I'm interested in both.
You don't have a team without members. And you don't have members without a team.
It's like saying one should be interested in the fabric, while not caring one iota about any of the threads. Without the threads, it's "fabric" in concept only. But a pile of disconnected threads is merely the material of fabric, not fabric itself. It is only the union of both--the individual pieces, and their collective structure--that makes fabric.
Likewise, story. Without the individual members, it's a "story" in concept only. With exclusively individual members, no wider network to fit them into, it's got the pieces of a story just randomly jumbled about.
Or if you prefer a food analogy: If you replace the cream with tomato puree, and the clams with sausage, and the potatoes with tortellini, and the Old Bay with salamoia bolognese, it's not clam chowder anymore, even if it has the right structure, because it has (effectively) none of the components. Likewise, a carafe of cream, a container of chicken broth, a pile of potatoes, a bowl of freshly shucked clams, and a container of Old Bay aren't clam chowder either. The former has lost all but the tiniest similarities to clam chowder, having only the most fundamental structure (soup). The latter has all the components, but components alone don't make clam chowder, the cooking does.
The whole thing--components, structure, and execution--is important. Telling folks to enjoy the components of a clam chowder isn't going to make them any more likely to listen to you, no matter how much you explain that nutritionally it's equivalent.