I've had a few irksome situations in recent memory, cementing my tenet that a DM needs to be able to talk to headache players, ie, confront the mismatch head on. I've had the guy that wanted to treat the scripted, linear adventure path as an extreme sandbox, blatantly ignoring agreed-upon "missions" to hi-jack the sessions. I've had the guy that insisted the only character he wanted to play was that neutral evil half-orc assassin, who promptly started messing with the other players as easier sources of XP than the dungeon. I've had the guy that thought old school exploration was a quaint and interesting throwback to the ancient times; real D&D involved a fully laid out miniatures battle mat, with both sides set up on the table ahead of game time, so the session could always start with the first combat.
Which made me think - yes, I agree that DM needs to be able to talk to headache players, but at the same time, isn't part of being an adult adapting and compromising on what you in particular want or need out of a given situation?
My favourite types of game are sandboxy, objectively GMed, and entirely open-ended, but if I'm with a group who are all into heavily plotted campaigns and want to play a supers game, I'm going to do my best to take that seriously and fit in with what they want. Isn't that just good manners?
One of the biggest geek social fallacies that I seem to come across, again and again, is this idea that it is your job to try to make everybody happy all the time by giving them what they want. No: being an adult is about compromising in the name of the greater good, and in role playing games that includes players as well as GMs. Beedo is right that it is important for the DM to be able to tackle headache players, but in the broader context, why on earth should he have to?