Just interested to hear your stories.  I gave up quite early on as a DM making campaigns and stories for the party, instead I drop them in a living breathing world where things happen with or without them.

It makes them feel less like protagonists but they feel like they have a real impact on the world, so when they get into a fight, or have the town guard chasing them, defeat the bandit clan, they feel more rewarded.  Down side it they sometimes have nothing to do, but on the plus I get a lot more creativity getting to add a little bit of a lot of things and see what bites.  What does everyone else do, is there a preference?  I’d love to hear your opinions.

The problem with a completely open sandbox world is that of Player/Character motivation - something you called out yourself.

I'm 100% on board with a living, breathing, persistent, and dynamic world; I love doing that, and I love the Party seeing the effects they have on the World - but you don't have to be completely hands off with the story around the Party, even so.

I don't believe that GMs create stories, but they do create the world ( you've got that part down ), and one or more ongoing Conflicts in which the Party is involved. I think that last step is important to give the Party focus and direction - so long as the Party has a motivation for being involved in the conflicts. In a dynamic world, the conflict is going to evolve, and eventually resolve, even if the Party is not involved. They're not locked onto rails; they can do anything they want, go anywhere they want, whenever - but their choices do have in-world consequences. 

If you keep throwing conflict hooks at them, they should never have periods where they have nothing to do; they should have multiple choices for adventure at any given time. How they manage those choices is up to them, but their choices to be involved in this conflict, and shape the outcome, but ignore that conflict, will all have in-world effects. They are Heroes; their choices affect the larger world.

If you want an exhaustive treatment of how I approach a more open-ended, conflict focused sandbox, adventure design where the GM doesn't pre-design a Narrative structure, but still can create a set of polished Encounters for the Party, in a living dynamic world, I'd point you here.

I have noticed that open-world games usually just fizzle out after a while. As I grow older and have less time to play I realize that I and my players are more looking to have each session mean something. So I started running episodic campaigns, which means that every session has a narrative beginning, middle, and end. In all actuality, a series of one-shots, each a self-contained adventure, but all connect together to a big story. (It works amazingly with Vampire: The Masquerade and Shadowrun, less with D&D)

All in all, I will always go for a campaign rather than world. Though I will give my players some freedom, and I will make sure that the world feels alive, with or without the PCs. For example, I am running Ghosts of Saltmarsh now. I want to do Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh, Danger at Dunwater and then end the campaign with The Final Enemy. Between Danger at Dunwater and The Final Enemy, there's a space for two adventures. So I am going to give my players many options on what to do between level 4 to 7. But all of those options are adventures that I have prepared, I am not going to just let them roam around and pass the time, mostly because it will just destroy the pacing of the campaign. 

I think there is a huge difference between providing a clear narrative path option - This is an obvious next option in the adventure -  which admittedly most Players will travel down, and saying "I am not going to just let them roam around and pass the time, mostly because it will just destroy the pacing of the campaign" ( my emphasis ).

A GM who has pre-decided the Narrative path doesn't need the Players; they know what the story is going to be ( face it, most GMs won't let the Party fail an Encounter, so the Encounters are going to unfold on the GM's schedule ), and a certain class of Player will rebel strongly against being strong armed down Narrative pathsm, to the point of chaotic actions. Not all tables have such Players, but unless you have a super stable gaming group of "audience member" Players ( and you may ), someone is going to chafe under that kind of control.

Ironically, per-determining how the Campaign is going to unfold removes the meaning from the Players: I do A, and we have to go to Waterdeep? I do B ... and we have to go to Waterdeep ... so what meaning does my choice have?

I know I'd hate that, from either side of the screen. As a Player I want to choose my own goals and paths, thank you. I'd look at your list pre-planned, pre-published modules, and then go off an do what I and my Character want to do. As a GM, I've learned to roll with that kind of play, because I enjoy being surprised by the plot development and the unfolding of the story as much as my Players. I'd be bored to tears with a stack of pre-published modules like that.

As for Players destroying pre-planned Pacing: the ability to dynamically adjust the pacing ( by introducing plot twists, external events, and actions/re-actions by the NPC factions in the conflict ) is a pretty basic GM skill, in my opinion.

I agree that having the session "mean something" is highly desirable, but a) that is mostly the responsibility of the Players, and slapping training wheels on their Character sheets by baking in an inescapable meaning into the GM pre-determined Session structure means that Players are that much less likely to learn to play meaningfully, and b) If the GM is dynamically controlling pacing through external events, those events can add meaning to the Characters actions or even their inactions; you sat around haggling over a sword for three hours, and the Blacksmith's daughter died; failure sucks, but it doesn't lack for meaning or consequences.

Open Narrative frameworks absolutely can fizzle out if they're mis-managed, but I believe that's more a failure of the management, not the style. 

I can see not wanting to take on that amount of work, but at that point I really have to question why the GM is there at all. If the Adventure is written by someone else,  and the unfolding of the events pre-determined by the GM, it might as well be a choose-your-own-adventure book, or a video game - and frankly video games have better graphics, and even a social aspect in multi-player, so where's the advantage of playing a TTRPG then?

GM'ing is hard work. It's learning to deal with chaos and surprises, and messy Player free will, and having the tools in your back pocket to still manage pacing and significance. If you don't have the time, or the energy to do that, the answer is not to dumb down your game, or shackle your Players' choices. 

The answer might be to hand the DMG to someone else for awhile, and roll up a Character.

Or there's always video games.

I typically run a champagne. My players would spend all day debating on what they would want to do next if I left it completely open. Each player's backstory has certain plot hooks. I have one player trying to find lost pieces that will lead them to an inheritance, another is destined to protect a child of prophecy, one is being hunted by shadowy forces. So between major story hooks they have the freedom to go where they please. Once they make a decision I figure out how to tie it into the story. For the most part they still have no idea where the story will go.

Quote from Vedexent >>

I think there is a huge difference between providing a clear narrative path option - This is an obvious next option in the adventure -  which admittedly most Players will travel down, and saying "I am not going to just let them roam around and pass the time, mostly because it will just destroy the pacing of the campaign" ( my emphasis ).

A GM who has pre-decided the Narrative path doesn't need the Players; they know what the story is going to be ( face it, most GMs won't let the Party fail an Encounter, so the Encounters are going to unfold on the GM's schedule ), and a certain class of Player will rebel strongly against being strong armed down Narrative pathsm, to the point of chaotic actions. Not all tables have such Players, but unless you have a super stable gaming group of "audience member" Players ( and you may ), someone is going to chafe under that kind of control.

Ironically, per-determining how the Campaign is going to unfold removes the meaning from the Players: I do A, and we have to go to Waterdeep? I do B ... and we have to go to Waterdeep ... so what meaning does my choice have?

I know I'd hate that, from either side of the screen. As a Player I want to choose my own goals and paths, thank you. I'd look at your list pre-planned, pre-published modules, and then go off an do what I and my Character want to do. As a GM, I've learned to roll with that kind of play, because I enjoy being surprised by the plot development and the unfolding of the story as much as my Players. I'd be bored to tears with a stack of pre-published modules like that.

As for Players destroying pre-planned Pacing: the ability to dynamically adjust the pacing ( by introducing plot twists, external events, and actions/re-actions by the NPC factions in the conflict ) is a pretty basic GM skill, in my opinion.

I agree that having the session "mean something" is highly desirable, but a) that is mostly the responsibility of the Players, and slapping training wheels on their Character sheets by baking in an inescapable meaning into the GM pre-determined Session structure means that Players are that much less likely to learn to play meaningfully, and b) If the GM is dynamically controlling pacing through external events, those events can add meaning to the Characters actions or even their inactions; you sat around haggling over a sword for three hours, and the Blacksmith's daughter died; failure sucks, but it doesn't lack for meaning or consequences.

Open Narrative frameworks absolutely can fizzle out if they're mis-managed, but I believe that's more a failure of the management, not the style. 

I can see not wanting to take on that amount of work, but at that point I really have to question why the GM is there at all. If the Adventure is written by someone else,  and the unfolding of the events pre-determined by the GM, it might as well be a choose-your-own-adventure book, or a video game - and frankly video games have better graphics, and even a social aspect in multi-player, so where's the advantage of playing a TTRPG then?

GM'ing is hard work. It's learning to deal with chaos and surprises, and messy Player free will, and having the tools in your back pocket to still manage pacing and significance. If you don't have the time, or the energy to do that, the answer is not to dumb down your game, or shackle your Players' choices. 

The answer might be to hand the DMG to someone else for awhile, and roll up a Character.

Or there's always video games.

 I understand what you are saying. But, as a DM I must consider my players' playstyle. Not every group is built for the ideas that you are presenting. In my group, for example, some players just want to defeat the challenges I put in front of them, while others drive the plot and have many ideas about what they want to do with their character.

I now run Ghosts of Saltmarsh. For me the premise is great, it's a great theme, there're cults, and fish people, and evil wizards. Each player in my group have their own character motivation, and I know that they will take me there and attempt to tell me and the rest of the players their character's story as we explore it together. A module is not a prison, it is a framework. I have no clue how the campaign will end, I don't know what my players will do with the rumors and treasures they collect.

There is a huge difference between a book and having a DM run a game for you. And there are many right ways to do it, as long as everyone is having fun at the table you already doing something good. I think you should be open to more playstyles rather than the one that you feel is the correct one. For me, the second thing after having fun is to give my players the freedom to take the game and make it their own. This is exactly what happened when we played our episodic Vampire campaign. I had no clue what will happen next, it was thrilling and very exciting to see the story progress, and we also managed to make each session a closed circle, a one-shot, a small vignette into the characters' life.

In the end, it depends on the group. I run for my friends for many years (almost 20), I know my group by heart. I know when they just want to have fun and run through a module (like we are going to do with the Curse of Strahd which they asked me to run them for a long time now), and when they want a sandbox game like we had when we played Numenera and Apocalypse World.

But yes, I won't let my players roam around and do nothing. If I will see that they are aimless, if I see that one player is lost, I will step in and make something interesting, engage them with the world, motivate them to act, or even call for a break and talk to one of the more dominant players and ask them to maybe try to include the player a bit more. We usually have one session per month, we have families, kids, work and well, life. So we as a group are not going to have a boring session when we meet we want it to mean something and we want to feel progression, and sometimes it means sacrificing a little bit of freedom.

Quote from Godforsaken >> 

I understand what you are saying. But, as a DM I must consider my players' playstyle. Not every group is built for the ideas that you are presenting. In my group, for example, some players just want to defeat the challenges I put in front of them, while others drive the plot and have many ideas about what they want to do with their character.

...

There is a huge difference between a book and having a DM run a game for you. And there are many right ways to do it, as long as everyone is having fun at the table you already doing something good. I think you should be open to more playstyles rather than the one that you feel is the correct one. For me, the second thing after having fun is to give my players the freedom to take the game and make it their own. 

...

In the end, it depends on the group. I run for my friends for many years (almost 20), I know my group by heart. 

...

But yes, I won't let my players roam around and do nothing. 

I think we actually have some common ground here.

I agree 100% that the GM has to match the style of GM'ing to the style of the Players. And I agree that so long as everyone is having fun, the game is a win ( more on that later). I also believe the GM is one of those Players ( for the sake of that argument, let's just call everyone Group Members ).

In part, that's why I think building a gaming group composed of like minded Group Members, who have compatible styles, is something that should be done if you can. If you have an old established group, that's not an option. If you are limited by population and geography to these 5 people, who are the only local Players you can get, that hasn't been a practical option until relatively recently, and the popularization of services like Discord, Roll20, etc ( although as soon as any zero-to-low-cost VOIP conferencing service became available, this was an option ).

In short - if the style of GM control that you are describing is in response to the Player needs, I agree that's how the GM should be running the game; no arguments from me at all.That why I included the qualifier " .. but unless you have a super stable gaming group of "audience member" Players ( and you may ) ... '; if you do, I see no issues.

There's two caveats here. though:

1) It is my experience ( also multiple decades, although not the solidity of a single group ) that -  and I'm not accusing you of this; I'll take your assertions as to your Group makeup on good faith  - many (most?) GMs who exert that high a level of narrative control do not do this in response to perceived Player needs, but rather to make the GM's life easier. Restricting Player agency over the game, for no other reason that the GM doesn't want to put in the work, and thus the Players are presented with a much lesser experience than would be possible, is something I don't agree with. Merely having some fun might be a win, but having reduced fun because the GM is to lazy/scared/insecure to let the Players have a say in the Narrative's creation is - in my opinion - cheating the Players, who would be better suited to have someone else in the GM seat. It is rather like going to a Michelin level chef's restaurant, and being served a Big Mac, because the chef just can't be bothered tonight. I wouldn't go back.

2) Players who are never given the opportunity to assert Narrative influence, never learn to assert Narrative influence. This is tricky, since Players who don't want Narrative influence will usually flounder around when given it, so the GM needs to be careful with this. I would - and do - extend the in-game possibilities for that Player, and make it clear they have that possibility, but not require that they seize the reins by having the game flow stall if they don't pick them up. However, I keep extending the invitation even to the most passive Players, and very occasionally, even they accept.

I'm open to multiple playstyles that are honestly the preference of the Group in question, and match the needs/capabilities of those Players. I'm not open to cheating the Players by forcing a playstyle on them which truncates their experience, and their fun, solely because the GM won't do their job.

"Everyone is having fun" has become go-to defense that GMs invoke for their style - and that defense has merit. But is it really an ironclad a defense as people seem to think it is when a more honest version of that statement is "Everyone is having 25% as much fun as they could be having, because I can't be bothered or I don't trust my Players "? 

Ultimately - for me - it comes down to the GM's intent, and the level of effort they're putting into the game.

I believe there is a large difference between "I am not going to just let them roam around and pass the time, mostly because it will just destroy the pacing of the campaign" - which to me reads as "I'm not going to let the Players mess with what I've already decided is going to be the Narrative flow for my Game", and "I won't let my players roam around and do nothing" - which to me reads as "I'm going to manage my game flow when the Players get stuck and start floundering".

The latter I can respect, the former, I do not.

I run a large campaign world with all sorts of things going on around the players. I will come up with various different hooks and whatnot for the players and see what they might grab on to. I do still have an overall main event/story/quest that is moving along as well. When the players are young in their levels I will slowly bring them into the the main story. There are also times where I might change the main campaign goal depending on the overall interest the players have with it. I do this early on most of the time. Something I like to do is also keep a calendar of my world on hand. I also have one for the players if they want to keep track of the days or yearly events. However on my version of the calendar I will have several noted events and such. This way I can move fourth with these events based on weather the players acted on it or not. It could be good or bad for the world, or even them. I will just continue to loosely plot out those for a while just in case I decide to develop them farther. I will say that I just started using a calendar in my game and have been running games for a very long time. I found it to be a very useful tool when it comes to long term games.