So you have a preference. Cool, me too.
What evidence do you have that the default "the DM gets to decide" is something to be concerned about? (And, heck, just for the sake of good-faith argument, let's go ahead and assume competent, non-Viking-Hat, non-antagonistic DMs all around, regardless of whether players have some creative control over the setting or not.)
What evidence do I have? Likely the same evidence that you have that DM Decides is a good approach: anecdotal.
Maybe 15 years ago or so I’d have been posting things very much in line with some of the folks I’ve been disagreeing with in this thread. I was very much a DM Decides type of guy. I had my world that I crafted and spent hours on in between sessions and which was curated and tailored to my tastes.
Then, almost out of curiosity, I started a campaign without taking total control of the world. Mostly this was because I was a little burned out at the time. My players were asking me what kind of characters to make and what kind of world was it going to be, and was there a theme or focus….and I just hadn’t put in the work, so I said “just make what you want”.
And they did. And we started play with little more than that. And the game was great. It was just as enjoyable as usual. Actually, it was even better. Because I was discovering things as we played too. And because the players were contributing more they were very invested in the setting and very aware of what was going on.
And that game made me question my assumptions and how I’d done things previously. It wasn’t always easy to actually examine that stuff. I was being brutally honest with myself. I was placing at least equal but likely more importance on my time alone with the setting compared to time at the table in actual play.
It’s a bit contradictory, isn’t it? To spend all that time and effort alone supposedly in service to a group experience.
Then there are also the experiences I’ve had as a player. Being involved in the creation of the game and setting versus not being involved. I mean it seems pretty obvious that if you want people to be involved, you involve them. Does this mean I’ve never been excited by someone’s “humans only” campaign? No, of course not. I dig theme and I can get on board for lots of concepts.
But I expect to have a say and to contribute. I expect other players to as well. I expect the GM to involve us. I think it enhances my experience and the experiemces of those I’ve gamed with.
This is totally my opinion. I would indeed suggest that others try it. Maybe it won’t be for them…that’s fine. Still probably a good learning experience. But if it doesn’t suit, then sure go right back to doing things as always, no harm.
But if there are folks out there wondering about GM methods, who are open to suggestions and want advice, this is what I’d tell them. And not to worry about the concerns of those who don’t try and play or GM this way….those concerns are mostly boogeymen.