I think restrictions in fact breeds better quality roleplaying. Freedom from my experience tends to result in bland same-y characters with no conflict.

I have heard this argument since the beginning and in practice, I've never found it to be true.

Good players are going to be good players regardless of the rules and bad players are going to be bad players regardless of the rules. But when you have more hard-fast restrictions, you (as DM) end up having to play for the bad characters (correct them) because they're just bad. Letting them do whatever they want leading to "same-y characters" is how it was always going to end with bad players regardless of what any book says. You think bad players read through the manuals and especially the lore? You think bad players even know what Forgotten Realms is or have even read one Drizzt Do'Urden book? Even if the 5.5e books described the Drow in intricate details, you'd still get bad players role-playing a Drow in some ridiculous fashion and end up as some "same-y character". That's what happens every time in practice because at the end of the day, a few paragraphs in a book can't dictate the entire person's ability to role-play for the entire adventure. People can only role-play what they know and most bad players hardly know enough to role-play anything.

On the other hand, when you have good role-players, it doesn't matter what the book says because the DM will control the setting. If a good role-player plays a good aligned Drow and doesn't realize Drow are typically evil, he will soon find out because a good DM will incorporate that into the behaviors of NPCs such that the Drow PC will get the hint and adapt around that. As they gain experience, they'll ask those kinds of questions with regards to the setting the DM is creating.

But this is where the freedom actually is useful, IMO, now the DM can create a setting where High Elves are evil and Drow are good if he wants to without having to deal with people who know complain about the races ought to act. PCs telling the DM to do his job better because that Orc was unrealistic or there have been too many good Drow given how Drow are supposed to be, etc... Or PCs that think they understand the races of the setting acting a certain way to gain an advantage but then not gaining such an advantage then complaining to the DM's lack of adherence to the lore. All these behaviors and biased you believe you've lost because of the rule changes aren't lost. In some ways you've actually gained far more with a competent DM and good role-players because now you yourself aren't boxed into the same sorts of biases already set by books or previous lore you know. This is especially true for the new players. I think it gives far more freedom for DMs to be more original with their settings with less conflict between players and DMs.

At the end of the day though a woke LGBTQ+ DM that wants a ONE RACE THE COMMUNE RACE theme because he's woke irl and wants to role-play his activism is never going to create the setting you want even if the 3E rules say Elves are racist and are skeptical of outsiders because those will be the evil fascist elves in his setting.

The new rules are good for new players with little understanding of any of the past "lore" and with a competent DM, they actually are useful to ensure cohesiveness and less "anticipation" in player's expectations of behaviors which leads to a better playing experience with more creative settings, if you have a competent DM and good role-players.

I think restrictions in fact breeds better quality roleplaying. Freedom from my experience tends to result in bland same-y characters with no conflict.

I have heard this argument since the beginning and in practice, I've never found it to be true.

Good players are going to be good players regardless of the rules and bad players are going to be bad players regardless of the rules. But when you have more hard-fast restrictions, you (as DM) end up having to play for the bad characters (correct them) because they're just bad. Letting them do whatever they want leading to "same-y characters" is how it was always going to end with bad players regardless of what any book says. You think bad players read through the manuals and especially the lore? You think bad players even know what Forgotten Realms is or have even read one Drizzt Do'Urden book? Even if the 5.5e books described the Drow in intricate details, you'd still get bad players role-playing a Drow in some ridiculous fashion and end up as some "same-y character". That's what happens every time in practice because at the end of the day, a few paragraphs in a book can't dictate the entire person's ability to role-play for the entire adventure. People can only role-play what they know and most bad players hardly know enough to role-play anything.

On the other hand, when you have good role-players, it doesn't matter what the book says because the DM will control the setting. If a good role-player plays a good aligned Drow and doesn't realize Drow are typically evil, he will soon find out because a good DM will incorporate that into the behaviors of NPCs such that the Drow PC will get the hint and adapt around that. As they gain experience, they'll ask those kinds of questions with regards to the setting the DM is creating.

But this is where the freedom actually is useful, IMO, now the DM can create a setting where High Elves are evil and Drow are good if he wants to without having to deal with people who know complain about the races ought to act. PCs telling the DM to do his job better because that Orc was unrealistic or there have been too many good Drow given how Drow are supposed to be, etc... Or PCs that think they understand the races of the setting acting a certain way to gain an advantage but then not gaining such an advantage then complaining to the DM's lack of adherence to the lore. All these behaviors and biased you believe you've lost because of the rule changes aren't lost. In some ways you've actually gained far more with a competent DM and good role-players because now you yourself aren't boxed into the same sorts of biases already set by books or previous lore you know. This is especially true for the new players. I think it gives far more freedom for DMs to be more original with their settings with less conflict between players and DMs.

At the end of the day though a woke LGBTQ+ DM that wants a ONE RACE THE COMMUNE RACE theme because he's woke irl and wants to role-play his activism is never going to create the setting you want even if the 3E rules say Elves are racist and are skeptical of outsiders because those will be the evil fascist elves in his setting.

The new rules are good for new players with little understanding of any of the past "lore" and with a competent DM, they actually are useful to ensure cohesiveness and less "anticipation" in player's expectations of behaviors which leads to a better playing experience with more creating settings, if you have a competent DM and good role-players.