I don't want you to play X, but I don't want to say no...

>I don't want you to play X, but I don't want to say no, so I'll let you play X but I'll attach tons of mechanical and narrative penalties to it.

>And I might not warn you about those penalties.

Why is this considered socially acceptable for GMs?

...

This is actually kinda common.

It's not considered socially acceptable, but it happens for a few reasons. Some GMs want to be accommodating, or at least seem like they're accommodating, to players. Or maybe it's their first time GMing and they don't want to make anybody mad. But they also don't want you to play the thing.

So their solution, of course, is to come at it in this passive-aggressive way, rather than just up and saying "This is a cool concept, but it won't work in this game. Do you mind making something else?" Conflict is hard for a lot of people, and they may worry that if they get the game off on the wrong foot, the whole thing will be ruined. Passive aggression is always bad, though, so it tends to backfire.

>don't say no to the players
>say YES, BUT instead!

This advice isn't necessarily wrong but it requires the GM to have common sense.

Seriously, it happens all the time. It's happened to me on several occasions, and fuck, when I was a kid, I occasionally did it to others.

Hell, it's recommended to GMs here on Veeky Forums on a regular basis.

>it's recommended to GMs here on Veeky Forums on a regular basis.

>listening to advice from Veeky Forums

It could also be that your overly min-maxed character will completely destroy the power balance of the game, and the DM doesn't like that. Which is fine, really, because nobody enjoys being BMX Bandit.

There's absolutely no excuse to not be upfront about any associated penalties, though. That's just dickish in the extreme.

>Remember back to when I started DMing at age 13
>Remember how I basically fucked this one guy's character over because I didn't like the concept
Fuck.

I've had it happen.

>Oh sure, you can play a paladin.
>You're just going to be subservient to any other religious class, and can't wear armor better than chainmail.

Because many players can't handle someone saying No to them.

Have you tried not playing the thing the GM didn't want you to play?

>Why is this considered socially acceptable for GMs?

No it's not.

awoo

This.

I have never had this happen in any group I have been part of. Sometimes the gm has said that the rules for something are wonky and that they need to rework it. Other times they said that a certain race does not exist in the setting.

Part of me wonders if threads like this (and people who agree) are started because people want to meme "roleplaying games, roleplayers, and Veeky Forums are all shit"

But they are.

Many GM's can even say No to themselves. That's how we get campaigns with every freaking class, race, and monster thrown together into an incoherent mess.

Veeky Forums is fucking shit though.

ur mom

I've never seen the mechanical penalties, but I've seen and done narrative penalties.

Narrative campaign penalties for races, are of course setting dependent.

I am upfront with players about that shit though, that playing Tieflings, dragonborn, etc... may have the occasional narrative penalty as the slack jawed Barovian Yokel doesn't want to deal with your inhuman shit in Curse of Strahd.

Why have tieflings always been given narrative penalties even in 2e, while aasimar get better stats and positive racism towards them?

>be tiefling
>get refused entry into town

>aasimar villainous rival gets warm welcome into town, gets a free night's stay at the inn and all the food and drink he wants

Well that was a fucking wasted set of quints

Read the lore

Nah, the quints chose the post, displaying its wisdom.

You will do well to learn from their sagacity.

Indeed.

I had a character with an ability that let me sense anyone with magical ability. The GM didn't like that.

So he had an NPC come along and use a memory editing spell so that I could only detect those I already knew about. But there were two problems:
- He never blocked the ability. Just edited the memory so that I wouldn't remember that's how it worked. No explanation for why I didn't recognise connect the feeling of a magic user I knew about to the very similar feeling of magic users I didn't know about. It was months in-game between then and the campaign end. OOC I didn't notice, because the ability was roll dice, then GM tells you the results, and there were ways to hide from it.
- The memory editing spell included "PCs get to spend a fate point equivalent to negate it, regardless of their roll". Since I didn't know a memory editing spell was being used against me, I didn't know that negating it was an option.
The first point is the one that annoys me.

After the campaign the GM boasted about how clever he was with this solution.

He has also done:
>PC had an ability that reduces all incoming damage by x
>NPC that does x extra damage, but only to that PC, for a "good reason" that is never elaborated upon.
> Said NPC can also know exactly where said PC is when there are several buildings in the way and hurl attacks at him with no possibility of retaliation.

And:
> My NPCs are perfectly balanced with the players because I built them like PCs and spent the same amount of XP on each of them that each PC has earned in the campaign.
Ignoring that the NPCs are minmaxed for how we run into each other, while the PCs have to run a more general set of skills.

Basically he was a GM vs players GM and he needed to cheat to win.

Sounds like you're just salty that the GM was countering your powergamed party.

A bit of that.
A bit salty over other things in that game. Like a last session retcon that meant we were helping the group his 'balanced' NPCs were working for the whole time.
A bit salty that powergaming was the only way to build useful characters in that system.

The good news is that nobody I know has seen him since the last session. We changed out GM, changed the system we were playing, and he didn't want to stay with the group.

What system?

You weren't playing that piece of shit Anima, were you?

I think it was Adventure. I think it was a White Wolf game.

Can't be sure though. This was years ago. All I'm sure about was that the contents page was in the fucking middle of the rulebook.

Why was detecting magical potential SO important for you?

That sounds like cantrip tier shit.

It was often the only way to know that someone powerful was sneaking up on us.

The campaign was intrigue focused. Most of the party weren't any good at combat, so we tried to avoid it.

because people tend to be more friendly towards good aligned angels than evil aligned devils. duh

>Bad things don't happen

As a GM, I tend to be exceptionally arbitrary and frustratingly unpredictable about what material I will allow in my games. An ironic consequence of my law student training.

Honestly, I've been that GM. Usually when I start a campaign I give my players an outline about what fits or not in the game I envision; but there's room for things I didn't think about. Thing is, sometimes players are proactive and willing to work their ideas into the game, other times they aren't, and there is only so much you can do to accommodate them.
Narrative consequences for unusual choices can be a source of good story, assuming you are not an entitled little bitch.

Honestly, I've had much more of what would probably be considered the opposite experience, where players are told upfront about homebrew/setting specific changes to mechanics or narrative and they don't seem to realize they actually apply.

Example 1:
"In this world, Drow are extinct because story reason X"

"Okay DM, my drow rogue is ready!

Example 2: "in this world, necromancy is not outlawed, but closely guarded and practiced by tomb keepers of religions"

"WTF, why can't I find any necromancy spells at the general store!?"

Example 3: "in this world, magic is seen as a dangerous curse, not a gift"

"My sorcerer has 16 CHA why do people not like my dazzling fire displays!?"

>40k RPG
>Player gets warned that being a psyker is suffering, people don't like psykers, every power use has a tiny but non-zero chance of destroying his character forever, etc
>Refuses to listen
>Throws out psy power like he's playing a blaster wizard, gets mildly annoyed every time he gets phenomena, because he thinks I'm picking on him or something
>After one too many dramatic and obvious Perils, other players agree to shoot the psyker before he accidentally summons a Greater Daemon and causes a TPK
>Psyker player quits in a huff and yells about how everyone is against him and that this game is shit. Goes back to Pathfinder.
>And nothing of value was lost.

>mfw
I found the newfag guys.

See It's not socially acceptable

That makes stunting a player's character an acceptable thing to you? Are you fucking serious?

How the fuck would I know that the GM didn't want me to play a fucking wizard in D&D if he doesn't say "No" or "I would prefer if you didn't"?!?!?
Also, not OP.

You do well in doing so man.

>Basically he was a GM vs players GM and he needed to cheat to win
Oh, I know one GM who does that too... I much prefer to play in a story that isn't only about mechanics and who has the highest number and shit.

And that means what?

I hope you aren't that GM anymore. Most people don't like That GM.

>Sure you can play a tiefling, but certain religious groups may not be welcoming to you

Is this okay or am I a shit dm

You have to ask yourself
>Would outspoken groups of people in the world be discriminating toward a certain race?
If the answer is yes, you should tell your player. You are not a shit GM, in this case.

Why is being a tiefling so good that you have to screw a player?

Besides, any PC can encounter a group of people that don't like them that much.

As long as you actually tell the player that, that sounds okay to me. Characters SHOULDN'T be roleplayed in isolation to the setting, and the setting shouldn't be run in isolation to the characters.

"I'm going to make a world. In this world, among other things, it just so happens tieflings are these vaguely demonic or at least thought of as demonic because racism/speciesism (which actually exists IRL) because it can create tiefling slums and tiefling-freedom-motivated insurgency and maybe just cool sources of conflict, which I want.
Oh, you want to play a tiefling? Well I mean...there's going to be that racism and it can really crop up anywhere."

i want awoo to be my gf

Some players like the adversity. If you're up front with the consequences, this is fine.

Don't play D&D, tell your players that they are not allowed to play something if you don't want them to play it.

Remember that players are incredibly replaceable, it's almost their main quality, so if someone steps to you, boot them. They are just there to leech on your efforts, don't let them have anything unless you want tgem to have it.

OMG! i JUST exited a game with a dm like that!
oh, yes you can do that!
a game later.....oh, it doesnt work like that in my world! again and again and again...