Hiya!
Ok, @
EzekielRaiden, I can see your point of view on the matter.
However, I don't think the whole "they just don't know" contention you have is the problem. I believe the OP's players have the experience, as you do, but I also believe they know how much 'work' goes into a good campaign. A 'bad' campaign is easy; a bunch of people get together, roll dice, and each game session is like a mish-mash of various TV shows with no central thematic element, no ongoing stories, and generally no lasting point. They can be fun...that's a given...but also almost totally unmemorable.
Anyway, I don't think the OP 'explaining' how much work goes into a campaign is going to matter. He should "humble" himself before them in an attempt to let them be more honest and open; if they see he has "realized his mistake" (even if he didn't make one), and wants to make amends so that it doesn't happen again, then his players may adopt a more "nurturing, suggestive tone". As soon as someone who has 'hurt' others (re: the players) tries to justify his actions, the 'victims' (re: players) will feel even more attacked. The DM (re: GMforPowerGamers) needs to take a demure posture and give them (re: players) the 'upper hand' in the conversation. As long as GMfPG is able to keep his cool and just accept their position at face value...the group will have a chance.
I once had an almost similar situation. I was DM'ing a pretty hard-core 1e campaign...a
Temple of Elemental Evil campaign. PC's were dropping like flies...everyone had at least a few dead PC's before even hitting 4th level (not too surprising, as it was 1e). But, after almost a year of playing it, each player had a half-dozen or more dead PC's, easy. It was brutal. One day, after a few PC's died at once, the players "revolted" and refused to make new PC's for it because "what's the point, we're going to die anyway...". We had a short talk, and I put myself in the "submissive" posture in the conversation, allowing them to control where it was going so they could really get off their chest what they were unhappy about (other than simple PC death). Turns out they felt it was kinda pointless because none of the PC's were there at the beginning, so there was no real continuity. Their PC's had no real connection to the other PC's, and they all felt like individuals adventuring alone, in stead of friends/comrades adventuring with an Adventuring Party. I believe if I had taken the "you guys just don't understand" stance, things would have turned out quite a bit different.
Anyway...I see your point, @
EzekielRaiden, but your suggestion to "try and explain why" isn't the way to go. If a serious, adult conversation is going to go on, I'd suggest the opposite. Take the "I'm but a child, please help me get better" approach so that the players are the "adults with knowledge and wisdom to impart". This will let them lower their mental defenses and give them 'permission' to be honest and critical. Everyone likes to help others...nobody likes to lectured on why their feelings of betrayal (re: the whole "rug pulled out from under us" thing the one player who posted here mentioned, IIRC) are "wrong" and why the lecturer was "right" (re: "I'm the DM, it's hard, and here's why I think what I did was right/good").
In short, to the OP, if you feel a serious sit-down is required: ...don't explain...listen.
^_^
Paul L. Ming