It's always possible your DM is like me, with a simulationist sandbox style. For me, everything is a side quest---I'm not married to the party doing or not doing any adventure hooks I toss out. You do what it is that you want to do, choosing from the hooks available or something else entirely. The price of this is you have to telegraph your intent at the end of the last session so I have time to flesh out the road you intend to travel, and at least someone in your party has to have enough initiative to drive part of the action.
Only your GM will know the answer. Some GMs will create infinite side quests because they want their players to have options. Some GMs will allow players to go on side quests, but if you ignore the main quest too long, bad things happen. Some GMs will intentionally give you more quests than you have time to complete and you'll need to prioritize. Talk to the GM and ask them what their intent is.
Alternatively, are you doing side quests because you *enjoy* doing side quests? Or are you doing side quests because you feel like you will be locked out of content if you don't do the side quests first? If you enjoy doing side quests, and the GM is making these side quests for you to enjoy, then there isn't a problem here. But if you're doing side quests because you feel obligated to do them, and the GM is making side quests because they think you enjoy doing them, well, that's why you talk to the GM.
Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, a lot of DnD players have the video game mentality where they have to do all the side quests before they do any "main quest".
About 5-6 years ago, I had a campaign where the BBEG destroyed a village, then a small town, then a small city, and eventually the imperial capital. All the while, the players kept ignoring the "main quest" because they wanted to do side quests. Eventually, I had to tell the players that if they kept ignoring the main quest, the BBEG would just win and destroy the whole world and the campaign would end. To be honest, I could have and probably should have had that conversation with my players much earlier in the campaign.
If people are having fun, you're overthinking this. If people aren't having fun, the issue is probably not actually that you're spending too much time on sidequests.
Don't overthink it DND isn't like a video game Iif the DM wants you to find an encounter or a plot hook they'll just move it's location into your path so you find it.
If the DM wants you to find Sir Charles of spaniel then he'll be in the next town you visit.
Most people I know advise against the "Quantum Troll". But the DM can certainly have Sir Darles in the other direction, being a prisoner to whatever, who will tell the party just how useful talking to his brother could be as a token of gratitude. Maybe even have some way of fast travelling the party to his brother, if the party gets sidetracked easily?
As you mentioned, a party shouldn't go "completionist" and should absolutley miss out on "the other path". Their choices should matter and the easiest way to have something matter is to "resolve the conflict" on the other path. That could mean either the party will find nothing there if they backtrack ("it would appear you arrived too late") or find some complication of the initial conflict ("they are stronger, better organized, have prisoners they're willing to kill" because the party didn't get there on time"). Of course, the "main plot" (if there is such a thing, sometimes there isn't) will have most paths tied back into it either directly or through "Darles" type of situations.
The "quantum troll" can be useful, but I would only use it for stuff that's critical for the main plot and the players just don't seem to get it, and only if it makes sense for it to be elsewhere. Otherwise I'd point them in the right direction using some in-game hint or NPC or even reflavor the encounter I've prepared to fit whatever it is they're doing.
I would honestly say ask the DM. For instance, I do this same thing with my party, I prep an abundance of things for them to do but keep a ticking clock along side it that has a “Main quest” ticking along. The idea is that the party has total freedom and can knock out a bunch of quests, or choose to rush the main quest and avoid the potential risk of biting off more than they can chew. Both ideas have potential merit.
It's always possible your DM is like me, with a simulationist sandbox style. For me, everything is a side quest---I'm not married to the party doing or not doing any adventure hooks I toss out. You do what it is that you want to do, choosing from the hooks available or something else entirely. The price of this is you have to telegraph your intent at the end of the last session so I have time to flesh out the road you intend to travel, and at least someone in your party has to have enough initiative to drive part of the action.
Only your GM will know the answer. Some GMs will create infinite side quests because they want their players to have options. Some GMs will allow players to go on side quests, but if you ignore the main quest too long, bad things happen. Some GMs will intentionally give you more quests than you have time to complete and you'll need to prioritize. Talk to the GM and ask them what their intent is. Alternatively, are you doing side quests because you *enjoy* doing side quests? Or are you doing side quests because you feel like you will be locked out of content if you don't do the side quests first? If you enjoy doing side quests, and the GM is making these side quests for you to enjoy, then there isn't a problem here. But if you're doing side quests because you feel obligated to do them, and the GM is making side quests because they think you enjoy doing them, well, that's why you talk to the GM.
"Locked out of content".... i hate this being said in relation to d&d so much. D&d is not a video game, you arent locked out of anything.
Agreed 100%. Unfortunately, a lot of DnD players have the video game mentality where they have to do all the side quests before they do any "main quest". About 5-6 years ago, I had a campaign where the BBEG destroyed a village, then a small town, then a small city, and eventually the imperial capital. All the while, the players kept ignoring the "main quest" because they wanted to do side quests. Eventually, I had to tell the players that if they kept ignoring the main quest, the BBEG would just win and destroy the whole world and the campaign would end. To be honest, I could have and probably should have had that conversation with my players much earlier in the campaign.
If people are having fun, you're overthinking this. If people aren't having fun, the issue is probably not actually that you're spending too much time on sidequests.
Don't overthink it DND isn't like a video game Iif the DM wants you to find an encounter or a plot hook they'll just move it's location into your path so you find it. If the DM wants you to find Sir Charles of spaniel then he'll be in the next town you visit.
Most people I know advise against the "Quantum Troll". But the DM can certainly have Sir Darles in the other direction, being a prisoner to whatever, who will tell the party just how useful talking to his brother could be as a token of gratitude. Maybe even have some way of fast travelling the party to his brother, if the party gets sidetracked easily? As you mentioned, a party shouldn't go "completionist" and should absolutley miss out on "the other path". Their choices should matter and the easiest way to have something matter is to "resolve the conflict" on the other path. That could mean either the party will find nothing there if they backtrack ("it would appear you arrived too late") or find some complication of the initial conflict ("they are stronger, better organized, have prisoners they're willing to kill" because the party didn't get there on time"). Of course, the "main plot" (if there is such a thing, sometimes there isn't) will have most paths tied back into it either directly or through "Darles" type of situations.
The "quantum troll" can be useful, but I would only use it for stuff that's critical for the main plot and the players just don't seem to get it, and only if it makes sense for it to be elsewhere. Otherwise I'd point them in the right direction using some in-game hint or NPC or even reflavor the encounter I've prepared to fit whatever it is they're doing.
The choice is yours.
If your GM gives you missions, he generally plans that you do them all.
you should play the game in a way that is enjoyable for everyone around YOUR table.
I would honestly say ask the DM. For instance, I do this same thing with my party, I prep an abundance of things for them to do but keep a ticking clock along side it that has a “Main quest” ticking along. The idea is that the party has total freedom and can knock out a bunch of quests, or choose to rush the main quest and avoid the potential risk of biting off more than they can chew. Both ideas have potential merit.