One of the comments stuck with me- it was the idea of a DM polling the players to determine what setting to run their campaign in. And I thought to myself, "Self, that is precisely the opposite of what I would do. In fact, if a DM polled my table to determine the campaign setting I would run away faster than if the DM said, 'Hey guys, how would you feel about an all-Paladin campaign?'"
This seems like an odd thought. I have my campaign world sure, but there are also a variety of ideas that I have that don't take place there. Like an all-Drow evil campaign. Or a Ravenloft campaign. Or wild-west campaign. And there are some settings that do a lot of the legwork for me (I'm not very interested in reinventing the Underdark, for example).
That said, for my personal preference, give me a DM with a point of view any day of the week. At the vast majority of tables, the amount of work that the DM puts in to the game is greater than that put in by the players, which means that I want the DM to be invested in what he is doing, and to be knowledgeable about his campaign; is there anything worse than a DM who is uncaring about the campaign setting, and less knowledgeable about the lore of his/her campaign than the players?*
I'm gonna stroke my own ego here for a moment, but I'm fairly knowledgeable in a number of settings: Star Wars, Star Trek, Ravenloft, The Underdark, my own campaign world, Gargoyles, Transformers, all sorts of settings. I could run a campaign set in any of these settings and be demonstrably more knowledgeable about all of them than most of the people who would play in them.
A DM can be invested and knowledgeable in a number of systems and settings. Just because they're not running their baby doesn't mean that they won't be invested in whatever they
are running. Have you considered that perhaps the DM is polling their players because they are interested and invested in
several settings and want to make sure the players are equally invested and interested?
When I play, I want the DM to take ownership of the setting. To be honest, it doesn't even matter what the DM is running; it could be GH, FR, Eberron, DS, or some random homebrew where Mindflayers have enslaved humanity. Heck, even things that sound terrible ("All my vampires are sparkly!") will probably work out okay if the DM cares about the game they are running.
Not caring
what they are running is not the same as not caring
about what they're running. Like, I don't care if I drive a Chevy, Ford or a Dodge, but I care that whatever I'm driving is kept in good shape.
Now, I understand the counterargument to this- what about the DM that sucks? What about the DM that is so invested with telling the DM's story that the DM doesn't allow the players to breathe? What about railroading? And these are all good points- sometimes, you will find that a DM who is heavily invested in their campaign is the same DM who demands that the campaign play out a certain way - and that's no fun. But the thing is- that can be true of any DM, even the uncaring ones. Or, to put it more succinctly-
I've had terrible games with all sorts of Dungeon Masters. But the only great and transcendent campaigns I've played in had one thing in common- a DM that was truly invested in the game.
In a way, I would analogize this to eating out. You can go to a cruddy restaurant anytime. But if you want a great dining experience, you go to the absolute best restaurant with an amazing chef. And if you eat there, you eat what the chef prepares; you don't try and substitute everything on the menu.** You want to experience that- and some times, you might find out that it isn't so great, and some times, you might have that transcendent experience. Now, this analogy isn't perfect, because eating food doesn't have the same interactive and emergent qualities as TTRPG, but you get the gist.
So, in summation- the DM should pick the campaign setting that the DM wants to run. Period.
I don't think the counterargument you're presenting is actually the counterargument to the argument you're presenting.
The counterargument as I see it is is the DM running
what they want regardless of how the players feel about it. Granted those players could
leave I'm not disputing that but sometimes when you get invested in something you stick with it even when you shouldn't.
There's the DM who cares, and there's the DM who cares
too much. About their world. About their opinion. About how their game should run. About how their players should behave in their world.
A good DM should take their players wants and needs into account. And realistically, most GMs probably care about more than one setting.