What, in your opinion, separates a successful and engaging ttrpg from a meaningless series of combats and skill checks...

Maybe examples would help, generally, in this thread. "Players" seems like a pretty obtuse answer to a question like that, do you have a specific anecdote in mind?

I doubt I can be of any real help as I was supposed to be sleeping 3 hours ago. I don't really want to go fishing for an appropriate greentext story, too.

By players I meant all who participate in a session, my bad. Still, the DM may have the bestest plot and characters his gang will ever see, but if they don't give a fuck, then the game will feel shitty.
I guess if all players are engaged, are invested in their characters, the premise, the whole roleplaying and characterisation business, then even a randomly-generated dungeon can feel like something living, rather than a contrivance.
Like, have a look at this: a dude takes Caverns of Thacia and, by thinking what interactions could lead to particular result of die throws, manages to simulate an ecosystem. (thealexandrian.net/wordpress/4176/roleplaying-games/odd-in-the-caverns-of-thracia)

People having fun. At the end of the night, after stripping away all the whys and hows, that's what everyone is there for. That is the only difference between a meaningless roll of the die and an important one.

>People having fun

Wait.

What if they have fun wrong? Or even worse, have fun in a way that I don't like?

To me it's a good mix of a fun system, characters that are actually affected by the world, and a setting that is able to set a good fun session

Then you need to do what needs to be done, user. You know what I speak of.

But I don't have enough lube for all of my players.

No shit Sherlock. Anymore meaningless platitudes you want to offer?

I do indeed sir.

I will go to Veeky Forums and start a thread bitching about it. THAT will teach them.

>what I'd have to do to turn a randomized dungeon into a campaign.
Randomness is lacking a pattern or principle of organization
Patterns and organization convey meaning.
So this means that randomness applied to a dungeon is meaninglessness applied to a dungeon.
>Why is X here? No reason.
>Why was this challenge placed here? No meaning.
>Why is this like this? No point in asking.

Meaninglessness is combated by going in after randomly generating the dungeon and applying meaning to everything until it all makes sense and has purpose.

On the other hand, if the idea was just randomized mayhem, than that's fine.
But it's like action candy.
It might be sweet superficially, but it lacks the kind of depth that sustains interest.

Also this.

Not that user, but it really kinda is.
You can only really get away with it if you thread so hard it is undeniable.
Which didn't happen this time.

>using lube on your players
>first time dm spotted
>after a few sessions, they won't need lube

>You can only really get away with it if you thread so hard it is undeniable.

Well, a good dm solves every issue in OP's post.

Explain how, or stop posting. You've not convinced anyone.

As I said here , I'm not sure everything having a reason to exist is enough to make the game feel meaningful. I can write up a long explanation of a history of the dungeon and why everything is the way it is, but I don't think it'll be enough to engage players on its own.

>What, in your opinion, separates a successful and engaging ttrpg from a meaningless series of combats and skill checks? What's the difference between a randomized dungeon filled with challenging traps and monsters, and a meaningful campaign?

Well... you'll know you've found the answer when you can run a satisfying and fun session that contains no combat. Contemplate the means by which you might do this, and you should arrive at your own idea of what makes a campaign meaningful. I think so, anyway.

>I'm not sure everything having a reason to exist is enough to make the game feel meaningful. I can write up a long explanation of a history of the dungeon and why everything is the way it is, but I don't think it'll be enough to engage players on its own.

Then throw something interesting into the mix.

>A small gold box that the pc's can't open, but bears the mark of some long dead noble/mage/warrior/king/scholar/kingdom. The pc's will need to take it back to town and riddle it out to get what's inside....which is a map that shows a hidden part of the dungeon they just left

Or a million other examples to make said boring dungeon, a little less boring.

>is undeniable.
It has been denied. It's over. It failed. Go home.

You can argue if you must, but even if you make your case, a rimshot is not a slam dunk.

>I don't think it'll be enough to engage players on its own.
So the question is, "How do I engage my players?"
Which is hard to say without knowing them and playing to their interests.
But in a nutshell:
You can't engage your players without giving them things to engage with.

Give them a puzzle, how do they interact with it?
Give them creatures, how do they engage them?
Give them items, what do they do with them?

If every interaction is as simple as possible, keys go into doors, enemies get killed, traps get stepped around, and such, than it might feel lackluster.
The more complex the interaction, the more complex the player engagement.
Until they hit the threshold where it's too complex and they cease caring.
Engaging players is a subtle nuance of the GM position.
Without specifics, we can't armchair quarterback it for you.