So, after some time I came back to playing live (not online) RPG because a friend of mine, who is used to D&D 3.5, asked me to help him with a 5e table where almost all the players are new to D&D (most have played other systems before though).

The thing is: both sides seem to be confusing what is their role in the game. For example, the very first narration from the DM forced movements on a player character (the DM moved the PC himself, instead of the player describing where she wanted the character to go). Another example is that the DM constantly narrated how the characters felt, e.g., "you are scared", "you trust this person" (when they rolled a bad insight roll against a high deception roll), etc.

Similarly, the players frequently argue whether or not an NPC should behave like it did, which slowed the playing pace considerably. The players also seem to have some problem with suspension of disbelief - or simply trusting the DM - complaining about how something happened. For example, a maid NPC appeared "out of nowhere" and the players wasted minutes complaining about how their characters didn't perceive the NPC passing through them before (which could easily be a teleportation magic, an illusion, the NPC simply having had a really good stealth roll, or an infinite number of other explanations).

By itself I don't think it would be a problem if everyone was having fun, but as I mentioned, my main concern is that these arguments are slowing down the play just too much. Additionally, it's noticeable that everyone is getting a little frustrated over everything.

The DM ended up resorting to (a bad, IMO) in-game solution (which was to knock out the PC of the player slowing down the game for a few in-game hours) so the story could continue, but besides being extremely temporary, it also (rightfully, I guess) frustrated the player more.

For clarification, the DM has no intent of screwing with the players; from what I understand, he does this in order to move the story forward. The players, on the other hand, feel that everything that does not go according to their expectations/plans is the DM trying to screw them, and waste too much time arguing about that.

The Question

In short, how can I gently remind them that the players' role is to describe their character actions and feelings (and the DM should avoid interfering in this part), while the DM's role is to describe the environment, consequences of the actions and the behavior of NPCs (and the players should probably trust that if the DM said something happened, then something happened, and not waste half an hour in an argument about that being impossible, unfair or whatever).

Additional details on background

I feel that this might be related to their previous RPG experiences which involved a little of the old "DM vs. Players" dynamic. That's why sometimes the DM seems to think he should force the PCs to do something (not trusting that the player has the honesty/ability to play accordingly to what makes more sense)¹ and the players feel that everything is an evil plan from the DM to kill their characters.²

If it is relevant, the adventure is a homebrew one (based on a book the DM is writing).

The players are all 20–30 years old, except for one girl who is 19 (and possibly the least problematic one - she's very calm, with experience in 5e).

¹ More details on an example already mentioned: an NPC lied to the PC. That particular PC didn't have any kind of a priori information to know that it was a lie (although other PCs had, thus the player had) and rolled a really bad Insight check. The DM immediately narrated it as "You trust him!". The player agreed - and he was going to role-play as that anyway, i.e., there was no reason for the DM to force that upon the player/character.

² The NPC that "appeared out of nowhere", that the players wasted minutes arguing about, was actually an ally. They were worried that the NPC appeared behind them because they thought they were getting assassinated. In the end she was just an ally that was watching them closely to learn if she could trust them and help them if needed, eventually. She decided to leave the shadows when she thought there was enough evidence that the PCs were trustworthy.

It isn't wrong for the DM to narrate a PC's feelings or actions based on the result of a roll. A failed Insight roll could certainly mean you trust a particular NPC, in the same way that a failed Athletics roll might lead to you tumbling down a cliff, or a failed save means you're now on fire. I'm less sanguine about just declaring the players are afraid when they walk into a spooky castle, but on the other hand a lot of time that's just flavor text and it's not "taking control" of anyone's character as much as just trying to set the scene.

I think players sometimes get a little too precious with their characters -- there's no need to slap the DM's metaphorical hands off your PC for daring to narrate how they're responding to a given die roll any more than you should get huffy when the DM says you took an arrow to the chest and fell over, bleeding. If it felt bad, certainly make a note and mention it privately to the DM afterward -- "Hey, at this point in the story you said thus-and-such, and I didn't like that because I don't think it's how my character would feel about that situation."

This might be a good time to stop and have the good old "expectations at the table" talk, though. There are a lot of ways to address it, but they all boil down to one core idea:

As the DM, I'm here to make sure everyone has fun at the table, and that includes me. I'm not going to screw you over, so please trust me enough to let me run the game. If I make a mistake or forget a rule or you think I'm doing something badly, make a note and we'll talk about it after the session, and while I don't promise to do what you want, I will listen and take your comments into account.

In my own DMing experience, there have certainly been times when I had to call down my players and say, "Hold on! Let me finish describing the scene, and then you can respond." Sometimes that means they need to shut up long enough for me to mention the alligators in the moat before they go leaping into it. Sometimes that means this is a little cut-scene and they don't really get to try to stop the assassination that's already in progress. Sometimes it means characters appear "out of nowhere" and they need to let me get to the part where the maid starts talking to them before they decide if I'm being unfair.

Introduction

In general, questions about group dynamics often come down to talking to your players, explaining your concerns, and finding compromises that work for everyone in the group. How exactly you do that will depend on how well you know the players, how they know each other, etc. - there are entire books like Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People that can help you figure out the best way to approach a specific situation (I highly recommend the book - it's a fast read, and there's useful stuff in the first few chapters).

That said, there are multiple issues that you're describing here, and they deserve some individual treatment.

DM vs. Players

If the players are used to a "DM vs. Players" mentality, you might need to spend some time clearing that up before resolving other issues. Aside from talking to them and explaining your position, some ways of making it clear that you're not out to get the players are:

• Try to match their emotions. Act excited when they hit the enemy and disappointed when they miss. Act worried before hitting them with something big they weren't expecting.


• Give them some leeway. If you think they're missing something obvious, it's okay to remind them occasionally.


• Prompt them for rolls like Insight rather than forcing them to say "I make an Insight roll to see if he's lying". You can do this when the NPC is telling the truth to throw them off - the important thing is to avoid the "you didn't ask" problem.


• If they want to do something you don't understand, ask them what they're trying to accomplish before declaring what happens. (e.g., I've had a player declare that he wanted to punt a small creature, only to be disappointed when the DM ruled the action a Bull Rush that knocked it across the room without damaging it.)


• Have low intelligence enemies make stupid decisions sometimes, like using poor positioning or choosing bad targets for their abilities.

You don't have to keep doing these things forever if you don't want to - just long enough to break down the "DM vs. Player" mentality.

Player Expectations

The RPGs that the players have prior experience with could be part of the problem here, depending on what those games are. Whereas D&D generally considers the GM to be the storyteller and the players only have control over their specific characters, that's not the case in all games.

For example, Fate has rules that give the players more control over the story as a whole. It allows players to concede in combat and declare certain results that they want to avoid (e.g., "I don't want to be killed or captured, but I'm fine if the bad guy steals some of my gear"). It also encourages players to suggest details of the environment, which they can then use once for free. Players coming from that sort of system may have different expectations about how the game should work that you'll want to account for.

DM Controlling Players

The DM saying "You trust this person" on a failed Insight roll doesn't honestly sound that bad to me, but different word choice might help. I usually try to give those results as "You don't think they're trying to deceive you", to convey:

1. The person might be telling the truth.


2. The person might be lying, and you weren't canny enough to pick up on it.


3. The person might be mistaken, and is giving you inaccurate information without meaning to.

With regard to player movement, I generally think that players should move themselves, but there are some corner cases. A common source of problems for me is that when things aren't proceeding in turn order, players often move differently than if they were in combat. For example, one player moves their piece many spaces ahead to where a monster notices them, and then the other players all say, "Wait, we wouldn't have let him get that far ahead". Of course, if that player triggers a fireball trap, those same players might be eager to claim that they meant to be spread out this time.

The best way I've found to handle this is to discuss the problem with the group and establish some ground rules. For example, my current group has a set movement formation, which lets me assume everyone moves as a group unless they say otherwise.