2 Requested to be more on topic - edited answer accordingly.
source | link

A lot of times, before I even start playing a dungeon crawl game, I'll let people know "There's no traps or secret doors in this game. I I'm not going to hide awesome magic swords in trashpiles. I don't like digging through the tunnels spending 20 minutes searching each room, so no traps." or maybe, "The only traps that will show up will take several turns"If things are going to do what they dobe hidden, much like comic bookit'll be in a way that lets you know there's something around - maybe a magic moon map that tells you a secret door is nearby, or a James Bond style death traps. There's not going to be any 'gotcha you're dead' trapsdeathtrap, so don't go looking for themetc."

Now, maybe your game DOES have occasional trapshidden things, so this wouldn't apply. That said, I'd would have responded when they decide to do further investigation after the first roll - "Ok, you guys spend more time looking but we're not going to roll or keep going at this. There really is no traptrapdoor here. You spend the time, you're certain there's no traptrapdoor, there's also no secret doorstraps, no treasure. You've completely searched this room."

"No, really, there's no trapsnothing here. This is me, telling you this. You know how you might play a videogame and you've got the friend who spends 2 hours bumping against a wall because they're certain there's a secret area and there isn't? That's what this is. I'm saving you the time. Your characters search, no trapsdoor. Let's move on with the adventure."

The other thingpart is also about whetherhow much your game style tends to have "gotchas". Gotchas are the most terrible thing for tabletop games. They make sense in a videogame where you are playing by yourself, can start over,actually has hidden or false information and just avoid the problem the next playthrough.

If you don't have gotchas,how that helpsplays out -as an expectation of the group. If you are honest as a GM to the players (this doesn't meanexpect the NPCs are all honest, but then againGM to be lying to them, so many adventures areor that the area should be constantly full of oh-so-predictable-betrayals that it's usually not fun anyway)hidden things, you can skipgotcha traps, etc. the players then spend a lot of thesetime trying to find the "right way" to overcome the problems and over-protecting themselves.

On the other handThat might be fear of a secret door from which monsters might come out, if your GMing ends up being likemissing the thingawesome magic sword hidden in the players build these defense mechanisms aroundmost ridiculous way, or a "oops and now you're all dead trap".

I often prefer to explain to the players when their characters know they have limited information. "You can tell this guy is lying or hiding something, but you're not sure about what." "You can tell this much about this artifact, but the kindrest of play that comesit? You're not sure, you need to go get some help to find out ofmore." "That thing seems magical and maybe dangerous. You probably shouldn't touch it without finding out a bit more."

I don't do gotchas, I don't lie about whatassume the PCs actually perceive,characters are competent in their roles and unlessgive that kind of information out freely and make sure that it's right nearly all the gametime. If it's something where misunderstanding is about politics and intrigue, I rarely leave it ambiguous asgoing to whether someone is lying or tellingdetract from the truth. point of play ("Oh"We're playing an action-movie, he's definitely lying. You'rewe don't need intrigue"), I just not sure about which partstop the game and give the info freely and honestly.")

Doing this lets us as a groupNow, rememberpart of that means you can't go playing the focus of play isnarrative gotcha on the actionplayers, or else they will have no option BUT to do this double-guessing and choices ofassuming the characters and not so much trying to figure out whatGM is true or not true about what we see or hearout to get them.

A lot of times, before I even start playing a dungeon crawl game, I'll let people know "There's no traps in this game. I don't like digging through the tunnels spending 20 minutes searching each room, so no traps." or maybe, "The only traps that will show up will take several turns to do what they do, much like comic book or James Bond style death traps. There's not going to be any 'gotcha you're dead' traps, so don't go looking for them."

Now, maybe your game DOES have occasional traps, so this wouldn't apply. That said, I'd would have responded when they decide to do further investigation after the first roll - "Ok, you guys spend more time looking but we're not going to roll or keep going at this. There really is no trap here. You spend the time, you're certain there's no trap, there's also no secret doors, no treasure. You've completely searched this room."

"No, really, there's no traps. This is me, telling you this. You know how you might play a videogame and you've got the friend who spends 2 hours bumping against a wall because they're certain there's a secret area and there isn't? That's what this is. I'm saving you the time. Your characters search, no traps. Let's move on with the adventure."

The other thing is also about whether your game style tends to have "gotchas". Gotchas are the most terrible thing for tabletop games. They make sense in a videogame where you are playing by yourself, can start over, and just avoid the problem the next playthrough.

If you don't have gotchas, that helps. If you are honest as a GM to the players (this doesn't mean the NPCs are all honest, but then again, so many adventures are full of oh-so-predictable-betrayals that it's usually not fun anyway), you can skip a lot of these problems.

On the other hand, if your GMing ends up being like the thing the players build these defense mechanisms around, this is the kind of play that comes out of it.

I don't do gotchas, I don't lie about what the PCs actually perceive, and unless the game is about politics and intrigue, I rarely leave it ambiguous as to whether someone is lying or telling the truth. ("Oh, he's definitely lying. You're just not sure about which part.")

Doing this lets us as a group, remember that the focus of play is the action and choices of the characters and not so much trying to figure out what is true or not true about what we see or hear.

A lot of times, before I even start playing a dungeon crawl game, I'll let people know "There's no traps or secret doors in this game. I'm not going to hide awesome magic swords in trashpiles. I don't like digging through the tunnels spending 20 minutes searching each room." or maybe, "If things are going to be hidden, it'll be in a way that lets you know there's something around - maybe a magic moon map that tells you a secret door is nearby, or a James Bond deathtrap, etc."

Now, maybe your game DOES have occasional hidden things, so this wouldn't apply. That said, I'd would have responded when they decide to do further investigation after the first roll - "Ok, you guys spend more time looking but we're not going to roll or keep going at this. There really is no trapdoor here. You spend the time, you're certain there's no trapdoor, there's also no traps, no treasure. You've completely searched this room."

"No, really, there's nothing here. This is me, telling you this. You know how you might play a videogame and you've got the friend who spends 2 hours bumping against a wall because they're certain there's a secret area and there isn't? That's what this is. I'm saving you the time. Your characters search, no door. Let's move on with the adventure."

The other part is how much your game actually has hidden or false information and how that plays out -as an expectation of the group. If the players expect the GM to be lying to them, or that the area should be constantly full of hidden things, gotcha traps, etc. the players then spend a lot of time trying to find the "right way" to overcome the problems and over-protecting themselves.

That might be fear of a secret door from which monsters might come out, missing the awesome magic sword hidden in the most ridiculous way, or a "oops and now you're all dead trap".

I often prefer to explain to the players when their characters know they have limited information. "You can tell this guy is lying or hiding something, but you're not sure about what." "You can tell this much about this artifact, but the rest of it? You're not sure, you need to go get some help to find out more." "That thing seems magical and maybe dangerous. You probably shouldn't touch it without finding out a bit more."

I assume the characters are competent in their roles and give that kind of information out freely and make sure that it's right nearly all the time. If it's something where misunderstanding is going to detract from the point of play ("We're playing an action-movie, we don't need intrigue"), I just stop the game and give the info freely and honestly.

Now, part of that means you can't go playing the narrative gotcha on the players, or else they will have no option BUT to do this double-guessing and assuming the GM is out to get them.

1
source | link

Have a discussion

Stop the game, have a discussion.

A lot of times, before I even start playing a dungeon crawl game, I'll let people know "There's no traps in this game. I don't like digging through the tunnels spending 20 minutes searching each room, so no traps." or maybe, "The only traps that will show up will take several turns to do what they do, much like comic book or James Bond style death traps. There's not going to be any 'gotcha you're dead' traps, so don't go looking for them."

Now, maybe your game DOES have occasional traps, so this wouldn't apply. That said, I'd would have responded when they decide to do further investigation after the first roll - "Ok, you guys spend more time looking but we're not going to roll or keep going at this. There really is no trap here. You spend the time, you're certain there's no trap, there's also no secret doors, no treasure. You've completely searched this room."

"What if I go do this? What if I do this?"

"No, really, there's no traps. This is me, telling you this. You know how you might play a videogame and you've got the friend who spends 2 hours bumping against a wall because they're certain there's a secret area and there isn't? That's what this is. I'm saving you the time. Your characters search, no traps. Let's move on with the adventure."

Real trust and what game are we actually playing?

The other thing is also about whether your game style tends to have "gotchas". Gotchas are the most terrible thing for tabletop games. They make sense in a videogame where you are playing by yourself, can start over, and just avoid the problem the next playthrough.

If you don't have gotchas, that helps. If you are honest as a GM to the players (this doesn't mean the NPCs are all honest, but then again, so many adventures are full of oh-so-predictable-betrayals that it's usually not fun anyway), you can skip a lot of these problems.

On the other hand, if your GMing ends up being like the thing the players build these defense mechanisms around, this is the kind of play that comes out of it.

I don't do gotchas, I don't lie about what the PCs actually perceive, and unless the game is about politics and intrigue, I rarely leave it ambiguous as to whether someone is lying or telling the truth. ("Oh, he's definitely lying. You're just not sure about which part.")

Doing this lets us as a group, remember that the focus of play is the action and choices of the characters and not so much trying to figure out what is true or not true about what we see or hear.