When do you introduce the "Main Story"

[Techcaliber]

Hello! Relatively new DM here, having only been a DM for about a year and a half (several months of which were COVID months, so there was no game play and they don't count). I have two games up and running now, one I started awhile ago (and is fizzling out, I'll touch on that in a second), and one that just started.

In the first game, I almost immediatley introduced the players to this "grand" plot, thrusting them into the world. I'm sad to say I railroaded them a little bit too much, and the game is dying as I realize the issues of haveing such an episodic game. For this new game, i'm trying not to do that. I'm going to let them progress and the story in a more natural way.

The problem is, I don't know when to introduce the story.

Now, I know this subject can be heavily debated, and it varies between groups. I'm just wondering when you as a DM introduced your players to the main plot you had in mind, and why.

Thanks in advance!

[PhoenixPhyre]

I generally don't have a main plot per se at all. There are plots and things going on, some of which are related. But after level 3 or so, the party is clear to take whatever path it chooses. The first few sessions are a bit more of a "tutorial zone" if I have new players--they choose from a list of quest seeds that are excuses to get them somewhere doing things. Then it all evolves.

I'd caution against doing too much planning more than a session or two in advance. Yes, get an idea of what's out there and who is moving where and when, but don't lay railroad tracks.

But that might just be my style.

[Segev]

The best way, in my experience, is to have a few short adventures planned from which they can pick one or two to do in any order. Each should have some relevance or lead-in to "the main plot," if you have one. The main plot should be introduced by exposing the PCs to its hooks and its premise, and should advance as they do other things if they choose not to pursue it. You don't need to railroad if the main plot is going to happen in a planned course if the players do nothing. When the players do intervene, that's when the main plot shifts from what you "planned" to react to their actions and influences. If they never directly bite, it will probably grow until its influence is felt in whatever they ARE doing.

[TyGuy]

The problem is, I don't know when to introduce the story.
Make settings, not stories. That's what your PC's are for.
Introduce the driving force/ call to action / plot hook as soon as possible. But to avoid being rail roady again, always think to yourself "what happens IF?"

What happens if they don't take the hook?
What happens if they actually kill or capture the villain that is supposed to flee?

[JoeJ]

The story is what choices the protagonists - the PCs - make, and what happens as a result. So I guess, in a sense, the main story begins at the first moment of play. But I don't introduce it; the players and I figure out together what it is.

[Greywander]

Building on what Segev said, you might get into the villain's head and plan out what they're doing as if you were the villain. You're going to steal the artifact, assassinate the mayor, and kick the dog. You are the mastermind that's slowing bringing your plan into fruition. Eventually, either the players will bite on a plot hook that gets them meddling into the villain's schemes, or the villain's scheming will become so far-reaching that it begins to meddle in whatever the players are doing. Once the meddling begins, then you start to shift from planning to reacting to the players.

It's important to mention that you need to make sure you keep the DM persona and the BBEG persona separate. You, as the DM, want the players to win and have fun. You want then to foil the villain's plot in a big way. Oh, the players bumped into the BBEG at 2nd level and accidentally killed him? Uh oh, sounds like there's going to be a shake up back at the evil lair as the BBEG's top underlings struggle to seize the position. If the BBEG becomes desperate because his plans keep getting ruined, then you can play him as becoming increasingly irrational and angry, taking greater risks that pose greater challenges to the players but also expose the BBEG to greater losses if the players succeed.

On the BBEG side, you won't initially know who the players are. At first, they're just some random mercs that were in the wrong place at the wrong time and foiled one of your plots. You'll just increase your manpower for the next plot to make sure it doesn't happen again. When they start making a habit of interfering in your plots, you might send some goons after them, but they're really still just some randos. It won't be until they foil a major plot or defeat a top henchman that you start to take them seriously. After all, you have lots of other things to worry about, and they're far from the only group of adventurers that have meddled in your business.

[KyleG]

Can and Should you start the campaign without a BBEG. The idea for my campaign is that "levelling" isnt uncommon, but some acquire those skills faster than others, so i want a more grounded campaign. I want less epic heroism for quite a while so knowing there is an end of world event in the future doesnt gel. I want to to ADVENTURE. and those adventures may have repercussions. I have some adventure ideas (sessions) depending on where they go but i dont yet have a BBEG. My plan is to tie them to the starting location and the goings on around here.

[OldTrees1]

Session 0 or even -1 is a good time to introduce the "Main Story" to the Players. You want them to know what the campaign is so they can set their expectations. In a linear game that lets them "buy in" to the "Main Story" and help avoid derailing. In a sandbox that lets them know to provide their PCs with motivations to drive action when there is a lull in external motivation.

Session -3 is a good time to introduce the "Main Story" to the setting. Having the story already be in progress can help give it inertia. Alternatively you can be really adaptive and create a "Main Story" a few sessions in based upon a plot hook one of the PCs gave the DM (yes, fictional characters can give gifts).

Session 1-2 is a good timeframe to expect the PCs to be capable of finding out about the "Main Story". Session 1-4 is a good timeframe to have the PCs find inevitably out about the "Main Story". If they would be too low level, start the PCs at a higher initial level. Ideally you want it to be possible to find out ASAP, because the average group will never find things out ASAP. So if you want them to find out in a timely manner, make it possible to find it out way early. But also include some ways the information might find the PCs.

Session N is a good time to have the PCs do the unexpected, thus causing the "Main Story" to adapt or be replaced based upon the consequences of the PC actions. The PCs will change the script on you. I suggest embracing it.

[Contrast]

As others have mentioned, there's nothing wrong with not having a 'main plot' - or indeed, in having many. Most longer games I've played in have had more than one 'main plot' as we've levelled. If you want easy divides you can transition into a new 'plot' every tier.

More broadly though a lot depends on what type of game you're trying to run and what type of game your players want to play. Maybe you want to run a game where some main overarching plot is the main driver from 1-20, maybe you're running a sandbox. Neither of those is wrong but both require buy in from the players and DM to work.

If you're looking for more general advice on introducing a plot element that you worry the party might not be ready for, it might be more helpful to think of the campaign plot in terms of themes. What are the main themes of the story you're looking at? Pick up those threads and try and run them back so it doesn't feel like a jarring transition when the 'main plot' reveal happens.

BBEG is a lich trying to turn the world undead? Have the party deal with a doomsday cult who had propetic visions of the end of the world. BBEG is an arrogant wealthy noble seeking to usurp the king? Have the PCs investigate bribery and corruption in the local guard. These things aren't necessarily related but they put the PCs in the right mindset.

One thing I might suggest that I don't know if you've considered - if you want to run tight, plot focused games but are struggling to maintains the parties interest and momentum - you do not need to run years long campaigns. You can totally pitch a game saying 'The goal of this game is to stop The Grand Vizier from raising his undead legion - I think the game will run about 5 sessions'.

[Avonar]

For the kind of game it seems you want run, it's probably best to give your players a goal from the start, but don't have it be your main plot. Send them on a fun little story suitable for lower levelled characters and sprinkle it with little hints. Let them find information that implies that there is something larger but that doesn't give it away, not yet. You don't want to completely blindside them with the main story kicks in.

It's hard to add much more than that really, every DM will have a different take, but at least like this you can try and get the characters invested ahead of time so when you bring in your main story, they will already want to go through with it.

[Waazraath]

It really depends. I once started a campaign at the traditional in, and after some time where the characters introduce themselves to each other, the enitre city got swept away by a demonic invasion, and session 1 was "escape to the harbour to save your lives". "Main story" demonic invasion was known early in session one. Other campaigns main storyline(s) got introduced much slower; have characters meet as slaves in a dungeon, have so gladiatorial combat, escape... and later get caught up in a greater story, mabye as late as session 10. And sometimes you deceide "we're gonna play Curse Of Strahd" next, and then you know before the campaign starts. You can even not have a main story and let the characters deceide what kinds of quests they want to take on.

All of them can work, it's not really a biggy.

[Lupine]

I generally don't have a main plot per se at all. There are plots and things going on, some of which are related. But after level 3 or so, the party is clear to take whatever path it chooses...

I'd caution against doing too much planning more than a session or two in advance. Yes, get an idea of what's out there and who is moving where and when, but don't lay railroad tracks.
Slight truncation, but this dude hit it exactly on the head. The players should be in charge of what they do. However, if your players are similarly new to the game as OP is to DMing, this can be troublesome (I know for my group, getting the newbies to embark on a self driven quest is like pulling teeth.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Slight truncation, but this dude hit it exactly on the head. The players should be in charge of what they do. However, if your players are similarly new to the game as OP is to DMing, this can be troublesome (I know for my group, getting the newbies to embark on a self driven quest is like pulling teeth.)

I am pretty open about the "things going on in the world". Basically a menu-driven approach when they're spinning their wheels. And then there are the NPCs they meet who occasionally drag them into stuff/ask for favors. This is especially true for character-driven/backstory-driven arcs.

The difficulty here is having a world that can stand up to examination and exploration. If it's just a facade, it's really hard to find adventures wherever they go without it coming across as "pre-plotted". I'm fortunate that I've been playing in the same setting for years now with many groups, all of whom have left traces. So it's easier to build on those existing adventures and their consequences.

[False God]

When the players find it.

I'll usually have a couple "grand stories" available, with a few smaller ones. There'll be day-1 hooks for some of these and not for others. Some of these will interconnect, some won't.

I try to start off small. "There's trouble in the woods." or "A strange murder just happened." Depending on the particular bent of the players and their characters.

Sometimes I'll pitch a certain "story" to the group, and if there's enough buy in play through just that.

[Vegan Squirrel]

I think there are two optimal approaches, and then others that work.

One approach is the pitch—pitch the story you want to run from the outset, and have the group build their characters with a reason why they're pursuing that goal. You're rebels aiming to take down the dark lord, you're investigating a shady organization that's up to no good, zombies are popping up everywhere and you're the only ones who can stop them, etc. The players know what they're getting into and buy into the story from the start, but that also means they can build their characters around it and have a lot of agency in how they go about accomplishing their goals.

A second approach is to let a story evolve organically. Set up hooks and adventures, littering them with clues of something deeper, and see what they latch onto. Then whichever clues really get the players going you turn into the focus of the next series of adventures. Repeat over and over. As they reach higher levels, you'll have to keep upping the stakes, and that can make it easier to create a central plot out of whatever the players are pursuing. But you're not setting the full story ahead of time; you're shaping how the world reacts to the players and weaving it into more adventures.

A variation on that is to have several "main plots" planned, with some overlap, giving the players freedom to choose which plots to engage with. Dungeon World's Fronts can give you a good basis for that kind of campaign structure. If they pick up the bread crumbs at the end of one adventure, it leads them towards another, related adventure. If they don't pursue that lead, then either let that plot line recede away (maybe there wasn't a bigger bad, after all, or they were easily caught after the players took apart their support team), or let it percolate in the background (maybe the villain succeeds at the next step of her plan, and shows up several levels later with greater powers and resources as a result of not having been stopped). The goals should be to make a fun and interesting game for the players (and you!). If they're clearly not into the plot you tried to use, let it go. If they just decided a different goal was more important, then it could immerse them to see that choice have consequences later—agency isn't just getting to choose, but that their choices actually make a difference.

Now, why are you trying to tie things into one central plot line? Is it just easier for you to prepare that way? That's a valid consideration, and if your preparation time and/or flexibility are limited, you can talk to your players outside of the game and discuss things. Maybe you don't want to railroad them, but it's hard for you to improvise and daunting to prepare every possible scenario. Playing an RPG has an unspoken social contract, but you can talk about how much you'd appreciate if their characters find a reason to take the hooks. I view it as part of the player's responsibility to give their character motivations to say yes to adventure hooks. Not necessarily every one, but more often than not.

But for your part, you have to make sure to help them have a reason. You should have the characters' backgrounds, personalities, and motivations—those are your adventure seeds. If your barbarian is keen to help out orphans, well they'll be curious about those orphans disappearing in the town next to the dark cult's lair, etc. And if you're expecting them to follow your hooks, give them choices—prepare a couple different adventures, or have them decide which way to go at the end of the session so you can prepare based on their choice for the next session. And try not to use too many linear adventures—be open to multiple ways of solving the problem, both in terms of paths to take and methods to employ. Concepts to look up that might help—The Alexandrian's node-based design and three clue rule, Sly Flourish's unfixed secrets and clues, and the fronts from Dungeon World as already mentioned.

I've rambled on long enough, hopefully that's a little helpful. :smallamused:

[Izodonia]

I may be the exception here, but if there's one thing I dread, it's the DM saying "So what do you guys want to do now?" I'd rather be railroaded on an epic quest than flounder around looking for something to do. I get enough of that IRL.

[JonBeowulf]

I may be the exception here, but if there's one thing I dread, it's the DM saying "So what do you guys want to do now?" I'd rather be railroaded on an epic quest than flounder around looking for something to do. I get enough of that IRL.

And I think that's what we're all trying to balance. Not only is DM staring at the players while they stare back not fun, it erodes the players' faith in the DMs ability to run the game. The whole thing falls apart.

You should have a solid world built before you even look for players. The world helps you define the upcoming major events and gives you a bunch of stuff to use as minor events. While the players are rolling up characters, you should be creating a list of small things they can do to start feeling plugged into the world. As they're doing those, let them find some hints about some of the minor events and find out which ones they go after. Your campaign is now rolling with its own momentum. The minor events should direct them to at least one of the major events.

All you need to do is have flexibility for when they do the unexpected... because they will.

[Izodonia]

The way I see the game, the DM provides the "what", and the players provide the "how" - the DM decides what the players have to do, and the players decide how they do it. But the DM has to have a "what" prepared, because the players won't provide one themselves. Luke didn't go looking for the Death Star plans, Frodo didn't go looking for the Ring, and John Wick didn't decide to get his dog killed. That's the DM's job.

Of course, the DM has to be careful to pick a "what" that the players are interested in doing. I guess that's what Session 0 is for.

[Crucius]

Without a main plot the game takes on a vignette/anthology style, which can be totally fine, but from experience I have learned that most players benefit from a red line through the many mini-stories they embark on. It gives them a sense of progression and cohesion in their experience of the game/world/themes.

If you view D&D as a piece of entertainment, then respecting peoples time is very important. I would suggest introducing the inciting incident in minute one. Introduce players one by one over the course of the first half hour, have them meet in whatever dire circumstances you have thought of. The duress will form a powerful bond (this is what drill sergeants and I guess hazing in student fraternities/sororities are trying to achieve) and formal introductions can happen later in a moment of downtime (start of session two is my advice). This way the party already has some experience with each other, which means they can ask more direct questions to each other when the formal introduction happens. The inciting incident ends at the very end of the first session which posits the main questions your story/theme is trying to ask, creating a powerful hook into the campaign and world.

Everything before the inciting incident is not interesting, as this is the player's backstory. Not that that isn't interesting (it is the most important thing in the entire game actually), but you can't really play it at the table. Trim the fat basically. Kickstart the campaign. Open strong, and the rest will follow. Then use the main story as a vehicle to deliver the true story of the game: the backstory developments of the player characters.