Pandering

I'm the first to argue that players should have a say in the rules of a campaign.  This doesn't mean, necessarily, that the DM should bow to the players' whims, and thus undermine the delicate balance that exists simultaneously throughout the game system.  But the players should be heard and their position, if reasonable, should encourage the DM to adjust the rules.

But despite what might be heard, the players should not have a say about the ongoing campaign, the setting or anything about the world's nature.  I recognize that players want to be pleased; and that they very much want to express their personal tastes where the game world is concerned.  But tough tookies.  The game is a struggle for survival.  And we do not survive by negotiating with the maker.

This puts pressure on the DM to step up and provide a game world that will entice the players, without the players' help.  Some DMs will find this relationship troublesome ... and will approach their game like a marketing survey, ensuring that all the players wants and needs are addressed and reflected in the campaign.  Some will argue this produces a game that is satisfying and pleasing to play.  Mind you, a synonym for "satisfy" is "take the edge off."  And that's what this approach does.

We are not selling the player a car.  We are not renovating the player's kitchen.  We don't want the player to feel comfortable.  The lack of comfort is what we expect the player to overcome. 

Yet this approach involves an element of risk, which makes it unpopular.  The DM has to make a world without getting help.  It is much more reassuring to feel the love of one's players directly, by adjusting and reconciling the world to suit their desires.  Where the alternative involves risking the ire of one's players, because the world frustrates their gratification and asks the players to pit themselves against a system that isn't friendly, DMs cave.

This is how you become the players' bitch.