I mean, this just seems really gatekeepy. You’re obviously allowed to play however you like, but I don’t see how the way others play affects you.
the demands from players are ridiculous compared to my expectations and what I set out as my intentions
That sounds like a communication issue. I’ve played fully tactical with battle mats and set pieces, and I’ve played fully theater of the mind, and I’ve never had an issue with player expectations as long as I communicate my intentions pre-session zero.
As far as the paid DM part, it’s very simple: This is a creative hobby.
So is art, so is adventure design. I still don’t see how it’s different from commissioning art of your character or buying a module.
Why stop at DM? Every group should invent their own system, carve their own dice, design their own adventures. It’s not very grassroots to use a system designed by an elitist corporation.
I’m into 3d printing. When the hobby started, there were not commercial printers, you had to build one from scratch. Are we supposed to hate manufactured printers to preserve the creative integrity of the hobby?
I just don’t see the rationale of your preferences for how you like to play metastasizing into hatred. You’re allowed to play how you want, so is everyone else.
Oh I switched to GURPS years ago. I don’t think D&D is a particularly good system for anyone with any real TTRPG experience, but 5e is actually pretty accessible as an introduction to the hobby. Plenty of canon content to work from, or just buy modules from, and it’s fairly simple to play. Plus D&D is the OG, so it’s the default TTRPG in media.
And I’m fine with media. I like media, temporarily. It introduces the hobby to people who might otherwise remain at a perpetual distance, and while a lot of them aren’t really right for TTRPGs, some of them are, and I’m happy they were introduced to it.
The reason I don’t mind paid DMs is because the people that want them are new to the hobby, probably a whole group worth. The alternative is that they elect one of their own; personally I’m down with sharing the GM’s chair, but I don’t think it’s practical for most newbies without an experienced GM present.
Now someone totally new has to figure out how to run a game, and odds are they’re going to suck a bunch, and that’s going to lead to a game that sucks a bunch, and everyone’s going to think D&D actually sucks, and all TTRPGs as well by extension. Players who might, under an experienced GM, see what it can be, will see it instead as a trainwreck.
The market for paid GMs is newbies, and I don’t mind it. This isn’t the 80s, there’s other stuff to do if their first campaign sucks. I don’t mind paid GMs as the starter to get a group moving. Once they get a little wind in their sails one of them will step up and adopt the mantle.
Especially since I assume a decent GM is probably in the neighborhood of $100/session, so about $25/person for a party of four. I think that the instant one of them feels confident to give it a go, they will have that conversation.
Sure, there might be a bit of an expectation adjustment, as you said, but that actually seems easier to accommodate. It would be obviously unreasonable for the party to expect, for free, the same experience they were previously paying $25/person/session for.
And even if they don’t, and they keep the paid GM, it’s not like WOTC has a DM Uber app. Those aren’t corporate stooges, they’re experienced enthusiasts like yourself getting a little kickback for the years of development they’ve dedicated to their craft. I’d reckon a fair segment of the people who would take the job are veteran GMs with no parties to play with. They benefit doubly.
I just think new players in the modern age benefit more from a good first impression of the hobby, and the cost provides a natural incentive for the unpaid alternative to evolve.