So, after a while, I came back to play RPG live (not online) because one of my friends, who is used to D & D 3.5, asked me to help him with a 5th table where almost all players are new to D & D (most have already played other systems before).
The problem is that both parties seem to be confusing their role in the game. For example, the very first narration of the DM imposed forced movements on a player character (the DM moved the PC itself, instead of the player describing where she was). wanted the character to go). Another example is that the DM constantly told how the characters feltfor example, "you are afraid," "you trust that person" (when they cast a bad glimpse at a high deception roll), and so on.
Similarly, players often wonder if an NPC should behave as he did, which has significantly slowed the pace of play. Players also seem to have a problem with the suspension of disbelief – or just trust the DM – complaining about how something happened. For example, an auxiliary NPC appeared "from nowhere" and the players lost a lot of time complaining that their characters did not perceive the NPC to cross it before (which could easily be a teleportation magic, an illusion, the simple fact is a very good stealthy roll, or an infinite number of other explanations).
In itself, I do not think it would be a problem if everyone had fun, but as I mentioned, my main concern is that these arguments slow down the game too much. note that everyone is a little frustrated with everything.
The DM eventually resorted to (a bad IMO) in-game solution (which was to knock out the player's PC, which slowed down the game for a few hours) so that the story could continue, but in addition to Be extremely temporary, he also (rightly, I guess) further frustrated the player.
For more precision, the DM does not intend to fuck in the air with the players; From what I understand, he does it to advance the story. The players, meanwhile, have the feeling that all that is not going according to their expectations / projects is the fact that the DM tries to make them mess and lose too much time to argue about it.
In short, how can I gently remind them that the role of the players is to describe the actions and feelings of their character (and that the DM must avoid interfering in this part), while the role of the DM is to describe the environment, the consequences of the actions and the behavior of the NPCs (and the players should probably believe that if the DM says that something has happened, then something has happened, and do not lose a half time in a dispute over whether it is impossible, unfair or otherwise).
I feel that this could be related to their previous RPG experiences that involved a bit of the old dynamic "DM vs. Players". That's why sometimes the DM seems to think he should Obligate the PCs to do something (do not believe that the player has the honesty / the ability to play according to what makes more sense)1 and the players feel that everything is a diabolical plan of the DM to kill their characters.2
If relevant, the adventure is a homebrew (based on a book written by the DM).
The players are all between 20 and 30 years old, with the exception of a 19-year-old girl (and perhaps the least problematic – she is very calm and has experience in 5th).
1 More details on an example already mentioned: an NPC lied to the PC. This particular PC did not have any kind of a priori information to know it was a lie (although other computers had, so the player had it) and had a very bad test Insight. The DM immediately reported that "You trust him!" The player accepted – and he was going to play role-play in that sense, that is to say there was no reason for the DM Obligate this on the player / character.
2 The NPC who "came out of nowhere", on which the players lost minutes to argue, was in fact an ally. They feared the NPC would appear behind them because they thought they were being murdered. In the end, she was just an ally who was watching them closely to see if she could trust them and help them eventually. She decided to leave the shadows when she thought there was enough evidence that the PCs were trustworthy.