I'm not a super new DM, but I am lightly seasoned. I have created some good stories, but I feel too controlling . I feel like I don't give the players as open of a world as I should, and I often feel like I'm just pushing them along without a chance to do what they want. Is it supposed to feel very controlling, or is it supposed to be more open ended for them to finish the way they want? 

As a DM, you have a story to tell. You either need to put hooks out to pull the players toward the plot, or drop the plot in front of them wherever they happen to be.

As long as you never tell a player they can't do something because it goes against the plot, or invalidate their choices by forcing them into a situation they didn't chose to be in, you haven't gone to far.

Try to have the plot be flexible and able to change if the players decide to nope out of a situation, ignore plot hooks, or fail an objective.

The way I prep for session is by creating discrete encounters and scenarios that I want the players to go through to tell my story. I make them flexible enough that I can drop them into whatever environment the players find themselves in. This way, my players can do what they want, but I can still sprinkle in the story when I need to. Of course there is nothing wrong with letting the players go off on a tangent, but the world will keep moving while they are gallivanting about the countryside.

I am in a similar situation, but kind of the other way around. I keep wondering if the game I DM is too railroady, but when I give the players the floor (so to speak) to see what they want to do, or give them free time, I get kinda blank stares and they just hurry back to the main quest. Does this mean I did a good job making a compelling main story, or that I didn't do enough to populate the world for the players? 

There's a balance to be had between giving the players free reign and keeping them on the path that promotes the main story. I have a few major arcs for my worlds that I want the players to get involved in, I think they're interesting and could really make the players feel like they're champions and bigger than life. However, the players have their own goals, their character arcs, and I can't let those fall off, otherwise the players won't feel invested. Somehow those two things needed to merge and work together in a way that didn't feel like I was forcing them in a particular direction or feel like there was nothing I could do as DM. One of the things I've found, and it's only been recently, is that you can accomplish both with a little bit of creativity.

I figured out that the main story will continue whether or not the players actively engage in it or not. If the bad guy wants to find an artifact that will increase his power, the players heard a rumor about that and they heard a story about a marauding band of goliaths heading in the opposite direction, they'll have to choose which one to deal with. If they go after the artifact, the goliaths will raze another town. If they go after the goliaths, the bad guy will find the artifact. There's no reason to force the players to go after the artifact, it's their choice, but there is a result, a consequence that comes from their choices. 

If the players have wandered away from the main plot, they're not making any headway, or they seem confused about what to do next, it's easy enough to have the plot show up wherever they are. The players have somehow managed to travel to the opposite side of the world from where the main plot is supposed to be happening, but they're out of ideas on what to do next, have an NPC or location become the next goal for them. When they talk to the NPC they learn of something the bad guy, a place that he visited, a group of minions he'd sent to this place, or even a personal interaction with the NPC. Maybe the party finds a building where the bad guy had studied, an ancient ruin with clues about what the bad guy is trying to accomplish, or a hideout the bad guy used before he started his world domination plot. Something to remind the players of their major plot concerns.

You can let the players drive the game, figure out who to talk to, where to go, what missions to undertake, but you never give up complete control. You can toss the main plot at them at any time, tie it into character arcs, have it cross over with the side quest they've picked up, or just randomly interfere with their cross country journey. The more you make the players feel like they're the ones who are driving things, the easier it will be to slip these things in without them even realizing you're pointing them in a particular direction.

Quote from Master_Hyatt_2 >>

I have created some good stories, but I feel too controlling . 

Opinion: it should be your player's story to create (not your's). If you already have a story in mind, then you probably don't need players. Try to come up with situations (or use published ones if needed), and see how your players handle them... which should often surprise you. Allow your players to try anything ("Say yes"), and don't expect/force just one type of resolution.

A lot of what players experience as choice is in how they approach the challenges you set in their way. You may move them from challenge to challenge, but often times they’ll be satisfied if they feel like they had genuine options in tackling it.

Still, some players will be perfectly happy wandering around town, stealing things from nobles, starting a shop, or all kinds of stuff that has nothing at all to do with any plot. I try to make time for this, or better yet, focus it, (you’ll need to get supplies for your journey, how will you do it?). Probably not all players will want to spend all their time doing stuff like this, so it’s your job to mediate between wayward players and those who want to stay on track. Sometimes it’s an in-game move, but sometimes I just tell them, “look, if you want to spend all night figuring out how to make counterfeit coins, we can do that, but it does nothing to advance the plot.” I guess my group likes to mostly keep moving in part because we only get to play about once a month.

There is kind of an old school methodology to the concept of being a DM that has over the years become rather mixed up because as far back as anyone can remember publishers have been creating "adventure modules" which function in opposition to the ideology. 

but...

Basically the concept is that your job as a DM is to create the world for the players and its there job to go on adventures.  

Which as you can imagine given the nature of published adventure modules, its advice given, then undone by everything that was ever released for the game.  

That said in the era which such advice was given adventure modules where actually quite different in that they usually didn't have a founding narrative on which the module hangs, they were really just locations filled with encounters and logic behind why everything that exists as it does.

So for example if you read the original Temple of Elemental Evil.  What you have is a massive dungeon, a backstory of how it got there and what will transpire unless some heroes come along and intervene.  Much of the text of that adventure describes the people and place (aka, the setting) but there really isn't a walk through for the story and its because its assumed that the DM isn't creating a "plot" or even needs one, but rather has a world ready in which the players can do whatever they want.

To me, this idea of the DM running a world/setting and not an adventure is still fundamentally the core way a good DM will run their game.  Running a "story" as is often described will usually result in some level of compromise to player choice (aka railroading them to your story).  It simply can't be avoided.

You will see more and more modern RPG's going back to this ideology.  It was done in Vampire The Masquerade 5th edition, Forbidden Lands and Warhammer Fantasy 4th edition as just some examples. 

My advice for whatever its worth is to concentrate or creating a believable world, throw in a few plot hooks and let the players decide where the story goes.  Than when you prepare for those sessions you will know what they are more or less going for which allows you to create the details in retrospect, rather than trying to guide them to created content.  I mean in essence its very much the same thing, but without the pressure of trying to guide them to stuff you created, rather creating for them where they guide you.  If that makes any sense. 

Quote from Master_Hyatt_2 >>

I'm not a super new DM, but I am lightly seasoned. I have created some good stories, but I feel too controlling . I feel like I don't give the players as open of a world as I should, and I often feel like I'm just pushing them along without a chance to do what they want. Is it supposed to feel very controlling, or is it supposed to be more open ended for them to finish the way they want? 

Have you asked your players for feedback?

That's a core part of the relationship and will probably give you a better sense of whether your "controlling" style is causing any problems. It could be that you've just got players who have a passive play style that fits well with yours. Players are as varied as DMs: some are absolutely going to run your campaign off the rails; others prefer a more "bedtime story" approach. All depends, so definitely talk to them and see of they're enjoying your game!

For a home-grown campaign, you have your story to tell. If your players aren't interested, your story still goes on and your players' characters will be affected by what's happening in your world. You can try to get them interested with good hooks, but if they don't bite, that's fine. You can let their characters explore your world and have a blast doing it, your main plot happening off stage and bleeding in from time to time as opportunities arise. I tend toss out story-related adventure opportunities and side adventure opportunities in such a way that the players don't often know the difference. They follow whatever trail seems most interesting or relevant to their current situation. When they choose something I haven't put in a lot of preparation for, that just forces me to get more of my world's details filled in, which enriches the setting and adds another sub-plot that might turn out to be really important. The usual result is that my story gets more complex and more interesting for letting my players do what they want to do.

I guess my answer is that it should be both. You're telling a story, but your players are participating in that story's creation, and they're sure to add things to make it a better story. (One way to think of a D&D campaign is collaborative story-telling.) If you're having qualms about being too controlling--and posting this suggests you are--maybe you should loosen the reins and see if what happens isn't better--surprising and fun it's almost sure to be.

Another way to look at it: The NPCs are yours. They do exactly what you want every time. Let your players have the same control (within the rules of the game) over their characters. That's the best of both because you tell your story through your NPCs and your players get to react to the NPCs and add to your story. Of course they will frustrate your NPCs' plans; that's what adventurers and heroes do. And that should make it fun for all of you.

Good luck.

I would be interested if that is how your players feel. They might be happy not needing to make choices and simply enjoying the content; lots of players enjoy the progress. It might be a good time to put in a lull for the adventure. Once back in a safe local announce that they need to be prepared to explain what they are up to for a month of downtime. Are they going to go shopping for hard to come by stuff? Then they will need to be prepared to find and haggle with a merchant. Do one or more want to revisit something that was pressing them previously. Has the rogue picked a pocket or stolen from someone it town. Then he might be on the radar of the thieves guild so his downtime might be that he owes protection money. Give them a bit of time fully under their control. Remind them of hooks they might have not followed before and so on. 

I let the players do as they please. I just make adjustments along the way and also before each session. I usually will have several plots setup for them to toss at them in one way or another. If they pass it up depending on what it is I can use it to bite them in the backside later or I can just toss it at them later at some point. I will always have a main plot/event going on but will let the players act as they may. Sooner or later some things just cannot be avoided and if for some reason it can I just rework the game for the next session. There are all sorts of ways to handle that seemingly railroading situation that most of us try to avoid. Then again sometimes railroading can be fun if you can set it up right and really get the party engaged. 

Let them drive the whats and wheres, but use incentives and disincentives to encourage and manipulate play in different directions.

Rule 0: Have Fun! No rule or opinion about what you should or shouldn't do takes precedence over this. If you and your players are having fun then congratulations, you're 'doing it right'.

If you feel that the fun isn't there, then often an honest conversation with the players about expectations and suggestions is the best way forward. This is the sort of thing that's often referred to as a Session Zero - a non-gameplay session at the beginning of the campaign where everyone makes sure they're on the same page about game style, behaviour, house rules, etc.

While it's referred to as Session Zero, there's no reason it can't happen later in a campaign. Even if a group did have a Session Zero, it's often really useful to revisit it as a game is in progress in any case because, well, life happens, people change their minds, house rules may not work, etc, etc, etc.