0:00 ben chadhart 0:20 i mean they ARE actors 1:22 drop in drop out is tough 2:02 what's good in RPG's is what you have fun with 2:10 yeah bruh 3:38 dude I feel this 4:37 dude so true. I was thinking "this man capping" but you're so right, there's a lot of... filler? that happens that doesn't need in depth roleplay 6:01 BLACK COMPANY MENTIONED LETS GOOOOOOO (the second book is the best) 6:50 oh my god you learned this from microscope 9:20 TENSION RESOLUTION 10:22 lmao the sappy music with the classic socal view
my 2 cents are, critical role and whatever else are a *product, for others to view and be entertained 1st and foremost. prob insanely hard for you and other DM's to try and compare themselves to big time studios like critical role.
So interesting! I’ve been having very similar considerations myself. Like you I started in 5E and watching CR and my early games allowed for lots of ‘show’ moments. If I’m totally honest, lingering on those moments was more a lack of confidence and insecurity about not knowing what the next scene might be, but regardless of intent, what resulted was deeper moments of character development. I’ve been running games for over 4 years now and venturing into different game systems has had the largest impact on my GM’ing style, especially the more story focused games. I now feel confident to push games hard into the unknown in whatever direction players wish to take them… plausibility not withstanding of course. This in turn has meant I've found myself ‘telling’ a lot more in my games, and I wonder if I have become too impatient to drive the story forwards rather than lingering… very possibly! Of course, it also depends massively on your players and the general mood of the table, some will wish to linger and some will wish to drive. But being more aware of what you’re doing in the moment is a must. Great video.
"Show don't tell" is great advice. Yet anything can be taken to an extreme. Describing every little detail isn't gonna be engaging in the long run. It's good to couple it with the advice of: "Stories are like life with all the dull bits cut out."
Dnd(or any ttrpg, I'm pretty into DC20 right now) main point is having fun with friends, if your friends have fun being tactical and getting missions done that's awesome! If you and your friends love getting way too into roleplaying and acting(this guy is guilty) but everyone is having fun that's also awesome! That is why I love these types of games, as long as everyone is clear in session 0 and you find the right group its all gravy baby.
"I value moving the story along so much more these days." Yeah, I'm with you. I'm a young DM (2 years), and I have an essentially insatiable appetite for prepping and worldbuiding. I prep so much stuff - dungeons, encounters, homebrewed monsters, locations, intrigue, mystery, etc. - and I desperately want my players to experience it all. But on a week-by-week basis, my players get to maybe 10-20% of the volume of content I'm able to prep. However, I almost never push the party to move; I wait for them to bite a hook. But I'd say that 3/5 of my players **really** like the social roleplay and the other 2 are ok with it, which means they do it quite often. I'm glad they have fun doing that, but I struggle with spinning whatever happens during those scenes into the (or a) plot line. Those scenes can also go on and on and on and on, which is just fine if the whole party is involved, but it's really bad (in my mind) if only 2 PCs are in the scene and it drags on. As a DM, I struggle ending (or spicing up) small-group scenes that are going flat. I'm playing in a campaign that has more social RP scenes than I prefer; most of them are 1-on-1 scenes, and they're often 1 PC on 1 NPC. Which means that most people at the table spend most of the session watching and listening to others' personal drama. Our progress through the arc of the story is painfully slow.
I find an open world game ( like western marches ) solves the combat / RP balance because players can get into trouble if they're really itching for a fight or if they wanted to be diplomatic, they can. Of course a linear game works too, you could just have sections dedicated to X or Y during those parts in the game. You'd also probably want to make sure in that linear game that both X Y happen roughly equally. X & Y being combat or roleplay.
Hey, I know this isnt about this video, but I came from your fantasy battle tactic video and loved it. I loved the story of your DND roman legion fantasy campaign. I dont know if your a book reader, but your campaign reminded me of a series by Jim Butcher called Codex of Alera. I wont spoil the series, but I would describe it best as essentially the Roman Empire but in a fantasy world with a variety of races, and a magic system the "Romans" use that is in many ways similar to bending in Avatar the last Airbender. I really recommend it, and thought you might enjoy it because the author looks at how battle tactics would matter with magic and how it would work against the various fantasy races in the series. Anyways, I am subbing to your channel now because both these videos have been great
So I'm A person who loves narrative story-based immersive gaming. My primary group is a wargamy tactical "what's the least we can do that gets you to say 'roll initiative'. This video kind of talks about an interface, and a middle ground. But to me, there are different styles of player, and the GM just needs to cater and adjust to give the group what it needs. There's no magic, what style does the group want to play and then match that.
To an extent, but it's important to remember that the GM is a player too. Having 100% the GM needs to cater and adjust is a path to GM dissatisfaction and burnout.
I was DMing, Out of the Abyss. First half was great. Second half, the character motivations change. Second half did not fit the characters, so I cancelled the campaign. I've also been GMing Shadowrun. I've been having a lot more fun. I've run 3-4 modules with the same characters. It could be described more like a series rather than episodic. Each story progress, has a conclusion. It feels like the story is moving forward.
It might be worth it for you to read some of the rulesets for more "improv" oriented TTRPGS like Dungeon World and Fate. Even if you dont pivot your entire table to a different rule set, you can easily take some of the principles from those games into how you set a scene for your DnD table. I like to alternate between crunchy chapters and wiggly chapters when i plan out a campaign. And even the people who dont LOVE improving or, frankly aren't very good at first, will find ways to surprise you.
I am in some games that are way more roleplay heavy and some that are way more combat/quick description heavy. I think it's important to talk with a given group about what they want to get out of the game
I feel this so deep! My dm feels the need to rp EVERY interaction and every npc has the same hostile skeptical jerk personality and it just isn’t enjoyable.. we waste so much time on dumb jokes or him trying to drag out nothing and it’s annoying af
Something that jumped out about your once-a-month game is that you didn’t mention what your discussions with your players are like. Have you asked them what elements they enjoy, or elements they wouldn’t miss? You mentioned a few more experienced players are mixed in, have you asked them what elements are missing that they’d enjoy? The problem of wanting to pack everything into one session because it’s once a month is making some assumptions, and I really recommend just talking with them above table, have a meta discussion
Those preferences come and go, ultimately the truth is that a session has a finite run time and our brains have a limited capacity, so learning to prioritize and consciously think about what you actually want from a campaign is essential. I go back on forth between running shorter games with set end point that are more focused on moving the story forward and more slice-of-life games that meander, are more about just having fun in the moment with character's shenanigans or personal drama. No real preference, but I set out what want from the game and the system, people I invite, things I prepare and how I approach running are all informed by this.
I think I disagree with… almost all of this XD It’s DnD not a novel or a movie. You don’t NEED to have an endpoint for a campaign. Some of the games I’ve heard people wax poetic about the most are games that have existed for decades. Not because they still havnt killed the BBEG but because they love the game and becoming the characters. There doesn’t need to be a strict objective per scene or per session if everyone is having fun role playing. This all also emphasizes the dm’s personal insight but what do the players want? I have some players in a few of my games (wink wink) that really like just being their character and expressing the acting and improv part of the game. It’s collaborative storytelling, but also improvised acting. I think if you’re so focused on keeping the game going towards its ending, you’re maybe better off putting that specific story in a novel or movie, not a 6 person collab where everyone can be as chaotic or emotional as they feel any given session. A big part of the hobby for a lot of people is just having time to put down who they are in reality and be someone else for a while. Raw escapism. And that doesn’t require a destination to do. And on the show/tell, if it’s something the players WANT to be involved in? Let them. It’s a collab game. What if they wanted to be part of the war meeting and roleplay with their commander and flesh out the strategy instead of just saying how it should be? Well nah it won’t involve drama so we just skip it. Meh. If the players WANT to skip the roleplay of just buying items fine, but if they also want to go bartering and shopping in character that’s great too!
I think the best advice to remember is that if your players are having a good time, you’re being a good DM. I ran 7-9 people through SKT, and my players would outright tell me to shuttle them to the next fight. If they’re having fun, you’re doing great. That’s the “game” part of being a “game master”
My dude.... CR and other youtube games are more scripted than the D&D scenes from Stranger Things. They are producing shows about playing D&D. Most groups that play do not go from one dramatically overacted scene to the next. This goes doubly for West Marches or Sandbox games. There are and should be some parts of the game where Roleplay should take center stage. There may even be whole sessions where Roleplay takes center stage but there is going to be just as much and probably more mechanics based play. If your players are enjoying your games that is all that matters. Don't ever compare yourself to the DMs in the D&D shows.
I liked the walk and talk format! The dramatic music at the end was a bit jarring, but I otherwise liked the setting and framing being different for this video.
i was running drop in and out last year and after 4 levels of play i found it dissatisfying as DM. Began a real campaign recently and it is so much better. Different tables will enjoy different aspects, combat, rp, exploration etc.
You're comparing your game, to fake games. Oh sure they're "playing" the game, but the majority of it is acting. Overacting, at that. I think a lot of people miss the "game" part of Tabletop Role Playing Game.
Yeah, that’s why I got really bored of Critical Role. The crazy level of hype and optimism really takes me out of it. Way too much acting. And I do understand, I have played in games in front of audiences, I know players act differently than in home games, but CR is too much for me.
I wouldn't call Critical Role fake, its just a game where the sliders are set to 11 on the roleplaying acting side, I am pretty sure if there were no cameras, microphones, etc, this would be pretty close to what there home game would be. Its the way these actors like to play, can't blame them they are actors, they act. But its definitely not what every TTRPG is...personal taste. Which also I don't regularly watch critical role, I watch the exandria unlimited's, but there pacing is a bit slow for me, for my money I'm a dungeons and daddies, naddpod, and dimension 20 fan, I watch/listen to all of there stuff. But to each table there own.
@Akeche I mean, a thing can be Aspirational without needing you to mimic it exactly, and if you would like to get *more* character development, these strategies will help you *in that direction*, even if that doesn't mean you literally end up in an animated tv series on prime. The problem here wasn't that he wanted to be like Critical Role, just that Critical Role displayed some aspect of play that he would like more of in his own games, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider. I would personally like more systematic kingdom-building in my campaign, doesn't mean I am unreasonably comparing my game to Civilization with all its computerized rules operations, just that I should look for tricks to get some of the same vibe into this context, and discuss it with friends, and try it out to see what happens, and decide if we like it enough to keep it.
Yeah you chose to be a DM in a westmarches game. You get overloaded a million times easier and you want to for better but you are setting yourself up for more issues. Good advice on pacing thanks for shaing.
Try a more sandbox, less narrative heavy and more open-ended game. They are good for people coming and going, and can last a very long time. You can still have your narrative and story heavy stuff, but the players tend to direct the flow of the plot more (which invests them more) yet you can also put your own custom scenes in too when it feels right. Also, I tell almost all the time and it works out fine. I never do voices and very rarely speak in-character for the NPCs. On paper, from today's standards, that seems very detached and impersonal. Yet my players tend to be very invested regardless. You don't need theatrics to grab player's attention. Most players just want to do cool stuff with their characters, and the things GMs are overly concerned with don't even pop up on their radar. I remember caring so much about "GM minutia" for a while, and eventually I realized players don't give a damn about 90% of the stuff that makes a GM pull their hair out. Also, Critical Role isn't a good representation of a typical table top game. It's a high production value, overly produced product more than an actual role-playing session.
I adore Brennan Lee Mulligan and the way he GMs. But I had to stop watching that stuff, man. I needed to get used to the pacing of regular people. I believe that optimized my expectations and made me a better GM. But in doing that, I suppose I did seek to gameify my roleplaying sessions. I should absolutely get back to the _roleplaying_ part.
Everything you do when playing a TTRPG is "role playing". What you're seeing on those shows is acting. You're playing a game, not making a movie or show. When I'm playing D&D I hate when the DM tries to railroad their story down our throat. Things like that take away from player agency and immersion. I don't want to be just "along for the ride during the DM's story". I want my characters to be active, not passive. I don't care about the DM's story or the plot points. I would hate to waste 30-40 minutes of game time on a pretentious "scene" of somebody overacting or listening to the DM describe a cut scene. Keep it simple and get to the point. But It sounds like your players are rolling dice and having fun, so keep it up.
D&D is getting people confused.. If you want a great story with character interaction all you do right. Is throw away game mechanics entirely. Get your friends together with a basic plot idea, then decide what the odds are of a character doing X , Y or Z, and then rolling dice to see which happens. That way you get that real life random flavour that people love, and everyone gets to make a cool character, which people love... what I'm saying is... If you want a great story... write a book with your friends. Thank me later :D
0:00 ben chadhart
0:20 i mean they ARE actors
1:22 drop in drop out is tough
2:02 what's good in RPG's is what you have fun with
2:10 yeah bruh
3:38 dude I feel this
4:37 dude so true. I was thinking "this man capping" but you're so right, there's a lot of... filler? that happens that doesn't need in depth roleplay
6:01 BLACK COMPANY MENTIONED LETS GOOOOOOO (the second book is the best)
6:50 oh my god you learned this from microscope
9:20 TENSION RESOLUTION
10:22 lmao the sappy music with the classic socal view
my 2 cents are, critical role and whatever else are a *product, for others to view and be entertained 1st and foremost. prob insanely hard for you and other DM's to try and compare themselves to big time studios like critical role.
So interesting! I’ve been having very similar considerations myself. Like you I started in 5E and watching CR and my early games allowed for lots of ‘show’ moments. If I’m totally honest, lingering on those moments was more a lack of confidence and insecurity about not knowing what the next scene might be, but regardless of intent, what resulted was deeper moments of character development.
I’ve been running games for over 4 years now and venturing into different game systems has had the largest impact on my GM’ing style, especially the more story focused games. I now feel confident to push games hard into the unknown in whatever direction players wish to take them… plausibility not withstanding of course. This in turn has meant I've found myself ‘telling’ a lot more in my games, and I wonder if I have become too impatient to drive the story forwards rather than lingering… very possibly!
Of course, it also depends massively on your players and the general mood of the table, some will wish to linger and some will wish to drive. But being more aware of what you’re doing in the moment is a must. Great video.
"Show don't tell" is great advice. Yet anything can be taken to an extreme. Describing every little detail isn't gonna be engaging in the long run. It's good to couple it with the advice of: "Stories are like life with all the dull bits cut out."
And also if you have literally dozens of players in your West Marches campaign you are a Boss Bro DM man.
Dnd(or any ttrpg, I'm pretty into DC20 right now) main point is having fun with friends, if your friends have fun being tactical and getting missions done that's awesome! If you and your friends love getting way too into roleplaying and acting(this guy is guilty) but everyone is having fun that's also awesome! That is why I love these types of games, as long as everyone is clear in session 0 and you find the right group its all gravy baby.
"I value moving the story along so much more these days." Yeah, I'm with you. I'm a young DM (2 years), and I have an essentially insatiable appetite for prepping and worldbuiding. I prep so much stuff - dungeons, encounters, homebrewed monsters, locations, intrigue, mystery, etc. - and I desperately want my players to experience it all. But on a week-by-week basis, my players get to maybe 10-20% of the volume of content I'm able to prep. However, I almost never push the party to move; I wait for them to bite a hook. But I'd say that 3/5 of my players **really** like the social roleplay and the other 2 are ok with it, which means they do it quite often. I'm glad they have fun doing that, but I struggle with spinning whatever happens during those scenes into the (or a) plot line. Those scenes can also go on and on and on and on, which is just fine if the whole party is involved, but it's really bad (in my mind) if only 2 PCs are in the scene and it drags on. As a DM, I struggle ending (or spicing up) small-group scenes that are going flat.
I'm playing in a campaign that has more social RP scenes than I prefer; most of them are 1-on-1 scenes, and they're often 1 PC on 1 NPC. Which means that most people at the table spend most of the session watching and listening to others' personal drama. Our progress through the arc of the story is painfully slow.
I find an open world game ( like western marches ) solves the combat / RP balance because players can get into trouble if they're really itching for a fight or if they wanted to be diplomatic, they can.
Of course a linear game works too, you could just have sections dedicated to X or Y during those parts in the game. You'd also probably want to make sure in that linear game that both X Y happen roughly equally.
X & Y being combat or roleplay.
Hey, I know this isnt about this video, but I came from your fantasy battle tactic video and loved it. I loved the story of your DND roman legion fantasy campaign. I dont know if your a book reader, but your campaign reminded me of a series by Jim Butcher called Codex of Alera. I wont spoil the series, but I would describe it best as essentially the Roman Empire but in a fantasy world with a variety of races, and a magic system the "Romans" use that is in many ways similar to bending in Avatar the last Airbender. I really recommend it, and thought you might enjoy it because the author looks at how battle tactics would matter with magic and how it would work against the various fantasy races in the series. Anyways, I am subbing to your channel now because both these videos have been great
Thanks and I’ve heard of that series, I’ll check it out!
So I'm A person who loves narrative story-based immersive gaming. My primary group is a wargamy tactical "what's the least we can do that gets you to say 'roll initiative'. This video kind of talks about an interface, and a middle ground. But to me, there are different styles of player, and the GM just needs to cater and adjust to give the group what it needs. There's no magic, what style does the group want to play and then match that.
To an extent, but it's important to remember that the GM is a player too. Having 100% the GM needs to cater and adjust is a path to GM dissatisfaction and burnout.
Well done Ben! I love seeing the walk and talk.
I think part of it is just knowing what the players vibe with, more combat oriented, more story oriented, more role play oriented, etc
I was DMing, Out of the Abyss. First half was great. Second half, the character motivations change. Second half did not fit the characters, so I cancelled the campaign. I've also been GMing Shadowrun. I've been having a lot more fun. I've run 3-4 modules with the same characters. It could be described more like a series rather than episodic. Each story progress, has a conclusion. It feels like the story is moving forward.
It might be worth it for you to read some of the rulesets for more "improv" oriented TTRPGS like Dungeon World and Fate. Even if you dont pivot your entire table to a different rule set, you can easily take some of the principles from those games into how you set a scene for your DnD table. I like to alternate between crunchy chapters and wiggly chapters when i plan out a campaign. And even the people who dont LOVE improving or, frankly aren't very good at first, will find ways to surprise you.
I am in some games that are way more roleplay heavy and some that are way more combat/quick description heavy. I think it's important to talk with a given group about what they want to get out of the game
I feel this so deep! My dm feels the need to rp EVERY interaction and every npc has the same hostile skeptical jerk personality and it just isn’t enjoyable.. we waste so much time on dumb jokes or him trying to drag out nothing and it’s annoying af
Something that jumped out about your once-a-month game is that you didn’t mention what your discussions with your players are like. Have you asked them what elements they enjoy, or elements they wouldn’t miss? You mentioned a few more experienced players are mixed in, have you asked them what elements are missing that they’d enjoy? The problem of wanting to pack everything into one session because it’s once a month is making some assumptions, and I really recommend just talking with them above table, have a meta discussion
Those preferences come and go, ultimately the truth is that a session has a finite run time and our brains have a limited capacity, so learning to prioritize and consciously think about what you actually want from a campaign is essential.
I go back on forth between running shorter games with set end point that are more focused on moving the story forward and more slice-of-life games that meander, are more about just having fun in the moment with character's shenanigans or personal drama. No real preference, but I set out what want from the game and the system, people I invite, things I prepare and how I approach running are all informed by this.
I think I disagree with… almost all of this XD
It’s DnD not a novel or a movie. You don’t NEED to have an endpoint for a campaign. Some of the games I’ve heard people wax poetic about the most are games that have existed for decades. Not because they still havnt killed the BBEG but because they love the game and becoming the characters. There doesn’t need to be a strict objective per scene or per session if everyone is having fun role playing.
This all also emphasizes the dm’s personal insight but what do the players want? I have some players in a few of my games (wink wink) that really like just being their character and expressing the acting and improv part of the game. It’s collaborative storytelling, but also improvised acting.
I think if you’re so focused on keeping the game going towards its ending, you’re maybe better off putting that specific story in a novel or movie, not a 6 person collab where everyone can be as chaotic or emotional as they feel any given session. A big part of the hobby for a lot of people is just having time to put down who they are in reality and be someone else for a while. Raw escapism. And that doesn’t require a destination to do.
And on the show/tell, if it’s something the players WANT to be involved in? Let them. It’s a collab game. What if they wanted to be part of the war meeting and roleplay with their commander and flesh out the strategy instead of just saying how it should be? Well nah it won’t involve drama so we just skip it. Meh. If the players WANT to skip the roleplay of just buying items fine, but if they also want to go bartering and shopping in character that’s great too!
I think the best advice to remember is that if your players are having a good time, you’re being a good DM. I ran 7-9 people through SKT, and my players would outright tell me to shuttle them to the next fight. If they’re having fun, you’re doing great. That’s the “game” part of being a “game master”
@@DustySquitoNM If your players and you are having fun, mind you! I would have zero fun just shuttling players from fight to fight.
My dude.... CR and other youtube games are more scripted than the D&D scenes from Stranger Things. They are producing shows about playing D&D. Most groups that play do not go from one dramatically overacted scene to the next. This goes doubly for West Marches or Sandbox games. There are and should be some parts of the game where Roleplay should take center stage. There may even be whole sessions where Roleplay takes center stage but there is going to be just as much and probably more mechanics based play. If your players are enjoying your games that is all that matters. Don't ever compare yourself to the DMs in the D&D shows.
I liked the walk and talk format! The dramatic music at the end was a bit jarring, but I otherwise liked the setting and framing being different for this video.
Appreciate that feedback! It was an experimental and spontaneous video for me so I’m glad to hear what worked/didnt!
Great clip of Erika, I love that crazy role player.
i was running drop in and out last year and after 4 levels of play i found it dissatisfying as DM. Began a real campaign recently and it is so much better.
Different tables will enjoy different aspects, combat, rp, exploration etc.
You're comparing your game, to fake games. Oh sure they're "playing" the game, but the majority of it is acting. Overacting, at that. I think a lot of people miss the "game" part of Tabletop Role Playing Game.
Yeah, that’s why I got really bored of Critical Role. The crazy level of hype and optimism really takes me out of it. Way too much acting. And I do understand, I have played in games in front of audiences, I know players act differently than in home games, but CR is too much for me.
I wouldn't call Critical Role fake, its just a game where the sliders are set to 11 on the roleplaying acting side, I am pretty sure if there were no cameras, microphones, etc, this would be pretty close to what there home game would be. Its the way these actors like to play, can't blame them they are actors, they act. But its definitely not what every TTRPG is...personal taste. Which also I don't regularly watch critical role, I watch the exandria unlimited's, but there pacing is a bit slow for me, for my money I'm a dungeons and daddies, naddpod, and dimension 20 fan, I watch/listen to all of there stuff. But to each table there own.
It's kind of ludicrous to call CR fake, it's just a different style dude.
@@Lycaon1765 agreed.
@Akeche I mean, a thing can be Aspirational without needing you to mimic it exactly, and if you would like to get *more* character development, these strategies will help you *in that direction*, even if that doesn't mean you literally end up in an animated tv series on prime. The problem here wasn't that he wanted to be like Critical Role, just that Critical Role displayed some aspect of play that he would like more of in his own games, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to consider. I would personally like more systematic kingdom-building in my campaign, doesn't mean I am unreasonably comparing my game to Civilization with all its computerized rules operations, just that I should look for tricks to get some of the same vibe into this context, and discuss it with friends, and try it out to see what happens, and decide if we like it enough to keep it.
Yeah you chose to be a DM in a westmarches game. You get overloaded a million times easier and you want to for better but you are setting yourself up for more issues.
Good advice on pacing thanks for shaing.
Try a more sandbox, less narrative heavy and more open-ended game. They are good for people coming and going, and can last a very long time. You can still have your narrative and story heavy stuff, but the players tend to direct the flow of the plot more (which invests them more) yet you can also put your own custom scenes in too when it feels right. Also, I tell almost all the time and it works out fine. I never do voices and very rarely speak in-character for the NPCs. On paper, from today's standards, that seems very detached and impersonal. Yet my players tend to be very invested regardless. You don't need theatrics to grab player's attention. Most players just want to do cool stuff with their characters, and the things GMs are overly concerned with don't even pop up on their radar. I remember caring so much about "GM minutia" for a while, and eventually I realized players don't give a damn about 90% of the stuff that makes a GM pull their hair out.
Also, Critical Role isn't a good representation of a typical table top game. It's a high production value, overly produced product more than an actual role-playing session.
I adore Brennan Lee Mulligan and the way he GMs. But I had to stop watching that stuff, man. I needed to get used to the pacing of regular people. I believe that optimized my expectations and made me a better GM. But in doing that, I suppose I did seek to gameify my roleplaying sessions.
I should absolutely get back to the _roleplaying_ part.
Indeed a nice view
Everything you do when playing a TTRPG is "role playing". What you're seeing on those shows is acting. You're playing a game, not making a movie or show. When I'm playing D&D I hate when the DM tries to railroad their story down our throat. Things like that take away from player agency and immersion. I don't want to be just "along for the ride during the DM's story". I want my characters to be active, not passive. I don't care about the DM's story or the plot points. I would hate to waste 30-40 minutes of game time on a pretentious "scene" of somebody overacting or listening to the DM describe a cut scene. Keep it simple and get to the point. But It sounds like your players are rolling dice and having fun, so keep it up.
D&D is getting people confused.. If you want a great story with character interaction all you do right. Is throw away game mechanics entirely. Get your friends together with a basic plot idea, then decide what the odds are of a character doing X , Y or Z, and then rolling dice to see which happens. That way you get that real life random flavour that people love, and everyone gets to make a cool character, which people love... what I'm saying is... If you want a great story... write a book with your friends. Thank me later :D
Yes, stop playing 5e.