>>96305616
>Things that become too bizarre and too fanciful are not appealing.
Usually yeah although personally as a humanocentric-fag who does still use the classic races I would say the bigger issue isn't people getting too weird (it's rare for anyone to go that far outside of greentext stories and spergy threads) but that there's often no real contrast to keep the weird stuff weird.
That's why I like to split my setting into the "wilderness" i.e. past borderlands/off-roads/mountains/dungeons/planar travel (can get extremely weird and varying levels of dangerous) and civilization (more grounded/safer but still very fantasy focused) to actually have get a feeling when you're safe back home and when you're out there ready to see some shit.

That said as a counterpoint personally there's nothing I've found more excruciating in gaming than listening to a DM blather on at length about what kind of local food is served at an inn. Being weird has been a lesser issue in actual games.
I feel similarly about surface-level tolkien-ripoffs (unless the entire point is playing in middle-earth like MERP), "realism"-gaming ala Harn, mudcore stuff (I make an exception for early WFRP because it's really fantasy call of cthulhu) and I even find historical stand-ins to be terrible roughly half the time, usually because they're an excuse for the DM to sperg about their favorite time period in a particularly boring way instead of an excuse to have the players get to run around doing PC things as vikings, mongols or ancient hellenes.