Read on Twitter
Having finally gotten around to watching the excellent Crap Guide to D&D installment on DMing, I have a lot of feels re: how most "DM clashes with Players" stories are """resolved""" by the DM just being more flexible, and the players change basically nothing.
GAMERS: DORKNESS RISING kind of fell into this trap too, even though one of the players was so toxic he was literally driving away other players from playing with them. But the happy ending is the DM learning how to improv better. Sigh.
There's a lot to be said re: not railroading players (and it's been said ad nauseum) but there's a lot still left to be said about things like "listen when the DM is setting the scene" and "don't interrupt them when they're talking" and "share table time with others".
The Crap Guide video concludes you need to play the story the players want to play, and let me tell you that philosophy messed me up as a DM and I had to unlearn it. It is OKAY to say "this setting is for X, make a character that fits it" rather than try to roll with anything.
For example, when I started my latest Strahd game I told my players: make a character who will want to HELP people and not join the bad guy, because the story doesn't work with the latter. I didn't want to play that, and that's a valid choice as a DM. You're allowed boundaries.
Moreover, there's the real issue that "the story the players want to play" may be in conflict: I once left a table because the (nice!) DM gave a (nice!) player WAY too much power relative to the rest of the group and it became The Bob Show. The rest of us just had to sit there.
I am sure Bob was very happy being the key to solving literally every problem we encountered because he was the in-world equivalent of a god-king and we were his silent entourage carrying his cloak, but it was boring and people drifted away.
There really needs to be more videos on player etiquette, because we have a crap-ton on DM etiquette and I'm starting to feel there's an imbalance where the DM is just expected to adjust to anything, no matter how disrespectful or harmful.
By "disrespectful" I mean things like players who continually interrupt and nitpick (I literally once saw a player interrupt a DM telling a climatic result to loudly complain "This is DULL, I would've done this differently!" over the table)--
--and by "harmful" I mean players who expect DMs to play through something that might be a trigger for them and just chin-up and deal. DMs are allowed to have and set boundaries.
People like to talk about Critical Role and how great Mercer is (he is!) but it's also important to note that he has professional players who are generally trying to realistically interact with the world, not break it for goofy giggles.
I had to train myself out of this type of thinking. We expect so much from DMs and much less from players, I feel. Staying engaged is on them too. (As is "no wanton destruction".) https://twitter.com/micamoan/status/1350505327712739328?s=19
Oh! I'm glad; I didn't want to pick on him. I like being on the same page. 
https://twitter.com/ardismeade/status/1350573399668625409?s=19
https://twitter.com/ardismeade/status/1350573399668625409?s=19
This is a great thread. https://twitter.com/ziraphalelawrie/status/1350510330284224512?s=19
I think there's room, too, for some threads/videos on character creation. We joke about making our characters a "queer mess", but I've played with players who took that a little too literally and, well, didn't build an *adventurer* for the adventure.
A Stardew Valleyesque Level 3 Professional Baker may not really fit the setting of, say, CURSE OF STRAHD. Sometimes the DM has to say "no, this character isn't a good fit for this adventure." (Another hard lesson I struggled to learn.)