I am going to again suggest that this is a player problem. Handling this in game will most likely not solve the issue.
^^^^This.
Kaavel stole what I was going to say. You can't solve player issues in character. Talk to the players. Tell them you are not down for this sort of game. Ask them why they are being rude for no reason to NPCs who are friendly and helpful. See what the players say.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Either way it seems like the main disconnect between the DM and players is that they're both trying to play different games, so it's a struggle between them to get the game they want out onto the table. If you talk about the game you want and come to an agreement, you stop fighting each other and work together and it'll be way easier all around.
Hello all, I wanted to start off this mega-replay by saying; the reason I've been quite silent on this thread since posting is that it was finals week for me AND I ended up having a discussion with my players, so it was intensely busy for me. I'm really sorry I haven't been able to keep up, but I want to do so now! This comment from Charles is basically right on the money, the players felt very tonally disconnected from the story that I wanted to tell. I think the main issue for them is that I wrote my own homebrew world and populated most of it, and apparently inadvertently, made it seem like the campaign would be a "choose your own adventure" style game, where the players could go anywhere and do anything. I plan on addressing this part with the players again sometime in the future, because as a DM that is not something that I really want to explore, I want to tell a story about a cult trying to smoosh all the gods back into one. If that means I'm a railroad DM then I will formally hand in my badge to the nearest Hobby Shoppe. Doing it this way, more akin to a prewritten campaign, means that it's a lot less effort for me going forward because I know what the cult is doing and they are the only thing I have to worry about, not what Sampson Littlefinger is doing on the other side of the continent.
I'm going to lay it out as I see it, because the immediately visible problem and the actual problem aren't always the same.
The surface problem
The players treat the world like their own personal playground, where they can act like complete jerks. This is frustrating for the DM.
Underlying problems
As a DM, it's actually really not fun to have to roleplay people being disrespectful and annoying to you all the time.
The players believe that they can rely on being the main characters to ensure that everything still happens as they want it.
If the DM doesn't allow the players to get away with it, the game falls off the map.
The actual problem, at its core:
The DM wants the players to play the game that they have planned.
The players are not invested in the goals or missions that they find themselves in, or the game that the DM has planned.
The players believe their characters are indestructible - and they are
Much of the advice here is to take the players head on at their own game in the most combative way possible - "Put your foot down as DM, and show them that your NPCs won't be disrespected!" This is usually very good advice - all of my NPCs react in ways I find legitimate. They are proud, they are flawed, they are mean, they are kind - they all react as individuals. But I am also blessed with players who understand their part of the contract, and that's where this DM is having issues:
The players are ignoring the part of the contract that says that the DM gets to have fun, the DM's preparation is valuable, and that the DM's role is not to simply facilitate whatever goofing around they feel like doing on the day.
What the players are really enjoying is free licence to act like complete asshats. They don't do that in real life, I expect. But now they feel like they are in Westworld - and many D&D players do this - and they can indulge all the bad things that they'd never do in the real world.
You do have two options. One option is, if you feel that the players are up to it, to say to them "Guys, I know its been fun but just be aware, from this point on the NPCs are going to react to you exactly as you deserve. If this means that nobody will give you a mission, take you on a ship, or whatever, then so be it." The second option - and the one I'd go for personally - is to treat them the same way you would Murder Hobos. You introduce a pair of NPCs many, many levels higher than the PCs and set them up to be allies, but don't make them friendly. Have them conduct themselves with a knowing, smirking confidence. Have them treat the PCs with distant courtesy. When the players take the bait, let the NPCs loose on them.
I'll offer this warning here: there is a reasonable chance that either of these options can end your game. If what the players enjoy is running around being jerks and you shut that down by hammering them into the ground with NPCs, then they may lose interest in the game. If you tell them that you don't enjoy designing NPCs only to be smart-mouthed by the players, they may feel chastised and lose interest in the game. But sometimes, it's better to end a game and find new players that to endlessly endure crappy player behaviour. I've done it myself, and spent 6 months trying to work with players who wanted to play in a way that disrespected the preparation I did, and it's just not worth it. DMs are in short supply; players are ten a penny.
This is a really good suggestion, and a very very good breakdown of what is actually going on, so hat's off to you. Yes, I made a very critical blunder in making the campaign in that the players had no idea who they would be fighting, so they each made characters who varied greatly in their desires, goals, wants. And they are all now smooshed together in the party, a party that is meant to go solve a world-threatening problem, but they have no real character reason to do so.
Ultimately, I think this is my own fault as a DM, I wanted to tell a singular story, but I neglected to tell the players what that story would be before we started. Thus, they made characters who had no investment in the story. I am trying to rectify this now by asking them to each work with me over the coming weeks to add things into their backstory which can help me to bring them into the story, without just... kidnapping their parents, which I could do but I don't necessarily want to keep doing over and over.
The first thing I thought when I looked at the topic line was "You make the npcs people worthy of the player's respect."
If your players won't do that with their characters, hold another session zero if you haven't done so already. Then talk to each player in private to find out what they really would like to play.
I ended up doing this, because I felt there was not just a tonal disconnect between the characters being played and the story they were in, but also between me and the players. We had a discussion where I told them where I was at headspace-wise, that I don't want to continue writing NPCs and quests and shit for the game unless something changes. They mostly understood and I'm planning on giving them all a second chance, hopefully moving forward the campaign is a lot smoother!
OP, I notice that you are invested in the story, but maybe the players aren't?
"I really don't know what to do anymore, I'm at my wit's end. The players are at a point in the story where if they don't get help from a group, a sponsor of sorts, their mission will fail. In short, they have to find where their enemies are located, but they don't have the resources to do it, but they keep being rude to the people who are trying to help them."
I would highly recommend you have a Q&A with your players about what they want in the game and maybe what you expect from them. Your expression of frustration points out that you are pushing them into a story that they aren't vested in. They don't care if the mission fails, you've pointed to it yourself. If they are fine with the game as built, let them run how they want.
Why not make their decisions matter? Forcing them to accept help is railroading. Making them follow your mission plan is taking away their agency. Suggesting a path, direction or course of action as the DM is help enough. If they seem to be struggling to make a decision, summarizing choices can make choosing easier. Should your PCs choose to not follow the MacGuffin into the terrible place of evil and allow your BBE to succeed and do nasty things to the world at large, so be it. Show them the consequences of their choice, make it matter. Conversely, when they decide to accomplish good things that are pleasant and helpful to the world, show them those consequences as well - the rewards and acceptance of the world at large.
Failure is always a potential outcome.
I think you're right, I am kind of railroading them in that I want to tell a specific story and I don't necessarily want to explore more of the world until later in levels (for context, they're level 6 and the cult shit will be going on until level 10ish). Once we're past level 10-11 I would be happy to open up the world a bit more and explore backstory stuff. But for now I have a story that I really want to tell, but I didn't say anything to the group about that before starting.
During the discussion I had with the group, it did come up that I was perhaps being a bit too limiting on their agency, which in retrospect I really was. I'm not absolved of blame in this situation for sure, and I'm going to do my best to move forward with allowing the group to have more choices. This all happened because another group that I DM for tends to flounder if they aren't given clear direction, a place to go, a person to chase, a specific quest. They were the first group that I DMed for, so I thought that was normal and employed that idea for this group as well, not realizing that they had expected a lot more breathing room in their decision-making. This is 100% my fault, and I hope to rectify it in the future.
I think too many people try solve real world problems with ingame propositions. While it is totally possible that a player is really good at playing a rude, arrogant character, it is more likely the players are using your game to vent and act out in what they perceive as a no consequence theatre. Talk to your players and if this is not the case, continue below.
Do the players feel that the NPCs are show stealers, or are they feeling a railroad resentment? You imply that they need resources, they need support. Even if they do, they shouldn't be at the mercy of Organisation X. That makes it sounds like you are building a story around NPCs and not the characters. Sometimes it's as simple as letting the characters search out the allies they need under their own power and you still provide the same helpful NPCs, it's the semantics on how the characters get these allies that matters.
I do agree with you in that I perhaps tried too hard to get them to join up with one specific group, my only reasoning behind this was that it was the only one nearby where they were. This underground society of mages happened to want to help them, and if they wanted to go to another Org they'd have to leave the city to find them. I will say, I was far too forceful in trying to push them to this direction. I did it because I was worried the players would get themselves into deep trouble by going somewhere else, since one of the leads they were discussing following up on is one of the leaders of the cult (which they know), which would be too challenging for them. So in my panic of wanting to not have to TPK them, I pushed them really hard towards being on the DM railroad. I do regret doing that, and it's something I'm planning on fixing going forward by allowing for more choices and having their current lead splinter off into several different paths that they can check up on when they want.
I want to say once again, thanks to everybody who replied to the thread, I really appreciate all the help. If anyone has anymore advice, I'm going to leave the thread open for other DMs, in case anyone is perhaps having a similar problem. That way, you can also benefit from the people here who are way smarter than I am as well!
Ultimately, I think this is my own fault as a DM, I wanted to tell a singular story, but I neglected to tell the players what that story would be before we started. Thus, they made characters who had no investment in the story. I am trying to rectify this now by asking them to each work with me over the coming weeks to add things into their backstory which can help me to bring them into the story, without just... kidnapping their parents, which I could do but I don't necessarily want to keep doing over and over.
Depending on how amenable everyone is to it, you could also put this group of characters aside for now and have them create a new party of similar level/power (in terms of magic items etc) that's more tied in to the story... and then save the rag-tag disrespectful party for later one-shots elsewhere in the campaign world, as a break between story arcs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This came up during the discussion, and I might honestly take a vote to see who would be up for it, or at least have it be an option for those who want to take it. I really wish I hadn't made the mistake in the first place, but I'll do what I can to fix it! Thanks for the suggestion! I'll put it on the table for people and see what they think of it.
I don't think that CharlesThePlant's suggestion works for this situation.
What this does is lean into problematic player behaviour, and attempt to give it an 'out,' and is actually rewarding them for problematic player behaviour. Players who don't acknowledge that the DM plans the game, and that derailing it or acting like crazed goofballs is not fun for the DM, shouldn't be offered a pinata. The players simply don't respect the work that the DM has put into the game. You can't bypass the players being jerks to every important NPC in a game where NPC interaction is vital by giving them a punching bag. The more you allow the behaviour to flourish, the more it will gain strength.
One last potential option that occurred to me that could work: if the PCs want to live in a world where they are asshats to everyone, put them into a world where nobody cares what they think, nobody is trying to help them, and nobody has a quest for them. Turn the game into Survive Hell.
Throw the PCs into the Abyss somewhere. Make it clear that they have little food, and if they don't find a way out, they will perish simply through inaction. You want to be rude and unpleasant to everyone you meet? Well, you are now not only bottom of the food chain, but each time you are disrespectful to that demon butcher who might have given you something to eat, he teleports his whole store 50 miles away. Fighting for survival now requiresbetter social interaction, and failing to behave respectfully now brings levels of Exhaustion in an environment that is trying to kill you already.
I'm sorry but, this seems like passive-aggressive DM revenge and lesson teaching. My contribution wasn't that adding in an NPC that could be hated would solve the problem at the heart of "NPC disrespect", it was that it could be an interesting plot device.
I do agree with you in that I perhaps tried too hard to get them to join up with one specific group, my only reasoning behind this was that it was the only one nearby where they were. This underground society of mages happened to want to help them, and if they wanted to go to another Org they'd have to leave the city to find them. I will say, I was far too forceful in trying to push them to this direction. I did it because I was worried the players would get themselves into deep trouble by going somewhere else, since one of the leads they were discussing following up on is one of the leaders of the cult (which they know), which would be too challenging for them. So in my panic of wanting to not have to TPK them, I pushed them really hard towards being on the DM railroad. I do regret doing that, and it's something I'm planning on fixing going forward by allowing for more choices and having their current lead splinter off into several different paths that they can check up on when they want.
Buddy, only you know what exists in your world. As I mentioned before, allow the players to find the "allies" by their own means, make the allies they find the underground society of mages. Maybe the underground society isn't only mages, maybe it has roots in the seedy blackmarket that a Rogue has access to. Maybe some religious circles are part of the society, also being aware of the religious implications and dangers the cult presents. Maybe a Cleric can get a clue from some higher ups. So many options. I don't call a story you want to play out a railroad. If you want certain elements involved like the society of mages, either have them involve themselves directly as part of the story or allow the characters to find them and set up terms. The idea of support and resources is the purview of the DM. Some players only like to manage themselves and coordinate with their party. Some players like the idea of working out details with allied NPCs.
I think that it's a good idea if you re-evaluate what you think 'railroading' and 'sandbox' are. They are nonsense terms invented by people who are typically used by DMs who see themselves as superior.
D&D has never been a pure sandbox game. It doesn't work that way. The way people discuss 'railroading' now seems to imply that the players should always be wandering around, doing whatever they want, and somehow the DM should have an infinite amount of pre-prepared content ready, and if not they should ad-lib it.
D&D works when the players understand that they have responsibility to make it work. That's essentially the issue here. They need to play in such a way as to have fun, to do what they want, but also do what the DM needs them to. They understand this about the other players: if they didn't, the party would split up and each character would go a different direction. They grasp that between players, this is a social community game. What they're doing here is failing to understand that the DM needs to have fun, and that the DM's time and effort needs to be respected. No good D&D campaign functions without a storyline to follow, and players who seem to be refusing to participate in the story need to change their understanding of the game.
It sounds like you've managed to make steps forward with them, and that's the best thing you could do. Update us on how things are going after your next session - you'll only need one more to see if they've understood.
I don't think that CharlesThePlant's suggestion works for this situation.
What this does is lean into problematic player behaviour, and attempt to give it an 'out,' and is actually rewarding them for problematic player behaviour. Players who don't acknowledge that the DM plans the game, and that derailing it or acting like crazed goofballs is not fun for the DM, shouldn't be offered a pinata. The players simply don't respect the work that the DM has put into the game. You can't bypass the players being jerks to every important NPC in a game where NPC interaction is vital by giving them a punching bag. The more you allow the behaviour to flourish, the more it will gain strength.
One last potential option that occurred to me that could work: if the PCs want to live in a world where they are asshats to everyone, put them into a world where nobody cares what they think, nobody is trying to help them, and nobody has a quest for them. Turn the game into Survive Hell.
Throw the PCs into the Abyss somewhere. Make it clear that they have little food, and if they don't find a way out, they will perish simply through inaction. You want to be rude and unpleasant to everyone you meet? Well, you are now not only bottom of the food chain, but each time you are disrespectful to that demon butcher who might have given you something to eat, he teleports his whole store 50 miles away. Fighting for survival now requiresbetter social interaction, and failing to behave respectfully now brings levels of Exhaustion in an environment that is trying to kill you already.
I'm sorry but, this seems like passive-aggressive DM revenge and lesson teaching. My contribution wasn't that adding in an NPC that could be hated would solve the problem at the heart of "NPC disrespect", it was that it could be an interesting plot device.
It's lesson teaching, because the PCs need a lesson in how to play the game, yes. They have been sabotaging it.
Your suggestion (to make the thing the DM dislikes so strongly as to make a post about how it's ruining the game into a plot device) would not solve anybody's issues, for the reasons I originally outlined.
I think that it's a good idea if you re-evaluate what you think 'railroading' and 'sandbox' are. They are nonsense terms invented by people who are typically used by DMs who see themselves as superior.
D&D has never been a pure sandbox game. It doesn't work that way. The way people discuss 'railroading' now seems to imply that the players should always be wandering around, doing whatever they want, and somehow the DM should have an infinite amount of pre-prepared content ready, and if not they should ad-lib it.
D&D works when the players understand that they have responsibility to make it work. That's essentially the issue here. They need to play in such a way as to have fun, to do what they want, but also do what the DM needs them to. They understand this about the other players: if they didn't, the party would split up and each character would go a different direction. They grasp that between players, this is a social community game. What they're doing here is failing to understand that the DM needs to have fun, and that the DM's time and effort needs to be respected. No good D&D campaign functions without a storyline to follow, and players who seem to be refusing to participate in the story need to change their understanding of the game.
It sounds like you've managed to make steps forward with them, and that's the best thing you could do. Update us on how things are going after your next session - you'll only need one more to see if they've understood.
This is actually sort of funny, I had almost completely forgotten about it, but one player offhandedly mentioned they were expecting a "choose-your-own-adventure" style game but instead got a pre-written adventure, akin to Storm King's Thunder or Curse of Strahd. Something I didn't do in session 0 which I am sort of kicking myself for now is that I didn't lay out the style of campaign I wanted to write, story-heavy high fantasy heroic champion heroes.
I do plan on mentioning to the players that I 100% do not plan on making a campaign where they can "go anywhere, do anything" because of a few reasons: 1. I 100% don't want to, I don't find it interesting storytelling-wise and I think it would just be a disorganized mess every week. 2. It would take me YEARS to prep for a session if I didn't have at least some idea what was going to happen.
I will say, I was not completely satisfied with the player's responses to me talking to them about this, and I think it mostly stems from the players not really understanding that, hey, I also want to have fun as well. Yes, I exist as a vehicle to facilitate your fun but I would also like to enjoy myself and not feel put down every week. I feel like the discussion went well apart from the kind of lack of acceptance of blame. They also seemed to want to put the blame on one person? They kept asking me for specific examples of someone being disrespectful and I eventually caved, and when I did they immediately jumped on that person and tried to absolve themselves of any guilt.
In any case, thank you for the response! I'll definitely be posting here again next week after the session is over with to let everyone know how it goes!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
^^^^This.
Kaavel stole what I was going to say. You can't solve player issues in character. Talk to the players. Tell them you are not down for this sort of game. Ask them why they are being rude for no reason to NPCs who are friendly and helpful. See what the players say.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Hello all, I wanted to start off this mega-replay by saying; the reason I've been quite silent on this thread since posting is that it was finals week for me AND I ended up having a discussion with my players, so it was intensely busy for me. I'm really sorry I haven't been able to keep up, but I want to do so now! This comment from Charles is basically right on the money, the players felt very tonally disconnected from the story that I wanted to tell. I think the main issue for them is that I wrote my own homebrew world and populated most of it, and apparently inadvertently, made it seem like the campaign would be a "choose your own adventure" style game, where the players could go anywhere and do anything. I plan on addressing this part with the players again sometime in the future, because as a DM that is not something that I really want to explore, I want to tell a story about a cult trying to smoosh all the gods back into one. If that means I'm a railroad DM then I will formally hand in my badge to the nearest Hobby Shoppe. Doing it this way, more akin to a prewritten campaign, means that it's a lot less effort for me going forward because I know what the cult is doing and they are the only thing I have to worry about, not what Sampson Littlefinger is doing on the other side of the continent.
This is a really good suggestion, and a very very good breakdown of what is actually going on, so hat's off to you. Yes, I made a very critical blunder in making the campaign in that the players had no idea who they would be fighting, so they each made characters who varied greatly in their desires, goals, wants. And they are all now smooshed together in the party, a party that is meant to go solve a world-threatening problem, but they have no real character reason to do so.
Ultimately, I think this is my own fault as a DM, I wanted to tell a singular story, but I neglected to tell the players what that story would be before we started. Thus, they made characters who had no investment in the story. I am trying to rectify this now by asking them to each work with me over the coming weeks to add things into their backstory which can help me to bring them into the story, without just... kidnapping their parents, which I could do but I don't necessarily want to keep doing over and over.
I ended up doing this, because I felt there was not just a tonal disconnect between the characters being played and the story they were in, but also between me and the players. We had a discussion where I told them where I was at headspace-wise, that I don't want to continue writing NPCs and quests and shit for the game unless something changes. They mostly understood and I'm planning on giving them all a second chance, hopefully moving forward the campaign is a lot smoother!
I think you're right, I am kind of railroading them in that I want to tell a specific story and I don't necessarily want to explore more of the world until later in levels (for context, they're level 6 and the cult shit will be going on until level 10ish). Once we're past level 10-11 I would be happy to open up the world a bit more and explore backstory stuff. But for now I have a story that I really want to tell, but I didn't say anything to the group about that before starting.
During the discussion I had with the group, it did come up that I was perhaps being a bit too limiting on their agency, which in retrospect I really was. I'm not absolved of blame in this situation for sure, and I'm going to do my best to move forward with allowing the group to have more choices. This all happened because another group that I DM for tends to flounder if they aren't given clear direction, a place to go, a person to chase, a specific quest. They were the first group that I DMed for, so I thought that was normal and employed that idea for this group as well, not realizing that they had expected a lot more breathing room in their decision-making. This is 100% my fault, and I hope to rectify it in the future.
I do agree with you in that I perhaps tried too hard to get them to join up with one specific group, my only reasoning behind this was that it was the only one nearby where they were. This underground society of mages happened to want to help them, and if they wanted to go to another Org they'd have to leave the city to find them. I will say, I was far too forceful in trying to push them to this direction. I did it because I was worried the players would get themselves into deep trouble by going somewhere else, since one of the leads they were discussing following up on is one of the leaders of the cult (which they know), which would be too challenging for them. So in my panic of wanting to not have to TPK them, I pushed them really hard towards being on the DM railroad. I do regret doing that, and it's something I'm planning on fixing going forward by allowing for more choices and having their current lead splinter off into several different paths that they can check up on when they want.
I want to say once again, thanks to everybody who replied to the thread, I really appreciate all the help. If anyone has anymore advice, I'm going to leave the thread open for other DMs, in case anyone is perhaps having a similar problem. That way, you can also benefit from the people here who are way smarter than I am as well!
Depending on how amenable everyone is to it, you could also put this group of characters aside for now and have them create a new party of similar level/power (in terms of magic items etc) that's more tied in to the story... and then save the rag-tag disrespectful party for later one-shots elsewhere in the campaign world, as a break between story arcs.
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
This came up during the discussion, and I might honestly take a vote to see who would be up for it, or at least have it be an option for those who want to take it. I really wish I hadn't made the mistake in the first place, but I'll do what I can to fix it! Thanks for the suggestion! I'll put it on the table for people and see what they think of it.
I'm sorry but, this seems like passive-aggressive DM revenge and lesson teaching. My contribution wasn't that adding in an NPC that could be hated would solve the problem at the heart of "NPC disrespect", it was that it could be an interesting plot device.
Buddy, only you know what exists in your world. As I mentioned before, allow the players to find the "allies" by their own means, make the allies they find the underground society of mages. Maybe the underground society isn't only mages, maybe it has roots in the seedy blackmarket that a Rogue has access to. Maybe some religious circles are part of the society, also being aware of the religious implications and dangers the cult presents. Maybe a Cleric can get a clue from some higher ups. So many options. I don't call a story you want to play out a railroad. If you want certain elements involved like the society of mages, either have them involve themselves directly as part of the story or allow the characters to find them and set up terms. The idea of support and resources is the purview of the DM. Some players only like to manage themselves and coordinate with their party. Some players like the idea of working out details with allied NPCs.
Sounds like you've gotten lots of good advice and have probably figured it out. Best of luck!
I think that it's a good idea if you re-evaluate what you think 'railroading' and 'sandbox' are. They are nonsense terms invented by people who are typically used by DMs who see themselves as superior.
D&D has never been a pure sandbox game. It doesn't work that way. The way people discuss 'railroading' now seems to imply that the players should always be wandering around, doing whatever they want, and somehow the DM should have an infinite amount of pre-prepared content ready, and if not they should ad-lib it.
D&D works when the players understand that they have responsibility to make it work. That's essentially the issue here. They need to play in such a way as to have fun, to do what they want, but also do what the DM needs them to. They understand this about the other players: if they didn't, the party would split up and each character would go a different direction. They grasp that between players, this is a social community game. What they're doing here is failing to understand that the DM needs to have fun, and that the DM's time and effort needs to be respected. No good D&D campaign functions without a storyline to follow, and players who seem to be refusing to participate in the story need to change their understanding of the game.
It sounds like you've managed to make steps forward with them, and that's the best thing you could do. Update us on how things are going after your next session - you'll only need one more to see if they've understood.
It's lesson teaching, because the PCs need a lesson in how to play the game, yes. They have been sabotaging it.
Your suggestion (to make the thing the DM dislikes so strongly as to make a post about how it's ruining the game into a plot device) would not solve anybody's issues, for the reasons I originally outlined.
This is actually sort of funny, I had almost completely forgotten about it, but one player offhandedly mentioned they were expecting a "choose-your-own-adventure" style game but instead got a pre-written adventure, akin to Storm King's Thunder or Curse of Strahd. Something I didn't do in session 0 which I am sort of kicking myself for now is that I didn't lay out the style of campaign I wanted to write, story-heavy high fantasy heroic champion heroes.
I do plan on mentioning to the players that I 100% do not plan on making a campaign where they can "go anywhere, do anything" because of a few reasons:
1. I 100% don't want to, I don't find it interesting storytelling-wise and I think it would just be a disorganized mess every week.
2. It would take me YEARS to prep for a session if I didn't have at least some idea what was going to happen.
I will say, I was not completely satisfied with the player's responses to me talking to them about this, and I think it mostly stems from the players not really understanding that, hey, I also want to have fun as well. Yes, I exist as a vehicle to facilitate your fun but I would also like to enjoy myself and not feel put down every week. I feel like the discussion went well apart from the kind of lack of acceptance of blame. They also seemed to want to put the blame on one person? They kept asking me for specific examples of someone being disrespectful and I eventually caved, and when I did they immediately jumped on that person and tried to absolve themselves of any guilt.
In any case, thank you for the response! I'll definitely be posting here again next week after the session is over with to let everyone know how it goes!