My golden rule is "as many options as are in the PHB." If your setting doesn't 1:1 replace any removed options, I walk. I don't care if you're the next coming of Tolkien; if you remove Dragonborn you better be replacing them with some other option I can play.
I find that it mostly breeds resentment. "Here is a whole book of options you can't use!" The DM says with delight. That's not to say every option is equally valid (I would not allow Dragonmarks in a non-Eberron game), but if you can't find room in your world to accommodate the 10 species and 12 classes of the PHB, I seriously question if D&D IS better than a completely new RPG.
It's good to know what your own requirements are so no one's time is wasted: not everyone is going to be a fit for every table.
TTRPGs have been overall a positive experience for me, even with the few low points, but you must have had some really negative experiences to believe this to be the reason why DMs would want to restrict the books and options allowed in a game.
I think you are taking that to an extreme. Having different rules doesn't necessarily mean lots of things being restricted or cut (or even any), it just means different ways of doing things.
Indeed. The 2014 iteration of the D&D 5E PHB has less than ten races and twelve classes (i.e. only nine races), yet I doubt that anyone would consider that cause to reexamine if they should be playing some other game altogether.
These days, it's principle. In my experience, it's never just one option cut, and it starts the spiral of ever increasing limits. So my take is that if your vision is so limited that you can't find a replacement in your setting for an option that doesn't work in you setting, chances are you are too limited for me to have fun in your game.
See post above. If your vision is too limited to allow 10 species and 12 classes (even if they aren't the exact ones in the PHB) then your vision is too limited for me.
If you are the next Tolkien, you can restrict races to humans only for all I care...
