I've recently come to the conclusion that maybe my stories don't need to make any sense. I'm trying hard to create a very cohesive story, but the fact is, my players don't care.
They don't seek to know what happens in the background, for example "Why did the Goblins kidnap such a person?", "What is this lore book we found?", "What were the ambitions of the resident of this dungeon? Why he was a ghost?". Anyway, I have cohesive answers to all of this, but that will never come to light since the players are just scratting a thin surface of the whole story. But what if my story was just a thin shell?
I feel like if I do a superficial story and throw them "random encounters" supposely linked to each other it will work just as well. And actually that would bring me a lot less mental effort. On the other hand, it's nice to set up a world, a story, but not so much if nobody really cares.
I would like to know your opinion on this, do you also "suffer" from it?Are your stories well-crafted?Do your players care?
There is a relatively simple albeit controversial formula to role-playing games in my opinion.
Less Rules = More Role-Playing
More Rules = Less Role-playing
It's a fundamental truth of the hobby, but there is a general design issue with modern storytelling which is that people think it can be executed. Meaning that you as the DM can "write a story" and "storytell it". This does not work, never has and never will, but the insistence that this can be done comes from the fact that there are people who successfully do it on Youtube in popular shows. This confuses the matter as people refuse to recognize that these shows are theatre, not role-playing so they mimic it, hoping to replicate the experience. I honestly believe that many people convince themselves that it works and that its possible and perhaps that its enough but the more general reality is that after a few sessions DM's realize, as you have, that it's all a farce. You can't get players to care about your story (the DM's story), that is not why they want to play D&D. Players want to tell their story (their character's story).
Role-playing is what happens when you create a world for your players and let them loose in it. Let them discover the story through emergent gameplay and their own motivations, their own desires, and choices and let them define their story, and influence their world.
You as the DM might want them to go find the magical sword of holiness to slay the demon at the end of your story, but what they want to do is go to the Dark Forest to see what's there or open a Tavern and create a thieves guild or whatever strikes their fancy. You want your players to care about the story, let them direct and star in it.
We used to play D&D 15y ago, 3.5e. But we were 15 years old. So, there was no story whatsoever, we just wanted to slay things and up level. Random encounters, random monsters, random dungeons of our own nonsense world. Now, we're in our 30s. And I, as a DM, obviously want to give things a more narrative meaning.I don't want my players to be guided through my "railroaded" story or to play as Critical Role does, that's not the case.
But, the world I'm creating, the story behind every scenario they choose to go, that doesn't matter, you know? They didn't even have written their backstories so I can use. I feel like we're stuck in the 15y old mode we used to play and I wonder if this is the "normal play mode" out there
I try to work out my monster's plots and motivations so I can react sensibly when the PCs do something weird. In all your examples, my goal would be enough information that if the PCs ask I can answer without too much hemming and hawing. As such, necessary levels of detail depend extensively on your ability to improvise.
i'm the opposite of your players. i want to at least have a general understanding why we're going after the mcguffin or stabbing everyone around us in the face. too many details can get overwhelming...but i want a general idea
My experience with worldbuilding is: the majority of the details you put in will never be used, but there's no reliable way of figuring out which ones will be, so what you need is a framework that's strong enough to let you improvise consistently. On the OPs players: is the issue that they aren't interested in anything, or is it that they're failing to pick up on specific details you spent time creating? In the first case, that probably indicates that they want something pretty casual; the second case is just the way games work.
I try to work out my monster's plots and motivations so I can react sensibly when the PCs do something weird. In all your examples, my goal would be enough information that if the PCs ask I can answer without too much hemming and hawing. As such, necessary levels of detail depend extensively on your ability to improvise.
Same here. I have to have an underlying plot, an idea of what the big picture is, or I feel lost. My improvisation needs some sort of framework to reside in.
I have learnt the hard way to let go of the hope that the great unwashed at the table will ever see or care about this underlying plot. :-)
Ocasionally it pays off. Maybe twice in the last five years I've had a player say, "Oh, wait, that's why that NPC did that thing a year ago!"
For example, in my last long game the underlying plot was, "A group of mi-go are manipulating kingdoms with the goal of enslaving people and removing them from this planet before the ice age covers it in half a mile of glacier." The players never picked up on it (oh, there are more of those weird insects that can fly through walls, oh, well, moving on to the next encounter) but it afforded most of the actions in the game.
Your story has the make as much sense as a good novel or movie has to make sense. It doesn't have to be realistic, as the world is not realistic, but it has to be conistent within it's own laws and bounderies. Character motivation has to make sense, the presence of certain creatures at certain places has to make sense. NPCs have to act according to their personal motivation as well as within their abilities.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
Not everything has to make sense, but most things should. That isn't to say the players will be interested in every little thing in your world, but when something particularly does grab their interest and they ask their DM about it who just kinda shrugs and goes "I don't know", that breaks immersion and reinforces the message that nothing in the game is significant and makes them feel silly for thinking they might invest some interest after all. Keep doing that, and it's a mistake they'll make less and less.
As far as your players go, I would be surprised if they were truly not curious or interested about anything in the game. It's true that players are fickle creatures-- they're never interested in the things you yell them to be-- but the question is this: how free are your players to discover things in the game? If you put a bunch of goblins in front of them because the story you wrote says it's goblin time, and the players don't show a ton of interest but you push ahead anyways, don't be surprised if they don't care who's being kidnapped or why.
I always like to *have* answers ready, but I don't give them out until players ask questions. Then, based off what they show interest in, I prepare content for future sessions, RATHER than preparing content and hoping the players engage with it because I don't have anything else prepped.
You pique player interest through interesting description of vistas and events, and they call it a plot hook because hearing a rumor about the dinosaurs being displaced from their mountain home to the east compels the player to look into it based off their interest. Player choice has everything to do with player engagement.
There is a relatively simple albeit controversial formula to role-playing games in my opinion.
Less Rules = More Role-Playing
More Rules = Less Role-playing
It's a fundamental truth of the hobby, but there is a general design issue with modern storytelling which is that people think it can be executed. Meaning that you as the DM can "write a story" and "storytell it". This does not work, never has and never will, but the insistence that this can be done comes from the fact that there are people who successfully do it on Youtube in popular shows. This confuses the matter as people refuse to recognize that these shows are theatre, not role-playing so they mimic it, hoping to replicate the experience. I honestly believe that many people convince themselves that it works and that its possible and perhaps that its enough but the more general reality is that after a few sessions DM's realize, as you have, that it's all a farce. You can't get players to care about your story (the DM's story), that is not why they want to play D&D. Players want to tell their story (their character's story).
Role-playing is what happens when you create a world for your players and let them loose in it. Let them discover the story through emergent gameplay and their own motivations, their own desires, and choices and let them define their story, and influence their world.
You as the DM might want them to go find the magical sword of holiness to slay the demon at the end of your story, but what they want to do is go to the Dark Forest to see what's there or open a Tavern and create a thieves guild or whatever strikes their fancy. You want your players to care about the story, let them direct and star in it.
We used to play D&D 15y ago, 3.5e. But we were 15 years old. So, there was no story whatsoever, we just wanted to slay things and up level. Random encounters, random monsters, random dungeons of our own nonsense world. Now, we're in our 30s. And I, as a DM, obviously want to give things a more narrative meaning.I don't want my players to be guided through my "railroaded" story or to play as Critical Role does, that's not the case.
But, the world I'm creating, the story behind every scenario they choose to go, that doesn't matter, you know? They didn't even have written their backstories so I can use. I feel like we're stuck in the 15y old mode we used to play and I wonder if this is the "normal play mode" out there
This also might be something to sit down with your players and talk about outside of game. Your friends might be trying to re-create the fun of your game 15 years ago that they remember with lots of nostalgia, while you're getting frustrated trying to do something new and they seem set on not engaging.
Just say something like "for this campaign, I was thinking of having some more story focus, if that's something people are interested in." If they agree that that's something they'd want to try but in game they're still not really putting in the effort, maybe a second discussion as to why that is should take place, maybe remind them that you put work into this game and it doesn't feel great when they murder all the npc's you made without a second thought as to the story they agreed to try out."
This is one of the reasons people stress Session 0's, in order to agree on the tone and focus of the upcoming game.
Regarding the suggestions on "Letting the players writte the story" or "Letting the players choose what they will do", I don't think it's possible for me. I wonder if you guys have any suggestion on that.
We're playing weekly, homebrew world. What I'm currently doing is: I prepare one session (one quest or event), and THATS IS IT. I don't have time to create a sandbox world where they can go whatever they want. I'm flexible in the sense that once they "get there", the prepared adventure/quest I have ready for this session, then yes, then can influence and do what they please, but other than that, I guess I'm railroading them?
The one thing that comes to my mind is to ask one week before: What you guys wanna do next game? And then, depending on the answer I will prepare something accordingly to what they wanna do or go
Regarding the suggestions on "Letting the players writte the story" or "Letting the players choose what they will do", I don't think it's possible for me. I wonder if you guys have any suggestion on that.
We're playing weekly, homebrew world. What I'm currently doing is: I prepare one session (one quest or event), and THATS IS IT. I don't have time to create a sandbox world where they can go whatever they want. I'm flexible in the sense that once they "get there", the prepared adventure/quest I have ready for this session, then yes, then can influence and do what they please, but other than that, I guess I'm railroading them?
The one thing that comes to my mind is to ask one week before: What you guys wanna do next game? And then, depending on the answer I will prepare something accordingly to what they wanna do or go
You nailed it at the end. Always end the session asking the players what their characters will do next. Then they are guiding the actions, and you only have to prep one session's worth of material. Try not to prep sessions with major decision point mid-way through, or you start running into branching sessions which are a huge pain if you're not good at improvising.
Also, hold them to what they decide. If you get together the next time, and they start to say maybe they want to go the other way, tell them out of character that's not what you prepped for and you need them to stick to the plan for now.
And I'd also agree with Charlestheplant. If you want to move on to a different kind of game, you should talk to your buddies about that. Say you'd like to do some more storytelling. Not that there will be less killing bad guys and taking their stuff, but that you're looking to have a reason why they are killing the bad guys and taking their stuff.
Regarding the suggestions on "Letting the players writte the story" or "Letting the players choose what they will do", I don't think it's possible for me. I wonder if you guys have any suggestion on that.
We're playing weekly, homebrew world. What I'm currently doing is: I prepare one session (one quest or event), and THATS IS IT. I don't have time to create a sandbox world where they can go whatever they want. I'm flexible in the sense that once they "get there", the prepared adventure/quest I have ready for this session, then yes, then can influence and do what they please, but other than that, I guess I'm railroading them?
The one thing that comes to my mind is to ask one week before: What you guys wanna do next game? And then, depending on the answer I will prepare something accordingly to what they wanna do or go
What i do when preparing a sandbox is take the starting area, come up with a few npc's/ organizations the players might interact with in a small town, then I come up with three to four plot hooks they might hear around town in the form of rumors or requests from npc's, and then I come up with about 1 encounter associated with each rumor-- no more than that! -- and then I let the players loose in the town, watch them get used to their characters and do some hijinks, and then make sure the plot hooks are heard and I wait to see which one they go for.
That way, by the time they've gotten into character, done a few hijinks about town and listen to some quasi-exposition disguised as dialogue, and done the fist encounter, then the session is about done. That might even take two sessions depending on how much hijinks. That means, instead of prepping four whole adventures because you didn't know which they'd go for, you've basically done the equivalent of one session's worth of prep, and then you can further develope the plot hook your players expressed an interest in without wasting effort on the ones they didn't.
If you're campaign is ongoing and you wanna try something like this, maybe ask for a week or so off so you can prep, and then come back into it with all the hooks in place.
One disclaimer is this doesn't work super well with a "save the world" style story where there's a huge sense of urgency to go do the plot immediately, because then they're not going to feel free to lark about.
Regarding the suggestions on "Letting the players writte the story" or "Letting the players choose what they will do", I don't think it's possible for me. I wonder if you guys have any suggestion on that.
We're playing weekly, homebrew world. What I'm currently doing is: I prepare one session (one quest or event), and THATS IS IT. I don't have time to create a sandbox world where they can go whatever they want. I'm flexible in the sense that once they "get there", the prepared adventure/quest I have ready for this session, then yes, then can influence and do what they please, but other than that, I guess I'm railroading them?
The one thing that comes to my mind is to ask one week before: What you guys wanna do next game? And then, depending on the answer I will prepare something accordingly to what they wanna do or go
The last part is a good start, but if they're disengaged from the story, it's possible it's because they don't feel like what they do matters to it. (Or they just want different things out of the game than you do; it's hard to tell from here.)
And yeah, rolling with the players' actions is hard if you're not used to it, and not everyone is good at it. It probably works better if your style is low-prep to start with.
I am a classical over-prepper - spending a lot of time researching lore, and putting adventures together, many of which link to an overarching story.
My players sometimes care, and sometimes do not. I think it's reasonable to say that from a pure efficiency perspective, I end up with a lot of "wasted" material.
However, to me it is not wasted. It is what helps me create a setting that I can confidently portray to the players in the level of detail needed at the time. Moreover, it gives me hours of fun for myself to create it - not as much fun perhaps as the actual game, but a different kind of enjoyment. I think the key thing is that I partially do it to be as good a DM as I can, and partly for my own enjoyment - and recognising this is important in my opinion.
I can, and have, run completely improvising settings as well when things take a wild left turn - and it often leads to great fun, and is often equally exciting for the player. However, the variation is important in my opinion. If you have a well-crafted story with enough space to let the players be their characters, you will feel more confident in your material as a DM, and probably also be able to relax more, and let those random and unexpected elements flow in too.
I guess the only thing is if you feel time-limited, and want to maximise the prep:game ratio consistently - then its obviously an issue, and maybe just go with either existing material, or wing it completely :)
But most of all - also recognise the elements outside of the game session itself that give you enjoyment, and culture those - even if the characters don't even look in that room or ask about the family history of that lord :) (You can also reuse material that wasn't explored in other sessions/settings - so it is rarely lost effort!)
I think it is important to know the difference between story and backstory.
It sounds like what you are talking about is the backstory of the game. Why is there a ghost here. Why does this person what this thing? This is also called "lore", and players usually ignore it because it is, well, not important. Hell, one of the best ways to see player's eyes glaze over is to start talking about the lore of a person/place/continent. That stuff is what us DMs put in the game for our own benefit. We like it. It's fun for us.
It is not fun for players.
If you want to make stuff about the world interesting, make sure to put it in the story, not back story. How to do this? Make knowing, and *acting on*, that information necessary in order to proceed. It is part of the now. Not scenery. To use your examples;
Why did the Goblins kidnap such a person? To solve the problem, the players need to find out why the goblins kidnapped this person, or if the players don't find out why then something bad will happen. If they don't need to solve that problem then the question is just flavour. It is not relevant. It's not part of the story.
What were the ambitions of the resident of this dungeon? Do they need to know what these ambitions were in order to solve the puzzle of the dungeon? If not, it is not important.
Why he was a ghost? This is the easiest one to think of an example for - the players need to find out why he is a ghost, and fix his 'unfinished business' or the ghost will keep coming back. Killing it only dispels it for a night. If the players don't need to know this information, if knowing it is not part of the story, then it is irrelevant.
What is this lore book we found? Sorry this bored me immediately. It's like those lore books they have in computer games. Ugh. I hate them. Unless the information in the book is relevant to what the characters what to do then the book is nothing. Possibly something they can sell.
You are on the right track. You have all the fun stuff. Now you just gotta make it so the players can play with it, instead of hear you talk about it.
I spent like 6-8 months messing about with the world setting my players are playing in now - but also my players were also involved in inspiring this planning, and as a result, they were very excited about building characters that fit into the setting, who would have real backstories that mattered to the world, and about engaging with the plot, world and story.
Part of this is that I love world-building - writing articles, making maps all of that stuff is super fun for me (I was using world anvil, which was really useful for prompts) But while I was planning this stuff, I was also checking in with my players about which things about it were interesting to them about the world, setting, and what kinds of campaigns they might like to play. Is this excessive? Possibly - but nothing is excessive if you, personally are having a good time. Plus, the players felt invested in the campaign from the beginning, because they also felt like they were involved with the creation of the world. This is kind of a mish-mash of things I've learned from other RPG styles that involve the players more from a worldbuilding standpoint as collaborators rather than consumers, like Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark. DnD doesn't always mix well with that kind of ad-hoc world-building in session, especially when you're trying to balance party dynamics etc, but it works really well in the planning stages.
... as for how thick/thin your story and world-building is from there? I have a set of primary antagonists; They have a goal: Destroy the place where my PCs work. They provided the initial plot hooks. I then proceeded to present my PCs with a goal that meshed with their character's drives for being in that place (Money, Loyalty etc) that put them into conflict with the antagonists. Beyond that? I know how my Antagonists intend to achieve that goal - and in general what their resources are. Those resources don't get specific until I think the PCS are about to clash with them. If they don't choose to this session? Well maybe they get surprised next session, etc. Having all the lore in my back pocket means if they manage to capture and interrogate an enemy operative, or decide to hare off on a shopping trip means I have info to give them or a place where they can go. I also have certain set pieces in my back pocket that I'm very fond of that I'd love for them to encounter (Example: Some surly Kuo-toa that operate a water taxi). But? do they go take the easy path where they can encounter my fun Kuo toa? Of course, they don't, and I have to make a whole new challenge for them. Do I move those little dudes across the map so I can get another run at using this thing I prepared? You bet I do. Its my world, I can do what I want with it.
TL/DR: I involved my players with the planning of the setting, and that made them jazzed about the story; The world was pretty detailed but The story started as simple as: " Bad Guys are trying to do X, you all are in the way" and then got more complicated as the game progressed
I spend all my time creating the setting. As I increase the size of the setting I have more available backstory I can include. Then I place notable NPC's in the setting. surprisingly they are very similar from town to town. Create a large list of NPC's names. You will need them.
Now that you have a setting for your story gather the players backgrounds. Throw out your story and create a new one in your setting from some of the players backgrounds. Start from first level characters and keep the players money, magic, and experience hungry. I do not even start off with legends and lore stuff. That will come around an a few sessions as you get the ideas from the what the players mention during play.
Regarding whether or not it'd make a difference if you made the story more superficial, I'd say it very much depends on how you run your game and how intertwined the different sessions are. You talk about your "stories" (plural) and how bits of your story will never come to light because the players don't ask into it at a specific point in time. You also mention that you railroad the player characters. To me, this all sounds like you are playing a bunch of isolated oneshots in the same world. Small separate stories that have no real connection besides the setting.
If it was an actual campaign-style game, it would be a single 'story' with different chapters if you will. The chapters would be connected, and so there should always be a chance of something in a past chapter being brought up in a future chapter (if you feel a story element from a past chapter was cool/relevant but underexplored, bring it up or make it relevant in a future chapter!). Getting through the prepped session from start to finish wouldn't be a concern because you are not the only one writing the book. You write it together with your players, and if they set a slower pace than you anticipated, forcing a hurried close to the chapter would seem very abrupt and unnatural.
In a oneshot, time (irl) is often a big factor and so railroading (ideally veiled) becomes a necessary way to keep things on track. However, if the players feel their characters being railroaded, the players will likely be less invested in the story (because what they do won't really matter). No need to spend extra energy on something if you know the outcome is going to be the same either way.
I may be misunderstanding your situation, but if I'm not too far off, it might be worth asking yourself if you run campaigns and oneshots the same way. If you find that you do, that'd be the first thing I'd try to change.
I learned the hard way that I need an ongoing, logically self-consistent story or my games fall apart. Apparently encounter design isn't something I'm so great at that it can fill in for story. Likewise, I've had pretty good luck with location based adventures, but even that fails when I have to get the group from one location to another. The only way I can get games to stretch into campaigns is to work in story elements which create continuity. I've gamed with multiple groups and my best experiences as a player have likewise been in stories which were long enough for me to invest in. I think it boils down to patience. I don't have unlimited patience, and neither do my players. We play this game for a sense of profluence--the feeling we're getting somewhere or accomplishing something. Without story, numbers increasing in size or monsters changing type aren't enough to hold interest. It's a complicated understanding that I'm still grappling with. I've managed to hold onto the feeling that D&D is helping me to get closer to a right answer.
I figure out the distance in days traveled. I then role a die for each day. (make up the number to have encounter). On every day they have an encounter use the average perception check for the group to see if they notice first or are surprised by the encounter. If they make the check they get to choose if they want to interact with the opponents of the encounter.
A few roles and a week of travel is over.
Change this as needed if you have a planned encounter during their travel.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I've recently come to the conclusion that maybe my stories don't need to make any sense. I'm trying hard to create a very cohesive story, but the fact is, my players don't care.
They don't seek to know what happens in the background, for example "Why did the Goblins kidnap such a person?", "What is this lore book we found?", "What were the ambitions of the resident of this dungeon? Why he was a ghost?". Anyway, I have cohesive answers to all of this, but that will never come to light since the players are just scratting a thin surface of the whole story. But what if my story was just a thin shell?
I feel like if I do a superficial story and throw them "random encounters" supposely linked to each other it will work just as well. And actually that would bring me a lot less mental effort. On the other hand, it's nice to set up a world, a story, but not so much if nobody really cares.
I would like to know your opinion on this, do you also "suffer" from it? Are your stories well-crafted? Do your players care?
We used to play D&D 15y ago, 3.5e. But we were 15 years old. So, there was no story whatsoever, we just wanted to slay things and up level. Random encounters, random monsters, random dungeons of our own nonsense world. Now, we're in our 30s. And I, as a DM, obviously want to give things a more narrative meaning. I don't want my players to be guided through my "railroaded" story or to play as Critical Role does, that's not the case.
But, the world I'm creating, the story behind every scenario they choose to go, that doesn't matter, you know? They didn't even have written their backstories so I can use. I feel like we're stuck in the 15y old mode we used to play and I wonder if this is the "normal play mode" out there
I try to work out my monster's plots and motivations so I can react sensibly when the PCs do something weird. In all your examples, my goal would be enough information that if the PCs ask I can answer without too much hemming and hawing. As such, necessary levels of detail depend extensively on your ability to improvise.
i'm the opposite of your players. i want to at least have a general understanding why we're going after the mcguffin or stabbing everyone around us in the face. too many details can get overwhelming...but i want a general idea
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
My experience with worldbuilding is: the majority of the details you put in will never be used, but there's no reliable way of figuring out which ones will be, so what you need is a framework that's strong enough to let you improvise consistently. On the OPs players: is the issue that they aren't interested in anything, or is it that they're failing to pick up on specific details you spent time creating? In the first case, that probably indicates that they want something pretty casual; the second case is just the way games work.
Same here. I have to have an underlying plot, an idea of what the big picture is, or I feel lost. My improvisation needs some sort of framework to reside in.
I have learnt the hard way to let go of the hope that the great unwashed at the table will ever see or care about this underlying plot. :-)
Ocasionally it pays off. Maybe twice in the last five years I've had a player say, "Oh, wait, that's why that NPC did that thing a year ago!"
For example, in my last long game the underlying plot was, "A group of mi-go are manipulating kingdoms with the goal of enslaving people and removing them from this planet before the ice age covers it in half a mile of glacier." The players never picked up on it (oh, there are more of those weird insects that can fly through walls, oh, well, moving on to the next encounter) but it afforded most of the actions in the game.
Your story has the make as much sense as a good novel or movie has to make sense. It doesn't have to be realistic, as the world is not realistic, but it has to be conistent within it's own laws and bounderies. Character motivation has to make sense, the presence of certain creatures at certain places has to make sense. NPCs have to act according to their personal motivation as well as within their abilities.
+ Instaboot to murderhobos + I don't watch Critical Role, and no, I really shouldn't either +
Not everything has to make sense, but most things should. That isn't to say the players will be interested in every little thing in your world, but when something particularly does grab their interest and they ask their DM about it who just kinda shrugs and goes "I don't know", that breaks immersion and reinforces the message that nothing in the game is significant and makes them feel silly for thinking they might invest some interest after all. Keep doing that, and it's a mistake they'll make less and less.
As far as your players go, I would be surprised if they were truly not curious or interested about anything in the game. It's true that players are fickle creatures-- they're never interested in the things you yell them to be-- but the question is this: how free are your players to discover things in the game? If you put a bunch of goblins in front of them because the story you wrote says it's goblin time, and the players don't show a ton of interest but you push ahead anyways, don't be surprised if they don't care who's being kidnapped or why.
I always like to *have* answers ready, but I don't give them out until players ask questions. Then, based off what they show interest in, I prepare content for future sessions, RATHER than preparing content and hoping the players engage with it because I don't have anything else prepped.
You pique player interest through interesting description of vistas and events, and they call it a plot hook because hearing a rumor about the dinosaurs being displaced from their mountain home to the east compels the player to look into it based off their interest. Player choice has everything to do with player engagement.
This also might be something to sit down with your players and talk about outside of game. Your friends might be trying to re-create the fun of your game 15 years ago that they remember with lots of nostalgia, while you're getting frustrated trying to do something new and they seem set on not engaging.
Just say something like "for this campaign, I was thinking of having some more story focus, if that's something people are interested in." If they agree that that's something they'd want to try but in game they're still not really putting in the effort, maybe a second discussion as to why that is should take place, maybe remind them that you put work into this game and it doesn't feel great when they murder all the npc's you made without a second thought as to the story they agreed to try out."
This is one of the reasons people stress Session 0's, in order to agree on the tone and focus of the upcoming game.
Regarding the suggestions on "Letting the players writte the story" or "Letting the players choose what they will do", I don't think it's possible for me. I wonder if you guys have any suggestion on that.
We're playing weekly, homebrew world. What I'm currently doing is: I prepare one session (one quest or event), and THATS IS IT. I don't have time to create a sandbox world where they can go whatever they want. I'm flexible in the sense that once they "get there", the prepared adventure/quest I have ready for this session, then yes, then can influence and do what they please, but other than that, I guess I'm railroading them?
The one thing that comes to my mind is to ask one week before: What you guys wanna do next game? And then, depending on the answer I will prepare something accordingly to what they wanna do or go
You nailed it at the end. Always end the session asking the players what their characters will do next. Then they are guiding the actions, and you only have to prep one session's worth of material. Try not to prep sessions with major decision point mid-way through, or you start running into branching sessions which are a huge pain if you're not good at improvising.
Also, hold them to what they decide. If you get together the next time, and they start to say maybe they want to go the other way, tell them out of character that's not what you prepped for and you need them to stick to the plan for now.
And I'd also agree with Charlestheplant. If you want to move on to a different kind of game, you should talk to your buddies about that. Say you'd like to do some more storytelling. Not that there will be less killing bad guys and taking their stuff, but that you're looking to have a reason why they are killing the bad guys and taking their stuff.
What i do when preparing a sandbox is take the starting area, come up with a few npc's/ organizations the players might interact with in a small town, then I come up with three to four plot hooks they might hear around town in the form of rumors or requests from npc's, and then I come up with about 1 encounter associated with each rumor-- no more than that! -- and then I let the players loose in the town, watch them get used to their characters and do some hijinks, and then make sure the plot hooks are heard and I wait to see which one they go for.
That way, by the time they've gotten into character, done a few hijinks about town and listen to some quasi-exposition disguised as dialogue, and done the fist encounter, then the session is about done. That might even take two sessions depending on how much hijinks. That means, instead of prepping four whole adventures because you didn't know which they'd go for, you've basically done the equivalent of one session's worth of prep, and then you can further develope the plot hook your players expressed an interest in without wasting effort on the ones they didn't.
If you're campaign is ongoing and you wanna try something like this, maybe ask for a week or so off so you can prep, and then come back into it with all the hooks in place.
One disclaimer is this doesn't work super well with a "save the world" style story where there's a huge sense of urgency to go do the plot immediately, because then they're not going to feel free to lark about.
The last part is a good start, but if they're disengaged from the story, it's possible it's because they don't feel like what they do matters to it. (Or they just want different things out of the game than you do; it's hard to tell from here.)
And yeah, rolling with the players' actions is hard if you're not used to it, and not everyone is good at it. It probably works better if your style is low-prep to start with.
I am a classical over-prepper - spending a lot of time researching lore, and putting adventures together, many of which link to an overarching story.
My players sometimes care, and sometimes do not. I think it's reasonable to say that from a pure efficiency perspective, I end up with a lot of "wasted" material.
However, to me it is not wasted. It is what helps me create a setting that I can confidently portray to the players in the level of detail needed at the time. Moreover, it gives me hours of fun for myself to create it - not as much fun perhaps as the actual game, but a different kind of enjoyment. I think the key thing is that I partially do it to be as good a DM as I can, and partly for my own enjoyment - and recognising this is important in my opinion.
I can, and have, run completely improvising settings as well when things take a wild left turn - and it often leads to great fun, and is often equally exciting for the player. However, the variation is important in my opinion. If you have a well-crafted story with enough space to let the players be their characters, you will feel more confident in your material as a DM, and probably also be able to relax more, and let those random and unexpected elements flow in too.
I guess the only thing is if you feel time-limited, and want to maximise the prep:game ratio consistently - then its obviously an issue, and maybe just go with either existing material, or wing it completely :)
But most of all - also recognise the elements outside of the game session itself that give you enjoyment, and culture those - even if the characters don't even look in that room or ask about the family history of that lord :) (You can also reuse material that wasn't explored in other sessions/settings - so it is rarely lost effort!)
I think it is important to know the difference between story and backstory.
It sounds like what you are talking about is the backstory of the game. Why is there a ghost here. Why does this person what this thing? This is also called "lore", and players usually ignore it because it is, well, not important. Hell, one of the best ways to see player's eyes glaze over is to start talking about the lore of a person/place/continent. That stuff is what us DMs put in the game for our own benefit. We like it. It's fun for us.
It is not fun for players.
If you want to make stuff about the world interesting, make sure to put it in the story, not back story. How to do this? Make knowing, and *acting on*, that information necessary in order to proceed. It is part of the now. Not scenery. To use your examples;
Why did the Goblins kidnap such a person? To solve the problem, the players need to find out why the goblins kidnapped this person, or if the players don't find out why then something bad will happen. If they don't need to solve that problem then the question is just flavour. It is not relevant. It's not part of the story.
What were the ambitions of the resident of this dungeon? Do they need to know what these ambitions were in order to solve the puzzle of the dungeon? If not, it is not important.
Why he was a ghost? This is the easiest one to think of an example for - the players need to find out why he is a ghost, and fix his 'unfinished business' or the ghost will keep coming back. Killing it only dispels it for a night. If the players don't need to know this information, if knowing it is not part of the story, then it is irrelevant.
What is this lore book we found? Sorry this bored me immediately. It's like those lore books they have in computer games. Ugh. I hate them. Unless the information in the book is relevant to what the characters what to do then the book is nothing. Possibly something they can sell.
You are on the right track. You have all the fun stuff. Now you just gotta make it so the players can play with it, instead of hear you talk about it.
I spent like 6-8 months messing about with the world setting my players are playing in now - but also my players were also involved in inspiring this planning, and as a result, they were very excited about building characters that fit into the setting, who would have real backstories that mattered to the world, and about engaging with the plot, world and story.
Part of this is that I love world-building - writing articles, making maps all of that stuff is super fun for me (I was using world anvil, which was really useful for prompts) But while I was planning this stuff, I was also checking in with my players about which things about it were interesting to them about the world, setting, and what kinds of campaigns they might like to play. Is this excessive? Possibly - but nothing is excessive if you, personally are having a good time. Plus, the players felt invested in the campaign from the beginning, because they also felt like they were involved with the creation of the world. This is kind of a mish-mash of things I've learned from other RPG styles that involve the players more from a worldbuilding standpoint as collaborators rather than consumers, like Dungeon World or Blades in the Dark. DnD doesn't always mix well with that kind of ad-hoc world-building in session, especially when you're trying to balance party dynamics etc, but it works really well in the planning stages.
... as for how thick/thin your story and world-building is from there? I have a set of primary antagonists; They have a goal: Destroy the place where my PCs work. They provided the initial plot hooks. I then proceeded to present my PCs with a goal that meshed with their character's drives for being in that place (Money, Loyalty etc) that put them into conflict with the antagonists. Beyond that? I know how my Antagonists intend to achieve that goal - and in general what their resources are. Those resources don't get specific until I think the PCS are about to clash with them. If they don't choose to this session? Well maybe they get surprised next session, etc. Having all the lore in my back pocket means if they manage to capture and interrogate an enemy operative, or decide to hare off on a shopping trip means I have info to give them or a place where they can go. I also have certain set pieces in my back pocket that I'm very fond of that I'd love for them to encounter (Example: Some surly Kuo-toa that operate a water taxi). But? do they go take the easy path where they can encounter my fun Kuo toa? Of course, they don't, and I have to make a whole new challenge for them. Do I move those little dudes across the map so I can get another run at using this thing I prepared? You bet I do. Its my world, I can do what I want with it.
TL/DR: I involved my players with the planning of the setting, and that made them jazzed about the story; The world was pretty detailed but The story started as simple as: " Bad Guys are trying to do X, you all are in the way" and then got more complicated as the game progressed
dabbler in diverse and detailed worlds
I spend all my time creating the setting. As I increase the size of the setting I have more available backstory I can include. Then I place notable NPC's in the setting. surprisingly they are very similar from town to town. Create a large list of NPC's names. You will need them.
Now that you have a setting for your story gather the players backgrounds. Throw out your story and create a new one in your setting from some of the players backgrounds. Start from first level characters and keep the players money, magic, and experience hungry. I do not even start off with legends and lore stuff. That will come around an a few sessions as you get the ideas from the what the players mention during play.
Regarding whether or not it'd make a difference if you made the story more superficial, I'd say it very much depends on how you run your game and how intertwined the different sessions are. You talk about your "stories" (plural) and how bits of your story will never come to light because the players don't ask into it at a specific point in time. You also mention that you railroad the player characters. To me, this all sounds like you are playing a bunch of isolated oneshots in the same world. Small separate stories that have no real connection besides the setting.
If it was an actual campaign-style game, it would be a single 'story' with different chapters if you will. The chapters would be connected, and so there should always be a chance of something in a past chapter being brought up in a future chapter (if you feel a story element from a past chapter was cool/relevant but underexplored, bring it up or make it relevant in a future chapter!). Getting through the prepped session from start to finish wouldn't be a concern because you are not the only one writing the book. You write it together with your players, and if they set a slower pace than you anticipated, forcing a hurried close to the chapter would seem very abrupt and unnatural.
In a oneshot, time (irl) is often a big factor and so railroading (ideally veiled) becomes a necessary way to keep things on track. However, if the players feel their characters being railroaded, the players will likely be less invested in the story (because what they do won't really matter). No need to spend extra energy on something if you know the outcome is going to be the same either way.
I may be misunderstanding your situation, but if I'm not too far off, it might be worth asking yourself if you run campaigns and oneshots the same way. If you find that you do, that'd be the first thing I'd try to change.
I learned the hard way that I need an ongoing, logically self-consistent story or my games fall apart. Apparently encounter design isn't something I'm so great at that it can fill in for story. Likewise, I've had pretty good luck with location based adventures, but even that fails when I have to get the group from one location to another. The only way I can get games to stretch into campaigns is to work in story elements which create continuity. I've gamed with multiple groups and my best experiences as a player have likewise been in stories which were long enough for me to invest in. I think it boils down to patience. I don't have unlimited patience, and neither do my players. We play this game for a sense of profluence--the feeling we're getting somewhere or accomplishing something. Without story, numbers increasing in size or monsters changing type aren't enough to hold interest. It's a complicated understanding that I'm still grappling with. I've managed to hold onto the feeling that D&D is helping me to get closer to a right answer.
As for handling travel between locations.
I figure out the distance in days traveled. I then role a die for each day. (make up the number to have encounter). On every day they have an encounter use the average perception check for the group to see if they notice first or are surprised by the encounter. If they make the check they get to choose if they want to interact with the opponents of the encounter.
A few roles and a week of travel is over.
Change this as needed if you have a planned encounter during their travel.