Quote from NotAnAlien >>

Yeah, exactly! It's like...Most of the stuff I write never comes up for the players, but it helps with the need for perfection and whatnot. Plus, it makes it more realistic in my eyes, y'know? Especially if its based in the real world. Like, for one of the games of Monster Of The Week I co-DM'd, I ended up making an entire fictional town in Oregon, which was absolutely unnecessary since I could've just built it in an already existing town-- but it's so rewarding!

 Same for me. Worldbuilding is really fun. A lot of people say to start small, and that advice works for some people. But starting with the whole world and working on down can give your campaigns a depth that starting small can't.

Y e a h, I kinda back that. That's usually how it works for me. Like hell, if I don't go into mad detail about every little thing, I feel like I'm not doing my best, y'know? And then when I do go into exceptional detail I'm like "ah yes, this is great, now time to put this folder onto the bookshelf and then never touch it again til literal years later"

My #1 thing I’ve learned in my time DMing is to not go to big, especially at low levels. Don’t throw the characters into an epic story so full of gods and demons and powerful NPCs and complex, overwritten backstory...just plan a simple adventure for one session, like recovering a dwarf’s axe from orcs, and repeat! It’ll make the players feel more relevant and be way easier for you. I’ve DMed for a long time and this advice still helps me!

As for worldbuilding, I’ve ruined whole campaigns because I’ve tried to fit in so much cool lore I accidentally forget the real focus: the players. My rule is now “if the players won’t care, time to stop writing.” Just a cautionary tale!

Not to say you shouldn't build an entire world. That's very helpful and is half the fun for most people. But it's not enough to get started. You also need some small stuff. I think once you get going, a lot of the small stuff comes naturally, but it can be hard to think of the right human-scale starting point. Luckily it doesn't really matter. Almost any starting point with some challenges and danger will work.

I see. This is some good stuff! I'll try this now, actually. I'm designing a base map real quick for a campaign I /might/ start so I'll just go with your idea and take things nice n' easy. I like the rule you use though, it seems like it works well. Thanks for the advice!

Actually, I might have a follow up question. Okay. Cool, so, how do you find the perfect balance between quests n' stuff that are important to the story and then quests that are just for the fun of the players? I don't wanna railroad, I wanna get as far as I can from that. But at the same time, I wanna get the story going somewhere with the help of the players. How does a DM come up with that perfect balance between goofs and seriousness is the question I'm tryna ask, I guess-?

There’s a difference between a plot-oriented campaign and railroading. It’s not railroading to lay out a primary goal for the players and expect them to pursue it. That’s part of the social contract of your group and can be discussed in session 0. “Hey, this is the major conflict of my game. Can you create characters who have some motivation to fight on the same side of that conflict?”

Railroading is when you say, “Okay, this session you have to go to the goblin cave.” Rather have them meet an NPC who tells them a person with information about the main villain is being held captive in the goblin cave. 9/10 they’ll go to the goblin cave.

You can run an even more loose ”sandbox” style campaign with no defined goal, but it’s not necessary. I do run a sandbox style campaign, and the way I do it is I throw out a number of goals the party could pursue and let them choose what interests them. I do sometimes throw in sessions that don’t advance the plot line they’re currently pursuing: things like travel obstacles. These might introduce hooks to new goals, or they might be something that could have been easily skipped, but were just an opportunity to play a one-shot interlude.

I see. This is all very helpful, thank you!  I'll take that railroading vs plot orientation into consideration. I'd l o v e to run a sandbox-type thing but at the same time, I don't think I have the mental capacity for that. The amount of characters I'd have to make and all that would drain me, more so than it normally does. But regardless of that, this is a pretty helpful piece, so thank you! Travel obstacles are something I might dive into when it comes to the new campaign I'm developing. So yet again, thanks for this!

I've rarely had players that didn't want to play, and by play I mean engage and interact with whatever the campaign explicitly offers. They'll have their occasional detours and backstory elements coming to the forefront temporarily and whatnot, but that's fine. Better than doing nothing but what's put out there on a silver platter for them, in fact. I can only speak from personal experience, but keeping the story going just isn't an issue normally as far as I can tell. When the players lose the plot entirely it's not hard to introduce some extra leads or incentives either. I don't think you have to worry about being forced to railroad if at some point the players seem to have wandered off too far. Give them a sense of urgency by upping the stakes a bit if necessary and they'll more than likely refocus. 

I guess that is the norm, yeah. My worries stem from the fact that the two games I've ever run--The first, I lost interest in 'cause it was a carbon copy of a book series called 'The Spook', by Joseph Delaney. The second one, the players just seemed really disinterested and they ended up dropping out a few sessions in. Like, I know their reasons were in relation to issues outside of the actual game but it always makes me worry that lil' bit y'know? But I like the mentioning of sense of urgency.