Before I moved, most of my players had been there for close to a decade. When we went on to the next campaign we chatted about what we wanted to do next but since I was going to run the game it was still my world and none of the base assumptions changed. I also share my campaign world with my wife, but she has the same preferences so it's never been an issue.One thing I've been picking up through all these related threads is that the social arrangement of the table plays a huge role in determining how much implicit "authority" each participant has to set the rules. It seems like a lot of tables run under a "host-guest" structure (even if the DM isn't physically hosting the game), where the DM is charge of deciding who to allow into the game, and setting up the concept of the game and the house rules. The players are guests in the host's campaign; and you don't criticize the house rules and the setting any more than you would criticize someone's decor or choice of food at a party.
Even if you're playing a game in which player agenda is intended to be more front-and-center, the DM-as-host generally has a lot more sway over the overall decisions about setting and play direction. That's because, again, when you accept an invitation you're accepting that the host is going to be the decision maker for the event, because they're the one setting it up. It would be rude to tell the host what kind of food to make for the party, although mentioning you have certain allergies and bringing a bottle of wine is perfectly OK. That would parallel with the DM-as-host having authority over the campaign, but the players asking for certain permissions or exceptions for their backstory.
We can contrast this with long term tables, most especially ones that don't have a permanent GM. The main distinction here is shared responsibility for the maintenance of the group. The DM certainly has deference because of the generally greater amount of work they're investing in a particular campaign (and many tables run under play assumptions of greater DM control being the standard), but setting parameters such that any one player would feel excluded would necessarily be frowned upon. You don't suggest a bread-and-cheese tasting when your group has someone with lactose intolerance and someone else with celiac disease.
Obviously, there are a ton of variables here. There are plenty of long-term groups who are totally oriented around the game, such that socializing is secondary, and the group would fall apart if the game play was no longer satisfactory; those tend to stay closer to a host-guest model. Even in tables with multiple DMs, authority might necessarily flow towards the DM if the campaign is a long-term (multiple years) one, especially if the DM's setting gets used for multiple consecutive campaigns, and PC's come and go. The more the focus of play is on the setting, the more authority accretes on the DM as the arbiter of the setting.
I guess you can describe it any way you want, but in games I've been involved with, it's pretty much been the DM setting the rules and establishing the rules. Which doesn't mean I, or other DMs don't discuss options with players but the final decision is left to the person running the game.
