[RPG] How to be more descriptive about actions and events in the game

The first thing is: get a game that inspires them. Without that, you're sunk. Often, settings will inspire people: try Poison'd, Kagematsu, Prime Time Adventures, Mouse Guard, Burning Wheel or a specific Fiasco playset. If you can, get them to choose one themselves.

Particularly, try a game with a GM. This does two things. Firstly, it gives them some comfort: they aren't forced to suddenly start narrating. They can play as they usually play. Secondly, it lets you do this...

Use your GM role to encourage them to narrate. The neatest technique, here, is fishing. When a player kills someone, prompt them to describe it: "And how do you do that?".

When you do this, pick moments that are fun to describe. Don't get them to describe their feelings. Don't get them to describe the inside of a tavern they've just entered. Get them to describe how they swing across the room on a chandelier and drive their sword into an orc's head. (Also epilogues. Everyone loves narrating epilogues for their character.)

Remember to accept their ideas and build on them. If you do that, they'll come up with more ideas. For example, if they decide to question the innkeeper, then the innkeeper knows something.

Try, also, telling them what they're meant to do. It sounds obvious, but it's something we neglect. For example, in Dogs In The Vineyard, tell players "If you think there should be an inn in town, tell me". In Fiasco, say "This works better if we kick around ideas while we're choosing relationships, needs and objects". In Poison'd, say "This goes better if you go player-vs-player".

Here's a personal example. In Cthulhu games, I like players to roll for their own sanity. This makes them enjoy going mad: they try to get Sanity rolls, because it'll send them mad. So I tell them this. "This is more fun if you make your own Sanity rolls. Going mad is fun and I'd like someone to go mad before the end."

I've had good results with these techniques. I've seen traditional players yelling with delight at Poison'd. I've had Warhammer WFRP players narrating epilogues.

With all that said, you do need to respect the group. After all, that's a big part of indie games. Don't do indie-by-stealth. Don't force techniques on them. If they're changing the subject when you talk about indie games they've played...well, you know why that is, right? Get off their back (I say this in the friendliest way possible).

Better still, talk to them and see if you can work something out. What did they hate about indie games, exactly? Was it narrating? Was it the subject matter? Work out a game they might like. Or get them to do so.

System agnostic answer

Many roleplay games (D&D traditionally not among them) have the concept of "failing forward". This means that every roll has some consequence which is usually narrated by the GM and usually bad for the character or the party as a whole. A roll without possible negative consequences should not be made.

Examples of such rules are:

Every moment of play, roll dice or say “yes.”

If nothing is at stake, say “yes” [to the player’s request], whatever they’re doing. Just go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.

Sooner or later—sooner, because [your game’s] pregnant with crisis— they’ ll have their characters do something that someone else won’ t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Start the confl ict and roll the dice.

Roll dice, or say “yes.” (Dogs in the Vineyard)

Burning Wheel has "Intent" and "Let it ride" rules. Intent is stated before every roll. When the roll succeeds, the intent happens. When the roll fails, all manners of things may happen (at GMs discretion) but the intent definitively doesn't happen. This can't be changed by any roll until the situation in fiction has significantly changed. An example of this two rules in play would be:

Player: I want to pick the lock before the guards come around.

roll fail

GM: Yeah, you open the lock... just as a guard comes around the corner.

Apocalypse World has "moves" a GM (MC in Apocalypse World) can make when players fail a roll. The moves are of general nature ("take their stuff away", "separate them", "inflict harm") and don't have to be directly caused by the attempted action.

What that means for your situation

With the statue example this would mean that a failed roll would totally allow you to narrate the character springing the trap. He chose to investigate and thus took the risk of touching something, he shouldn't touch. If he insists on doing a "safe, no touch" investigation he most likely won't get much useful information (but also wouldn't have to roll).

Final advice

While some games support, encourage and even demand to be played like this, many games (including D&D) don't. Thus any attempt to start playing in this style has to be agreed upon with the whole group (trivially true when it is part of the official rules of the game being played). I strongly suggest shifting to "failing forward" as the alternative leads to very slow and static play-style where not much happens, nobody trusts one another and where there is constant rules lawyering.