I don't want this bad experience to loom over me and win so I'm just going to say it.
I was going to drop D&D for good because my IRL group was dissolving rapidly and some of my players started to get really disconnected due to the negative interactions with one other player at the table that felt incredibly entitled over how they wanted to do the story. How I do things as a DM:
My campaigns have arcs. Each arc focuses on a player. That player gets a bit more attention for the arc. Everyone is not only okay with this, but prefers this as I preface the whole game with this info. I, however, do designate someone as a "main character" for the main plot, but this is done based on who was main character in other games and whether their backstory meshes best with the story I'm running. Once again everyone has agreed to this beforehand because it's a lot of pressure.
I have one house rule that I don't stray from: in a big campaign I try to make sure everyone's backstory is included. I will maim you, but if you die it's because of the dice and decisions most of the time. But if you retire your character then that means you retire their story. When you make a new character then that character's story is not pivotal to the plot. They are an accessory and have to work to be included in the plot because they also have to work into the graces of the party.
So my problem player had options as they were concluding their character arc: retire their character and give the party 2 level ups to compensate for losing somebody who has a major tie to the plot and good party synergy, or keep their character to maintain party synergy AND give them an edge with the benefit their arc-ending reward would give to the party to help with the Big Badโข. This was at a major junction and told them this was their only time to make this decision as it would give ample time to have a new character get to know the party so it is an easier transition.
They chose to keep their character. And then when their arc was done they decided to retire their character anyways. This was effectively them going "I don't want the party to benefit from my character staying or going" which rightfully pissed the party off. I then have to sternly tell them that that's effectively what they did and they saw it more as me telling them "you're saying I should play a character I don't enjoy anymore?" But I knew why he wanted to change characters. He wanted to play a new character that was, to him, pivotal to the plot.
He made this new character tied to his old one. But made him in a way that he didn't trust the party leader (who was this campaign's main character) and he acted like he was in charge of all of the decisions. And he had been told multiple times, "we don't know you and we don't need you in the party. Keep acting like a dick and we'll kick you out." And he always just backed off for a time.
But when the campaign ended. When he got everything that he wanted and effectively ruined the game by being a dick to everyone in the group, made unreasonable demands of them and myself, and injected himself into everyone's story he had the audacity after the campaign ended and everyone said it was one of their favorite ones to date, "This wasn't that great of a game. It was honestly kind of mid." Unprompted statement from him. I didn't ask anybody to give praise or feedback. He just felt like it had to be said. And he did this when everyone besides one other player left.
This player ruined my experience as a DM and my passion for D&D. I dealt with him, for months after, demanding for another campaign and bringing up how much the last one was a let down. I know my online players saw a shift in how I ran and I am so sorry they dealt with that. That's on me. But I am not letting that POS win like this.
This is why I am rekindling that passion again. I want to love being behind the screen. I want to tell collaborative stories.
I want to be me again ๐๐งก