Then replace "a DM's rule" with "the group consensus's rule" and "that the DM wants to implement" with "that the group wants to implement," and you'll get where the other side is coming from.
Except the other side doesn't believe in the group consensus. That's what I'm saying. That is the point. Changing the phrasing doesn't change the point.
If a new player comes to the table, and the rule was decided by group consensus, then there would logically be no problem in the new group arriving at a new consensus, the player has fully capability to participate in the process. And there is no double standard about the rules being mutable. Because they still are mutable, they just don't have the votes to meet the consensus.
The other side who is advocating for a single DM creating things with no input, do not have that. They have a double standard about the rules being changed, because they want the player aware that any rule could be changed, except, that any rule the DM has decided on can not be changed. And requesting for it to be changed is being seen as being a problem.
Well, no, precisely because it's published rules that aren't sacred and table rules that are (for a certain value of "sacred"—obviously sometimes rules do get changed between sessions or even mid-session if they aren't working, and that's not at all what I'm talking about here). What makes them "sacred" in this limited sense is that everyone is using them—that one way or another, they've been agreed upon.
So again, try to think of this not in terms of the mean old DM dictating the rules, and reframe it as a standing group consensus. (For many tables, the group consensus is that the DM dictates the rules, and the rest of the players are basically cool with that, but we can equally envision a more democratic setup where all of the players vote on whether to implement any house-rules or not.) In this situation, why can't a player come to the game and propose some new alteration? Obviously, nothing is stopping a player from making the proposal. But if everybody else is already happy with the way things are, that proposal isn't likely to get any traction. If everybody else collectively has veto power and chooses to exercise it, the proposed change isn't happening.
A situation where the DM has been invested by the group with exclusive veto power is nothing more than a special case of the previous, more general situation.
Just change the situation from the problem to something that isn't the problem and you'll see it isn't a problem at all.
Like you said, with a group democratic set-up, there is no problem with a player proposing an alteration to the rules. They aren't going to be judged for it. In the situation people keep proposing, it is a sign of a "problem player" to proposing an alteration to the rules.
That is the issue I am trying to talk about, so you're repeated attempts to reframe it into something that is not what I'm talking about is not helping anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for the heck of it, I went and looked at the "lore" from Tasha's. It's ONE LINE. It says, "Originally created by elves this tradition has been adopted by non-elf practitioners, who honor and expand on the elven ways."
So I could literally replace those three instances of elf and replace them with <insert race here" and have as much depth. I literally laughed out loud when I saw this "depth of lore" you are talking about.
So, with about 10 seconds of work, "Originally created by Tabaxi this tradition has been adopted by non-Tabaxi practitioners, who honor and expand on the Tabaxi ways."
And now my new world has as much depth. Or the player could just accept that it's just another wizard subclass like Evoker.
I'm glad you got a laugh out of it, but that must be because you don't really see what I'm seeing.
Because by changing that, you honestly have changed quite a lot. There are knock-on effects, implications and a whole lot else.
But, you did only spend 10 seconds on it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You don't get it? Here, I will explain it:
The difference is the player puts in one hour. The DM may have put in hundreds. So there is a difference. The player creates a backstory. The DM comes up with a history of the world. So there is a difference. The player aligns a race with a class with a background. The DM aligns all the races with all the classes. So there is a difference. The player writes, what, on average, 200-300 words. The DM can write as many as 100,000. So there is a difference.
The fact that you don't get that, and insist the player has as much right to create the world as the DM almost makes it seem like you want to play a different game, not D&D.
Hmm, you seem upset.
Maybe you noticed that your words, which I parroted back to you, aren't exactly the most respectful place to go? I mean you immediately started defending the DM, how much work they put in, compared to the player, how much history they write, how many characters they make, how many words they write.
And you put that forth as... given. Like there was no other possible way.
Interestingly, the game before the last one I was in was Dungeon of the Mad Mage. The DM? Spent about ten minutes buying a book. They wrote no world history. They wrote no NPCs. In fact.. they wrote 0 words.
As a player, I wrote far more than that. I did far more than that. So, I should therefore have the right to dictate how the game goes, right? Because it is about who puts in more work.
Or, is it perhaps more complicated than that, and I was intending to show you that just dismissing a player's efforts by "Well, aren't you skilled enough to make a second character, no one is so unimaginative to only be able to make one character." is... well, not only insulting but missing the point.
Character creation is a creative process for me. I write a story. That is what I do when designing a character. And the fact that you treat that process as trivial, as though I can just shift gears without any difficulty, just grinds me. Just because I can, doesn't mean it is easy to abandon the character I was excited to play.
These two things are not the contradictions you imply. The rules are mutable. The DM can tell the table which rules are in use and which ones are not. If a DM said to you: "Hey, we are going to use the flanking rule, so if you flank you get advantage." That is not the DM being a contrarian to telling the players their are no elves. It is the same thing.
And, as I have said, a player can ask: "Wait, I am a rogue, so that flanking rule makes my power a bit mundane. I don't like it." And then they can discuss it. Have a table vote. Or let the DM decide. Or agree with the rogue. It doesn't matter. But, in the end, it is the DM's world; this goes for rules, lore, everything. And (we agree on this), if the DM is clear and concise up front, then there should never really be an issue.
And when the rogue player is labeled as a bad player by some DMs, even though they were told to expect that the rules were mutable and saw the DM change the rules... we have an issue.
And people keep asking "Why would a player come and ask me to change the rules I just laid out? How could they do this?"
Don't you think, maybe, it was because you told them the rules could be changed? I mean, doesn't that make sense that they'd seek to change a set of changeable rules? It seems completely logical, and not bad in anyway. And yet, it was a big question just the other day of how a player could do this, what reason might they have.
