. This includes their pride.
5. Genre is important. (At least, it is important to me.) If you let your players make characters or behave like this is D&D in space, then D&D in space is what you will get. It is important from character creation on that you remind them from time to time if they seem to be slipping too far into 20'th century mindsets and lingo. (Or conversely, into monty haul powergaming.) You can't tell a story in the world of 40k if the PC's refuse to behave like they're in it. It is not our place to tell them how to play their character, but it IS our place to remind them of the setting.
6. Fate points are a GM's best friend. They prevent a bad dice night or one stupid move from bringing you back to character creation.
7. Playing the Inquisitor is a GM's next best friend. Playing someone who has absolute authority over the PC's, but at the same time is (at least supposed to be) their ideological mentor gives you as much opportunity as you want to give advice on approach, and the censure activities that might lead to failure. Of course, what you want may be to let them march down the road to their own doom due to their shortcomings. That's fine too. But the point is not since the "elderly wizard patron" has the GM had such a direct mouthpiece to the players, if they want one.

I find (not for the first time) that I agree wholeheartedly with almost everything Aethel says. In particular, with your points 3, 4 and 5, which are both really important and very well expressed. For me, my philosophy of GMing generally is to spin a good yarn. To tell a story that people will want to talk about and be part of. Player input and participation is very important to me. This is their story too (in some ways even more than it is mine, because at the end of the day they are the heroes of the tale, the central protagonists, not my exquisitely well-crafted plots, neat ideas and well-thought-out NPCs). I try to get as much player input as I can in terms of the sorts of stories they want to tell, the sorts of things they'd like to have the chance to do, the sorts of ways they'd like their characters to develop. Not that I let them have it, of course, at least not in any way they anticipate. I'll take that Schola graduate, itching to uncover the mystery of his parent's death and I'll let him uncover a pile of nastiness only to make him wish he never had. I try and strike a balance between simply creating situations and conspiracies for the PCs to uncover and do their best to deal with however they wish and shoe-horning them into particular set-piece events and encounters for dramatic effect. I don't want to railroad my players, but neither do I want them to have a game that feels mediocre because they have fixed on a way of resolving it that is less exciting than it could have been. Increasingly I'm finding I plan less and less in detail and do more and more on the fly, simply having options in mind for how things could be brought to a head if necessary. I try and give them a world that is realistic, where they sense that the people they interact with are real people, with lives and concerns of their own, where there are conventions that cannot easily be ignored, and where their actions may have lasting consequences. I present them with opponents who have definite objectives (which probably don't include fighting to the death if they can help it) and who are smart in how they use the resources they have to hand. I don't set out to impose any sort of moral values on my players, but I make sure they are aware that the 40K universe contains a lot of human misery and despair and that their actions can sometimes deepen or lighten it. There's probably more I could say, but that covers a lot of my philosophy of GMing.

In terms of my take on the 40K setting, I'd go for a relatively chaos-light setting, at least to begin with. Chaos is not behind everything. There are enough competing interest groups and mundane threats within the Imperium to occupy starting PCs. Yes, chaos is there as an ever-present temptation and lurking menace, but never much more. At least to start with. Chaos, the Warp, the dangers of Psychic powers, it's all there, but more as a kind of natural menace - it'll bite you if you go looking for it, and certain things are guaranteed to increase risks, but by and large if you're sensible you can steer clear. It's only later, as they get more capable, that I start to reveal another side to it - a threat that actively works against humanity, something that may come looking for you if you start to become an irritation. Because when I do lift the curtain on it, I hit them really hard. This is not anything they can reason with or hope to escape. It is implacably opposed to humanity and it will destroy them unhesitatingly if they dare lower their guard. And sometimes even if they have.

I play the Ad Mech as scientifically capable, but hugely superstitious and viewing science and technology through that lens, even at the highest levels. They are probably capable of innovation, but orthodox mechanicus would never dream of doing so, except in very very modest ways, and only then if they can convince themselves that what they are doing is 'recovering' lost lore of the ancients.

My GM philosophy is to find the greatest amount of fun somewhere between giving players complete free will, and having them play out your story.

As a GM, I am the story-teller. But unlike most stories, I don't decide how all the characters act - and how the player's characters act influences all the characters that I am in control of. So while I come up with the storyline for the scenarios and campaigns, I always design them with my players in mind. I try and find out what sort of adventures they want to go on, and try and design missions for them to do the things they enjoy doing. If I am wanting to move forward the over-arching plot and end up sending them on a mission that is especially difficult, or that they perhaps did not enjoy as much, then the next session I will reward them with new equipment or an encounter that allows them to use more creative approaches than the straight-forward stuff they did previously.

Essentially, the GM's role is one of give and take, both in and out of game.

Many good posts here so I'll just mention a few things:

1) The main purpose of gathering around the gaming table is to have fun. If that goal is achieved, it was a good night gaming.

2) Not everyone sees the 40K universe the same way, in my game, while I'm willing to listen to a player's interpretation (and may bend my rulings based on it) ultimately my interpretation takes precedence in order to maintain consistency within the game.

3) Due to that, the sidebar on the Rosette on p. 214 of the Inquisitor's Handbook (I have the Hardcover FFG edition) is ignored. If you don't have a Rosette, you are not an Acolyte in my game, you are at best a seconded or inducted (and thoroughly expendable) pawn. The Inquisition's subtlety is a matter of scale, the Imperium is not a subtle place. Inquisitors don't need a lot of undercover agents for the same reason that Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and your local High School don't, there is always someone with an axe to grind willing to sell out their own mother to get even that will spill the beans to the ][ with a lot less effort and expense than sending in untrained "agents" to stumble around trying to locate Heresy. That said, you do need loyal agents to act once the initial information is recieved (and if they do stumble onto something between cases, more power to them).

Jonathan

jonathan_sicari said:

*Doffs cap in admiration*

This sir is a marvellously succinct deconstruction of the premise of Dark Heresy and a very insightful interpretation of the 40k universe.

I have much sympathy with this point of view, which is why for a long while (here, but mainly in other places like Dark Reign) i've been pushing the questions about 'what is the Imperium really like', 'where's the social background', 'what is the imperial Creed'...that kind of thing.

The basic idea of the Inquisition presented by Dark Heresy (in frankly the most cursory, broad brush, and undetailed way) is predicated on so many assumptions that in a sentence or two you've basically blown away!!

Very interesting. I'd be keen to read more of your interpretation if you'd like to post up a bit more detail Johnathan...

I'm pretty sure that Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy didn't have any fewer secret operatives than anybody else. They had to deal with organized crime etc. etc. etc.

When I'm the GM (we change from time to time) I usually spice up my games and plots with an unexpected twist, that's probably the only rule I stick to, otherwise I kinda change play style between games.

Take for exampel this, Your leader/boss has been killed by mysterious men clad in black, your faction/group are furious and in a frenzy for the killers, he got killed in another factions HQ when it got attacked by the enemies and they killed many people, including your boss and people from the other faction. The leader of the other factions point the PC's in the direction of a third faction which he says are probably responsible. The PC's attack the third faction, kill everyone and when they return expecting a parade they are being accused of unprovoked and without reason attacking that faction, it turns out that the second faction leader had fooled them to kill the bothersome third faction and at the same time the leader of the PC's faction, now he has put a bounty on the PC's, greatly outnumbered and outgunned they are forced to flee and make up plans for revenge another day when they have built up their strength.

Nothing is what it seems, they can't trust anyone and people they thought they could turns out to backstab them.

The only problem with this is that my players know how I make adventures, and the world of warhammer 40K really lets them cut loose.

They kill their leader, they kill their contact, they kill their employer, they kill the mysterious helpfull stranger, they burn the cook, kill the butler and purge the maid.

And it generally works out pretty good, so I guess they're on to something ^^

bogi_khaosa said:

Indeed. It doesn't really matter how oppressive and controlling the state and ruling government is. There will always be an underworld in every society, and the more controlling and oppressive the authorities are against the elements of said underworld, the more careful, paranoid and subtle these elements will be.

The Inquisition NEEDS covert operatives just as much as Nazi Germany needed the Gestapo, otherwise every heretic, terrorist and alien infiltrator would simply vanish into obscurity as soon as they realize that the Inquisition was on to them.

The fiercer, more zealous and totalitarian the secret police, then the more zealous the resistance, right? Surely it's an issue of circumstance. The Pale Throng might flourish on Tranch (think of them as french resistance or similar in nazi occupied countries during WW2), but there isn't room for them on Scintilla. But, in prosperous cities, perhaps tiny (yet infinitely powerful) cults owing their power to the Horned Darkness flourish instead.

Varnias Tybalt said:

I agree, but remember that goal of the Inquisition (if you can say that it HAS a common goal!) is not just to locate and destroy every heretic and xeno out there, but to make sure that the general population fears the inquistion and hates deviants, heretics, xenos, mutants and all that. Thus overt action by the Inquisition is often preferred to having operatives work in secret and do their job without anyone knowing.

In fact, the Inquisition can be greatly aided by normal people acting out of fear and hate and pointing out outsiders and miscreants as potential heretics. Not only could it inspire the population to increased vigilant against anything suspicious and uncover xenos or heresy the best informed acolytes had no idea of, but making people into informers strengthens the political influence of the =][= and increases zeal and devotation to the God Emperor.

Secret operatives is well and good but the reason why the Gestapo was so effective in controlling the population was the inborn desire in all people to "rat" out their not so good neighbours.

In my game the party has either had no Rosette, or one Rosette to the most trusted member (which has changed a couple of times). Later they will each recieve their own Rosette and will let them decide for themselves if they want to carry it depending on the mission. But that won't happen until the Inquisitor is fairly certain the Acolytes are loyal and not too stupid to misuse the Rosette, which may well require some tests of faith.

In point of fact, they don't need undercover operatives (covert is something else entirely, believe or not) what they need is the covert operative that can "turn" or gain the trust of the miscreant, the heretic and the person who can lead them to the above and then pass the information on to the "action" personell (or be the action personell!). The majority of Gestapo/KGB/GRU/CIA/FBI/Secret Service etc ad infinitum personell work in a nice clean office shuffling paperwork and never see a torture chamber, fire a weapon in earnest or act like James Bond or Jason Bourne. Even the Covert Operations or Clandestine Services Case Officers rarely do so, their job is to locate "sources", people who can give them the information they need. Even when a true undercover operation is conducted, that person will usually have support nearby to prevent the kind of FUBAR's like that DEA agent who was torture/murdered in Mexico in the '90s. A good source for tradecraft is (believe it or not) Spy Games with Brad Pitt and Robert Redford, the History! Channel's Gangland series, Burn Notice on USA (just finished the latest season so have to watch on hulu or OnDemand!). Libraries frequently have books on actual spies and there methods (the Soviets really ran circles around most people in WW2 and the Cold War). A book called the Hit Team by a Norwegian journalist concerning the Israeli assassinations of Palestinian targets after the Munich massacre (as well as a book called the Sword of Gideon, also made into a movie and remade by Steven Spielberg as Munich, has Daniel Craig in it) are also good if you can find them.

@ Luddite

Thank you sir, I will endeavor to do so at some point. Right now, much of my interpretation revolves around a gestalt of many things read over a long period of time (much of which I no longer have access to, like my original 40K material) that just "feels right" and portions come out of the maelstrom when needed (such as my feelings concerning the =][=, after all, the Inquisitor in Last Chancers and Kill Team is supposed to love subtlety and misdirection and his methods can hardly be called masterpieces of the art).

Ok here's my go:

1) the nature of Chaos-

One thing I love about some of the books published so far is the cults and creatures not tied to chaos. I don't really go with the star wars theme but certainly if you're a major badass you get the attention of chaos entities. There a lot of hate in the Imperium that's not chaos but those that fight it. As it stands though my groups had only a few encounters with agents of chaos (and specifically one of my players who has the honour of being on Tysiak's ***** list) as they're Ordo Xenos. On that note they've swiftly learned that aliens are NOT pushovers and a real threat to humanity.

2) The nature of the Adeptus Mechanicus- While some people see hte mechanicus as completely incompetent and whose only success comes from dumb luck, while others view them as actual scientists with incense. I'm somewhere in the middle. the rank-and-file are purely ritualistic, but as you get higher up the chain, more actual science starts leaking in to the group, until you get to the top where you find the AI-worshipping muckity-mucks who actually know science and engineering and manufacture all the ritual parts to maintain a monopoly on technology, and pass down instructions disguised as religion so the wrench monkeys at the bottom. It's basically a giant technology guild/monopoly built inside a cargo cult, with only the people at the top having any knowledge of actual science.

I must admit the Mechanicus is one of my favourite elements in the 40K universe. I treat them and have tried to influence my players mindset to the "machines are sacred" thoughts. Lower ranks of A.M. are mearly acting out on millenia old ritualised instructions and over time they glean more understanding to the specifics. As you move up ranks you get more towards enlightened individuals who understand the machines yet still revere the machine spirit. With all the books and things i've read I view it much like the Inquisition in that there a more enlightened individuals and groups some willing to do try the taboo such as inovation or even reverse engineering yet the majority follow the rules and rituals like the sheep of humanity.

3) The nature of the Inquisition-

I've touched on this already but yea lets face it the Inquisition is a hydra of on organisation with so many heads with their own plans. Most follow the same idea of purging the galaxy to save it but they all go about it and target things to purge in their own way.

I've just started reading Draco incidently and i'm loving the over the top madness of the plot so far (don't ruin it for me guys please ). Cells within cells plots within plots and Acolytes all pawns of their masters, some of which are mere pawns themselves... you could go mad thinking about this stuff lol.

End of the day i've started by just telling players what's happening and have been slowly seeding a insidious plot in the background which should eventually lead to the players gaining an idea of the mysteries of the Inquisition and having to decide where to proceed and who to trust.

4) Disney Heroism- Can't say this has ever come up or is likely. I reward clever play, punish mistakes and take my players through an interesting story.

5) The GM as the forces of Reality & 6) GM as chessmaster -

This is a tricky one, i've found myself evolving the play much like a lot of other GMs i'd imagine. At first I'd write out the entire adventure much like a pre-written one i've bought of FFG. Nowadays i'm still writing a large amount of the adventure, ideas, options and try predict my players a bit as well as seeding PC specific solutions, events and rewards, but i'm more open to it flowing. I mix free roaming play, railroading, fudging and honesty and whatever else it takes to create a good adventure, good time and as every reply i've seen it's about having a a bit of fun. I mix trying to hurt them more than kill while giving them the tools to escape and save the day at the same time. That being said they're playing the House of Dust & Ash this now and have went too many missions now steamrollering everything so i've added some more lethality to it plus it might be the last game I run for a while due to real life stuff... mwahahahaa

7) Don't tempt fate-I wouldn't do that all the time but if a player is being exceptionally cocky I may throw in a monkey wrench as it were to mix things up and add a bit of banter

My GM Philosophy in a sentence: never let the rules get in the way of the story. An RPG is a shared story, created by the players and the GM. The rules should provide a framework to guide the story, not a wall to limit it.

On two specific elements of 40K ...

Chaos: I'm starting to view Chaos as close kin to the Cthuhlu mythos... horrible secret truths about a universe far beyond human comprehension, a universe the considers humanity tasty treats at best, irrelevant specks at worst (or is that backward). The entire structure of the Imperium, with it's values of ignorance, obedience and xenophobia, began as a calculated response to protect that mass of humanity from the mind-shattering horrors of that reality. Even humanity's "manifest destiny" could be seen as a psychological crutch to distract us from our ultimate irrelevance.

The Adeptus Mechanicus: I'm actually coming to see the AdMech as being exactly what they are... a religious sect that venerates technology. IMO, they know how to use/build/repair/maintain the technology they work with but that understanding is couched in religious terms. A Mechanicus adept would have no problem building a computer... he would know which part went where, why and what it did, but at the same time he would completely believe that the computer was a sacred object, imbuded with a spiritual essence and that the proper physical workings of the mechanism ensured and was ensured by the blessings of that spirit.

I haven't been GMing that long or with the best of players at times so I don't really have that much of a "philosophy" on running a game. Generally I maintain the opinion that each game is first and foremost a story told by everyone involved. Beyound that, I don't have a major philosophy. On the Imperium and 40k in general on the other hand:

Imperium: Neither good nor bad overall. Life is complete crap unless you're nobility or a Rogue Trader but even they are watched. On the other hand, you have soccer hooligans, alien locusts, and Culthulu all banging on the door to get in. One thing I get from the setting is that it's supposed to be "scary" from an RP sense. In the strategy games, an individual soldier usually has a couple dozen buddies who have his back. RPG parties usually have six guys at the most, something I will have to try and play up once I convince my new group to give 40k a try is how it's them against some of the most insane stuff they can imagine... and help's not coming.

Tau: I see them as the "Beautiful Lie" to the Imperium's "Ugly Truth." Both of them have different ways of coping with the larger galaxy around them, neither is "correct" but neither has been fully successful at stemming back the darkness either.

Mine is fairly simple- 'The GM is GOD; the GM is always right, unless the players aren't enjoying the the game'

Chaos? It is Not Of This World. Anything that comes in touch with the raw stuff and energies of Chaos and the Warp is ultimately a Bad Thing. In many ways, everything is tainted by entropic chaos, but Chaos as the Primal Four is pretty **** rare. Unfortunately, certain groups of people insist on moving in the sort of circles and playing with the sort of technologies that make encountering them more likely. Psykers, interstellar travellers and those who have to regulate and police such are among those people. In other words, the Acolytes...
Chaos as adversary is incredibly rare (at least, in the sense that daemons are popping up and eating everyone), but its' influence may be felt by the genre savvy.

The AdMech- I see these guys as kind of like a cross between the Navigator's Guild from the Dune series, and the Mesan Alignment from the Honor Harrington 'verse, with hints of Asimov's Foundation. They are doing their best to maintain a mystique around and monopoly upon high technology. The lower ranks and the laity treat tech as religion, and may or may not have any real understanding of why they do what they do, or why it works. I think of this lot as the 'Mechanicus'. They believe in the Machine God, and may or may not believe that the God-Emperor is an aspect of the Omnissiah (or vis-versa).
The inner circle (the 'Mechani *** ') not only know and understand the science behind their tech, but are also aware of the precarious nature of their position- if the Imperium ever wised-up to science and started producing its' own hi-tech gear independently, they would no longer be so dependent upon the AdMech. Given the nature of Forge worlds, I suspect few of them could be self-sustaining if cut off from the Imperium's logistical support. As a result, the Mechanicum are deliberately holding back progress, building deliberately inefficient designs and shrouding the entire thing in ritual and mysticism. I doubt that many within the Mechanicum pay more than lip service to the idea of the Omnissiah, using it as a state religion and a good method to keeping the status quo.

The Inquisition is, in my campaigns, both a nebulous threat and guardian that most people will never see, and simultaneously(!) a highly visible bugaboo the local authorities/ecclesiarchy/law enforcement can point to as a very scary bigger stick. Simultaneously. Essentially, some inquisitors will set up obvious and bombastic reputations, and arrange for very publicly visible offices on key nodal worlds. Said Offices will play to the cliches and stereotypes of the Inquisition, almost to the point of parody, while many Inquisitors (and their agents) run under the radar until the time comes for the Bigger Stick.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, the collective noun for a group of Inquisitors is not 'cell', 'cabal' or 'conclave', but 'conspiracy'. I like the Inquisition from the Inquisition War trilogy.

I'll also note I run a hierarchy of induction and authority- in ascending order: Sign of Induction (essentially, they have worked/are working for the Inquisition and are allowed to wear the =][=), Writ of Operation (sort of a one-shot/time-limited version of the Rosette, but limited to actions and support in the pursuit of one specific task, normally has a clause at the end specifying incarceration/execution/mindwiping/promotion upon the completion of the mission), Mark of Sanction (given to reasonably trusted operatives, who are probably going to be spending their career working for the =][=), Sigil of Question, Rosette and Inquisitorial Seal (this last carried only by an Inquisitor). My team haven't even seen a Seal (although the have met their Inquisitor- he chose to openly carry his rosette to the meeting, and didn't draw attention to it), and probably won't.
These various levels of authority are purely to give NPCs 'in the know' an idea of how impressed/scared to be if the PCs play the blatant route, and can check the exact limits of their authority (assuming the NPCs have the clearance and think to do so).