"A practical man can always make what he wants to do look like a noble sacrifice of personal inclinations to the welfare of the community. I've decided that I've got to be practical myself, and that's one of the rules. How about breakfast?" The Pirates of Ersatz, Murray Leinster
From your question I noticed a few things. Nominally, I completely agree with @mxyzplk's answer, so this should be in the way of an addendum.
It sucks to be the leader
In a RPG, it just completely sucks to be the leader. Most players when confronted with a plan, remember about fifteen percent of it for the first fifteen minutes. But they'll certainly remember when you deviate. Leaders get no additional responsibility and no perquisites, but they get all the blame.
In the military this is mitigated with the clear distinction between commissioned and non-commissioned officers. Not least because the isolation provides both support structures and necessary emotional distance (to a degree, of course). Being "elected" leader, especially with the pack dynamics of typical werewolf games is an extremely dubious honour that I'd flatly reject.
The fact that while you may be leader in character but not dominant over the player group makes things even stickier. You need to assert authority within the realm of the narrative without actually having that authority in reality. Again, something that will cause friction and resentment any way you cut it.
Depressing environments bleed emotions into play
The world of darkness does what it says on the tin. Having played in a horror game myself recently, the iconic themes of the world of darkness do not make for "happy" or, for that matter, validating game experiences in the main. (And, if they do, it's a violation of genre.) When you are faced with the stresses of being "leader" which are compounded by the stressors of the philosophies baked into the setting, no wonder you're having a rough time.
Some solutions:
On leadership:
Fundamentally, a gaming group is a relationship. Bad relationships that do not provide validation are a drain on mental and emotional resources. When they don't work, cut them off or change them. In your case, I'd play a game that's a bit lighter in tone and focus: a nice traditional dungeon crawl or similar heroic fantasy.
I'd also reject the leader role for all the reasons I outlined above. Or, if they force it upon you, demand the perquisites and authority that is concomitant with it: they can't have it both ways.
On the group:
I've found that group character creation creates a far more cohesive group. By having entangled backstories, the group can draw upon a deeper understanding of each others' characters, creating the basis for empathy and respect within the characters, instead of the necessary simulacrum imposed by players.
By articulating desired tropes, a "palette" (as Microscope) calls it, before the game begins, you'll be able to shape the narrative of the group in directions that you want to play. This allows you to avoid the nominally depressive tropes that come default with the setting (not limited to world of darkness) and describe a source for future characters to connect with the current group. Replacement characters, if they tie into the shared narrative, will continue to maintain the tropes and social trust.
Be practical:
As players, we shape our narratives to an amazing degree. Emulate Bron Hoddan in the Pirates of Ersatz. While playing, you will be aware of the desired practical outcome that will provide validation and satisfy your personal goals. With that outcome in mind, you then frame it in terms that suit both your character's narrative and the expected narratives of the other players such that they will act to reinforce your framing and thereby your outcome. If you fight their narrative control by "being a loner," it is difficult to achieve your own goals. If you help them work as a team and appear to sacrifice nobly on their behalf while executing your own goals... the entire process is smoother and more effective.
Note that I am not saying to lie. Instead, consider the causal constructions of your actions, the explanations for those actions to be an aspect of the role * separate* from the actions themselves. By manipulating the framing as well as the actions, you can provide the necessary hooks for the other players to support your version of reality, rather than rejecting it and, by extension, you.
Postscript
Looking at your comments to other questions, you should absolutely give this group two last tries. In the first trial (of one or two games), try a heroic romp where you can be "Big Damn Heroes." Require the players who need the spotlight be leader. In the second trial (again of one or two games), try a game where players can intrigue against each other (I'd recommend Ars Magica, but then again I recommend it for most things. Most games support PvP intrigue quite ably.) If neither game provides the validation you need and the spotlight the other players need, move on. Before you do anything, take a month break, sit down, relax, and try to game with some strangers. I'm pretty sure that if you go looking for games in the chat section of this site... someone will oblige. For more on the framing problem, I'd quite recommend Rule 34 by Stross, as it describes it in a delicious narrative context.
It's pretty reasonable you're annoyed. One of your fellow players secretly plotted to kill your character for revenge (and it worked), the DM - the one guy you pretty much have to be able to trust - was in on it, and your fellow players offered you no emotional support at a point when you clearly needed it and instead made things worse for you.
People have been annoyed over character deaths, but you also have the issue of a betrayal of trust.
Different groups (and different DMs) handle stuff like this in very different ways - some handle it well, some badly. You had a conflict within the party, and a conflict between two people, and some character death and secret plots on your hands. These are often things groups don't talk about beforehand, but should. As the DM, I wouldn't have allowed this secret plot and would've talked to you two outside the game to get this enmity settled at first signs.
(And honestly, if this was real out-of-game racism you were experiencing, I wouldn't have tolerated that either.)
So now the guy who betrayed you is the DM and you want revenge.
Don't do it.
A good plan is to decline the invitation, not play, leave, and find something else to do or another D&D group to play with. This is not advice for how to ruin Bob's day. This is advice for how to avoid having your own next two months ruined, and possibly several weeks or months after that as well, and instead have some degree of peace for yourself.
You're pissed off. But, proverbially:
Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.
— (Not sure who first said this)
So you're going to have several gaming sessions and two months in which you're busy being pissed off at Bob, stressed out working out how to get revenge, and suffering over the lot of it - and expecting him to suffer for it. Eventually. At some point. Maybe.
That's not working out in your benefit.
Here's how the next two months are going to pan out according to this plan.
- Bob's the DM. The universe of the game you're considering bends to his whims.
- He doesn't like you to begin with, resents you for something you did to him, and apparently is subtly vengeful. He might give you a hard time for the next two months. This is going to feed right back into you being even unhappier in general, and unhappy to be in that game. This may even increase the degree of revenge you want, something you might not even get to begin with.
- You're going to be preoccupied being annoyed at him and not really actually just enjoying a good game of D&D. (Not that this game is going to be a good game of D&D for you necessarily anyway.)
- Eventually, you might actually find a way to get back at him. But, since he's the absolute controller of the game's universe, he can just say: "Oh. Well, my guy's goddess smiles upon him and heals him. Then she teleports your character into the plane of fire. Alright, whose turn next?"
- Or you don't get anything out of it and you're just annoyed.
- Or a month in, before anything even really happens, he or your fellow players ask you to leave because you're not being very fun to play with. You probably won't be. You're here for revenge, not to enjoy a good game.
- And you're playing with this guy as your DM the whole time, again. That's worth repeating. Why would you want that?
This entire plan is toxic to you and you alone. It's going to be really unpleasant for you, and more likely than not won't get anything out of it - and if you do, it probably won't be very satisfying.
Don't do it.
But I really want revenge!
This is an issue between you and another person, not an issue D&D will help with. Don't try to solve it through D&D, and don't try to solve it by playing with this guy as a DM for a few months.
Deal with it out of the game somehow. Maybe talk to him and get stuff off your chest. Consider walking away and leaving it behind you rather than let this weigh on you. Different things work for different people. I don't know what will work for you, personally. But spend these two months of your life doing something else. Find peace, somehow.
A surprising option is forgiving him - and not for his benefit, but for yours. Forgiveness is just as often so you can stop holding onto the negative emotions you have - the ones which are affecting you much more than anyone else - and let them go and find some inner peace. You might not be prepared to do that, but I advise you try it.
D&D is normally not like this.
(But sometimes it can be.)
There are going to be groups more supportive of first time players. There are going to be groups where you can genuinely be friends with most people, get along with all of them, and reliably trust the DM and your fellow players. This wasn't one of them, clearly. I suggest you find a group that suits you if you want to keep playing D&D.
One thing that normally goes unrecognised is that several D&D players at the same table, playing the same session at the same time, are usually not even playing the same game. They have different expectations of what a good game constitutes, different ideas of what's OK and what's not, different understandings of the rules, and different opinions over how issues like loot and character death should be handled. Usually, they assume that everyone else shares a similar view, without realising that everyone probably thinks very differently - to each other, as well.
An analogy is having several people sitting around a table to play a game of cards, but they are playing different games: one person is playing Poker, another Hearts, and another Go Fish. That wouldn't work very well, but somehow that's how D&D gets played without anyone realising it.
This disconnect is the reason why someone authored the Same Page Tool - which, as its name suggests, exists to get people on the same page. Its author also wrote about The Roots of the Big Problems and A Way Out (from which I drew the card game analogy). All three of these links discuss this issue and the situations that arise from it, and how to deal with them.
This group was not on the same page as you, and were not what you were after. Another group might be.
Best Answer
You've got a heck of a dilemma on your hands, as you have two opposing play styles in your group. As someone who tends to waffle between such styles (when I get a chance to play, that is) I can sympathize with both. You ask how to fix it "both as a player and as a GM" ... and I don't think it's solvable from both sides.
Those of us that run games tend to think of ourselves as all-powerful in our little realm. We have the big picture, we know the minutiae of an NPCs motivations. That kind of knowledge tends to give you a feeling of overwhelming power in your game that you just don't have, and this is one of those cases.
Unfortunately, what you have is a player problem, so any solution that comes from the GM, from imposing time limits to GM Fiat, is going to feel like awkward and ... imposing. The best solutions to player problems come from the players.
When faced with situations like this as a GM, you have three options. You can impose in ways that have been suggested in other posts. You can look the other way and expect players to solve their own interpersonal problems. Or you can intervene with the players who are having less than an ideal amount of fun and ask them to help with the solution. Pull them aside somehow and discuss options with them. Here's some ideas on how the players can help (in order of increasing harshness, more or less):
Personally, I love it when players try to over-plan. It gives me a chance to kick back and watch them be engaged. It allows the story to form on it's own for all our enjoyment and that's a good thing (tm). Often they plan for things I hadn't even thought of, and I use them again later in other stories. It's when, as you say near the end of your question, that it leaves other players behind that it becomes a problem.
Ultimately interpersonal problems between players must be solved by players, otherwise they'll continue to crop up. If you impose, you'll have to continue to impose. However: If you teach them to be responsible for their own enjoyment they will tend to self balance and everyone will have more fun.