I recently got the core rule book and I'm trying to get a group for it, the main problem with who I've got so far is that we can't figure out who should be the gm. I was going to read the gm section in case, when we got the full group no one else wanted to gm, although it says that if you're a player you shouldn't read anything in that section. Is there any reason why it says this, or will it be ok if I read it and then someone else volunteers to be the gm.

Note: We all have access to the rule book, and the issue of who should gm is because we all want to be players.

Of course everybody can read the GM section. It's just that (as in most horror themed games) it is more fun to encounter the horror without knowing everything about it.

There's absolutely no reason for that warning to be there.

The problem of who is the GM is a very common problem - everyone wants to play the character they have kicking around in their head and GMing looks like work. It can be work, but it's also a lot of fun if you can do it well. In your situation, I'd recommend taking turns being the GM - everyone has a character who sits out the session that person is the GM. Running published adventures is probably the easiest way to do this. That way everyone gets their feet wet being the GM and sees personally what's involved. I suspect you'll find somebody who does a good job of it and somebody who enjoys playing every other chararcter in the world.

The most tragic thing would be for everyone to want to play and nobody taking up the GM mantle resulting in nobody playing.

While we're on the topic, there are RPGs that don't have GMs. Fiasco and Microscope are two off the top of my head.

Of course everybody can read the GM section. It's just that (as in most horror themed games) it is more fun to encounter the horror without knowing everything about it.

...and to be honest I belive it's stupid here.

I belive it's works good for, well, Unknown Armies. But let's be honest - people who don't know horrors Warhammer 40K can offer seldom plays Dark Heresy.

I avoid reading the adventure and the pre-gen enemies if I'm not certain I'll be a GM. Otherwise, fair game.

The warning is about the pre-generated adventure 'Dark Pursuits'.

Pre-generated adventures have surprises in them. It's a story. You shouldn't read the end of the book before you read the first chapter. It also can ruin a storyteller's day if one player suddenly blurts out the ending because they've read ahead.

You can additionally learn things about enemies that you will face down the road that you should learn via the narrative.

It's always been a problem with Dark Heresy that players know too much. Don't make it worse, if you aren't going to be a GM.

You should absolutely not read the GM only section unless you plan to GM the game.

The warning is about the pre-generated adventure 'Dark Pursuits'.

Actually, the warning appears at the start of the chapter explaining encounters, adventures, NPC design, running a campaign, etc. An overview of how the sausage is made. There's no reason players should not read it. I'd actually argue that they should, so they know exactly what goes in to running a game.

In the case of this specific game, it's fine to read the GM section. Don't read the adventure section and don't read anything past the introduction to the NPCs where it talks about their basic design. Maybe don't read the section describing the sector and so on, either, since the GM may use it for ideas. You may want to skip the section about subtlety, too, but I wouldn't recommend using it as written anyway.

In general, the parts of the book that should be for GM only are:

-Mechanics that are meant to be invisible in meaning and use to players. Very few games actually have this.

-plot or setting twists that the characters in the game won't generally know about

-tricks the GM can use to make the game run better or be more immersive

-rules lawyer players shouldn't read about special rules that the GM is given for running things if those rules are meant to be guidelines rather than fast rules, because the rules lawyer will end up arguing about them

The warning is about the pre-generated adventure 'Dark Pursuits'.

Actually, the warning appears at the start of the chapter explaining encounters, adventures, NPC design, running a campaign, etc. An overview of how the sausage is made. There's no reason players should not read it. I'd actually argue that they should, so they know exactly what goes in to running a game.

You're are correct there, but should players really know about how all the enemies work ? I played in a pathfinder game a few years ago. A game where two of the players knew the monster manual back to front. They had both GM'ed in the past, so it was forgivable. It completely ruined my immersion though. Suddenly, we were planning to kill things based on weakness that I had no idea about, and I was the loremaster of the party. There were no rolls. Just this is what we are dealing with and this is how we kill it. I did not enjoy this and it went on for several weeks. Warhammer 40k obviously has issues with players knowing too much already.

Ideally, one should not read the GM section until they are willing to take that step into the big chair.

You're are correct there, but should players really know about how all the enemies work ? I played in a pathfinder game a few years ago. A game where two of the players knew the monster manual back to front. They had both GM'ed in the past, so it was forgivable. It completely ruined my immersion though. Suddenly, we were planning to kill things based on weakness that I had no idea about, and I was the loremaster of the party. There were no rolls. Just this is what we are dealing with and this is how we kill it. I did not enjoy this and it went on for several weeks. Warhammer 40k obviously has issues with players knowing too much already.

Ideally, one should not read the GM section until they are willing to take that step into the big chair.

I guess it depends on what kind of game you want to run? Pathfinder greatly rewards the kind of system mastery you describe, and a lot of players seem really enjoy it. The problem here sounds like misaligned player expectations - they wanted to just roll some dice and use their system mastery to outsmart the GM's encounters, while you wanted something a little more on the RP side.

I'm not sure DH2 has the same level of system mastery (but then I'm not a Pathfinder expert).

One thing the GM can do for situations like yours is describe enemies not by their name (Behold! An Eldar Corsair!) but in terms that the characters, ignorant of the creature, would use to describe it (tall, humanoid, lithe, and spikey but who knows what it is). Or you can just reskin things - it's not an Eldar Bladedancer, but a genetically engineered murderfreak. Players can't exploit system knowledge if they don't know what exactly it is they're up against.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with running GM-PCs. Just be sure to let the players take the lead in the decision making and try not to show-boat. This is especially important for the very small groups out there, or for groups with rotating GM duties where everyone has a character - it lets you avoid the random "oops, Character X is suddenly not there, but then he reappears a short time later" issues.

I echo cps' idea: as a GM, combating meta-gaming and player knowledge is often half of your job. This is especially true for WH40k, when some of your players may be incredibly well-versed in the lore and have extensive knowledge of the setting that their characters wouldn't have. So, I just describe the foes they face. It leaves them guessing, they don't have a "name" to go by, and they don't have access to the enemy's stats. Keeps them on their toes, and lets the GM improvise as well.

You're are correct there, but should players really know about how all the enemies work ? I played in a pathfinder game a few years ago. A game where two of the players knew the monster manual back to front. They had both GM'ed in the past, so it was forgivable. It completely ruined my immersion though. Suddenly, we were planning to kill things based on weakness that I had no idea about, and I was the loremaster of the party. There were no rolls. Just this is what we are dealing with and this is how we kill it. I did not enjoy this and it went on for several weeks. Warhammer 40k obviously has issues with players knowing too much already.

Ideally, one should not read the GM section until they are willing to take that step into the big chair.

Pathfinder greatly rewards the kind of system mastery you describe, and a lot of players seem really enjoy it. The problem here sounds like misaligned player expectations - they wanted to just roll some dice and use their system mastery to outsmart the GM's encounters, while you wanted something a little more on the RP side.

'System Mastery'.......

I would accept that term, if a player knew how to use their character flawlessly. This is all covered prior to the warning. It ceases to be 'system mastery' and is 'pure meta-gaming' when a group, with no relevant knowledge, starts making decisions based on information that their character wouldn't know.

'System Mastery'.......

I would accept that term, if a player knew how to use their character flawlessly. This is all covered prior to the warning. It ceases to be 'system mastery' and is 'pure meta-gaming' when a group, with no relevant knowledge, starts making decisions based on information that their character wouldn't know.

Maybe it's just the culture local to me (where Pathfinder is inexplicably and maddeningly popular) but I was under the impression that this is How To Play Pathfinder.

'System Mastery'.......

I would accept that term, if a player knew how to use their character flawlessly. This is all covered prior to the warning. It ceases to be 'system mastery' and is 'pure meta-gaming' when a group, with no relevant knowledge, starts making decisions based on information that their character wouldn't know.

Maybe it's just the culture local to me (where Pathfinder is inexplicably and maddeningly popular) but I was under the impression that this is How To Play Pathfinder.

Pathfinder has a particular culture that I feel is often toxic. Call of Duty and League of Legends are wildly popular; their communities are toxic as hell. It doesn't mean that other communities should support this culture just as I don't think that Vampire the Masquerade fans should embrace the meta-gamer either. There will always be players that try to gain an outside edge. We don't have to encourage it.

Bear in mind that Pathfinder is a lot closer to the D&D 'base DNA' than a lot of RPGs, and it's a lot closer to the 'go into a dungeon, kill things and take their stuff' that Munchkin describes on the box.

DH doesn't really have 'vulnerable to rending damage' type monsters - in fact, aside from critical tables you don't use for nameless opponents, the type of damage is largely irrelevant.

I've no problem with 'system mastery' in a sense of using smart tactics - stuff like guarded attack, suppressive fire, tactical advance, basically anything beyond 'aim, semi-auto burst, aim semi-auto burst, aim, semi-auto burst, reload, loot bodies' makes a fight more gripping.

Similarly, if someone wants to memorise the adversaries section, I've no problem with it. But they should understand that I, as GM, reserve the right to tamper with the stats of a character. If someone says "aha! the generic hive ganger on page #32 of this adventure only carries two frag grenades, we have him now!" and charges, then I agree that's making game decisions based on stuff your character does not and could not know. And a third frag grenade will come sailing calmly over the wall just as you stand up.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with running GM-PCs.

I shudder, that you didn't qualify this statement with a vast and dizzying array of cautionary tales and warnings.

DMPCs are one of the great evils of RPGs.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with running GM-PCs.

I shudder, that you didn't qualify this statement with a vast and dizzying array of cautionary tales and warnings.

DMPCs are one of the great evils of RPGs.

Just be sure to let the players take the lead in the decision making and try not to show-boat.

Naturally it requires that the GM exercise good judgment and restraint, which can certainly be a problem for some people.

As an aside, there's nothing wrong with running GM-PCs.

I shudder, that you didn't qualify this statement with a vast and dizzying array of cautionary tales and warnings.

DMPCs are one of the great evils of RPGs.

I must concur. Unless you are absolutely positive that you can handle them properly, DMPC's are best avoided.

I understand the lure to outsmart the system to gain an advantage. But as a player you should always keep immersed in tot character and think about what he would do without the background knowledge you have.

It tends to be more easy if you don't read GM only sections.

A nice way to handle the players who can't restrain their need for power gaming by meta knowledge is meta damage. Each time a player tells about things his character has no clue of :5 meta game damage!

Sure this should be a last resort but it works pretty well to keep hard learning players in line.

I understand the lure to outsmart the system to gain an advantage. But as a player you should always keep immersed in tot character and think about what he would do without the background knowledge you have.

It tends to be more easy if you don't read GM only sections.

A nice way to handle the players who can't restrain their need for power gaming by meta knowledge is meta damage. Each time a player tells about things his character has no clue of :5 meta game damage!

Sure this should be a last resort but it works pretty well to keep hard learning players in line.

Inflicting damage on players who meta-game is somewhat ineffective strategy. I had one GM who tried something like that; he wasn't much of a worthwhile human being. Punishment in-game is very difficult to get right, and you can end up with an active troll in your game who is infinitely worse than a munchkin. Active trolls are the most dangerous individual to a game in existence.

My general philosophy is just to try and reduce the number of players that actively metagame by removing them from future projects. Some people will metagame very actively and abusively. Others will not do it often or do as a joke. Your job as a GM is to build a good functional team. With 40k you are always going to have a vague metagaming issue given that players should have a good knowledge of the universe.

I understand the lure to outsmart the system to gain an advantage. But as a player you should always keep immersed in tot character and think about what he would do without the background knowledge you have.

It tends to be more easy if you don't read GM only sections.

A nice way to handle the players who can't restrain their need for power gaming by meta knowledge is meta damage. Each time a player tells about things his character has no clue of :5 meta game damage!

Sure this should be a last resort but it works pretty well to keep hard learning players in line.

Inflicting damage on players who meta-game is somewhat ineffective strategy. I had one GM who tried something like that; he wasn't much of a worthwhile human being. Punishment in-game is very difficult to get right, and you can end up with an active troll in your game who is infinitely worse than a munchkin. Active trolls are the most dangerous individual to a game in existence.

My general philosophy is just to try and reduce the number of players that actively metagame by removing them from future projects. Some people will metagame very actively and abusively. Others will not do it often or do as a joke. Your job as a GM is to build a good functional team. With 40k you are always going to have a vague metagaming issue given that players should have a good knowledge of the universe.

Like most problems at the gaming table, a discussion can also help.

I never actually have seen our GM deal actual meta-game damage but saying makes people aware that they should be meta-gaming in the first place but role playing. It helps as a not so soft reminder as the GM is the universe and can kill you by a myriad of natural hazards

I've had a problem with one player being an overwhelming munchkin, but I was able to talk to him and he has been much better.

However, I have another player who has suddenly become a power gamer focusing on her Agility/Stealth, to the point where she gets really upset if that doesn't work out. She's at the point where her build is more important than balance or the story, and any attempt to combat this min/maxed character is met with cries of character sniping and lots of rules-lawyering.

The munchkin was easy to deal with, but this might be much more difficult.

If she wants to play a stealth character, let her. It sounds like she enjoys the character building aspect of the game and I don't see any reason to rain on her parade. Just make sure she is aware that there will be situations where the one and only thing she's good at just isn't going to apply.