This for me just makes no sense.
1. Why would the player who is NOT picking characters (so not affected by the limitation), limiting character choices? Its like if players would tell a GM they are not allowed to have female NPCs. Or not allowed to run ranged enemies. Making others life harder just for the sake of it?
2. Why playing a game where something is possible, when you then want to restrict it? This just makes things more complicated. When someone wants to play a game, and asks around to play that game, I am assuming we are playing that game, and if not they need to explain their houserules beforehand which makes communication more complicated.
I see no reason why the desire of a single player to play king overide other players personal desires of character choices.
The players play the characters, so they should decide, else the players should also decide what NPCs you are not allowed to play and what enemies. When your boss gives you money, they also cant decide what car you buy. Also you are 1 person, players are normally 4 people. Most people decide things democratically, in modern society and not have 1 bully force others to do their will.
You're inserting an adversarial slant to this relationship that is really not warranted. If there's bullying involved, this is not a functional and enjoyable group relationship.
Any enjoyable tabletop RPG relies on a healthy relationship among all the players, including the DM. There must be a shared mutual agreement on many points, including the system to be played, any house rules, table rules & etiquette, scheduling, hosting/location & food or choice of VTT or software platform to be used, the nature of the content of the game (like omitting certain content which makes one or more parties uncomfortable), and division of responsibilities. Within those agreements the players
might indeed conceivably veto a particular NPC or monster which violates their boundaries around a certain phobia (say, a spider-person NPC) or desire not to have certain types of content in the game (say it's a child abuser, or drug dealer or something).
There are no kings or bosses* here, but the normal structure of a tabletop RPG puts a lot more responsibility on the GM to prepare and create content than on anyone else. They are put into the position of author of the world, and for that to be a role that is enjoyable and worthwhile for them to put in all that work, it normally has to be a world and concept which inspires them. The players traditionally delegate a certain degree of control (which is variable from group to group) to the GM over the game rules, often including choice of system. Dave wants to run 4E and isn't willing to run 3E D&D this time; the group is still excited and interested in playing Dave's game, and consents to play 4E even if they might love 3E more. Or within a given game the GM might similarly tweak or limit character generation parameters where needed to suit the world and campaign concept. This can include limiting which ancestries/species exist in the world, which classes are available, etc.
*(Your boss can't tell you what kind of car to buy for home use with your paycheck, but if you are part of a worker-owned co-op and are being given funds to buy a company car to use with a team of co-workers for a particular task, you would naturally be expected to pick something that works within that framework.)
This doesn't always have to originate from the GM, of course. If, say, an AD&D 2E group decides to play a Thieves-only campaign (the possibility of which is suggested in the Complete Thieves Handbook), that might be a concept pitched by the DM, or it could be suggested by one or more of the players and then agreed to by everyone.
There's usually some give and take and negotiation in this process too. I've seen multiple GMs on this site, for example, say that they're getting ready to start a new campaign and they've come up with three different concepts/pitches to their players, and are going to ask the players to pick one of the three. And we've all heard many stories of situations like a DM wanting to run a swords & sorcery game with no PC casters, but one player negotiating an edge case character to be a bit exceptional and have some magical talent.
The more common pushback on B/X race-as-class isn’t the existence of limitations but the limitations not making sense from a worldbuilding perspective. Moridin has no clerics? No halfling has ever dabbled in magic? All elves have the same balance of magic and swordplay - but Wood Elves never study natural magic?
Of course the other hand is - if you allow everything that might make sense in a fantasy kitchen sink that’s either a lot of content, make a mix-and-match-whatever system, or you have to make sure the choices have minimal impact - and all three options create new problems.
I for one am wiling to accept a game designer telling me “elves are normally fighters, wizards, or rangers. If you want to play an elven barbarian, your character is probably unique in the setting and you’ll need to homebrew the rules for them.” But I don’t know if the ttrpg community would accept that.
Right. I think there are two ways normally to answer those objections.
A) Yep. Moradin has no Dwarven clerics (maybe they have human clerics? Or just do without magical miracles?). Halflings have no ability to channel magic. What are the implications of that for the world?
B) These character options represent what kinds of characters are available to be played. Not every type of person in the world. Of course, this is implicit in B/X, given all the monsters and indeed other types of humans and so forth detailed in the Monsters section. Berserkers and Normal Human, for two examples. Elven Clerics may or may not exist in the world, and may or may not be available as a custom option to be worked out between the player and DM.
