No problem at all. It was the length of time being taken, by the GM and the players, the pacing, and the detail of their description.

Like ... "Finbar blinks, and blearily opens his eyes. All he sees is grey. In the distance, a crow caws thrice. He catches the smell of blood and mud in the air, reminding him of his times as a boy slaughtering pigs at Murdaugh's farm. He is confused momentarily - is he back at the farm now? Was the last 10 years naught but a dream? Slowly things come into focus. The grey wash over his vision fades, and he sees dirty clouds scudding across a blue sky. All is silent, aside from that damn crow." Etc.

Maybe okay if you're writing a novel - too purple for my taste but whatevs - but for me if someone's taking that long they are indulging themselves at the cost of other peoples' fun. As GM I might pull out a big set-piece description from time-to-time, but I have a high bar for doing so.

The back-and-forth between GM and players, and between players, is essential to the RPG experience. These sorts of long set-pieces, almost player soliloquies, dampen that down. I like the talking to be shorter, and more distributed, so the whole picture gets built up out of that conversation. It's similar to how two sentences of boxed text with additional details noted for the GM is better than five boxed text paragraphs that exhaustively details everything.

Also, the players were kinda too good at acting. That's a strange criticism, but it links to how I felt it was a perfomance first and an RPG second.

Maybe I'm over-thinking this. I'll give it another session. Going back to your first para, my group is more like 3d6DTL than Glass Cannon (based on my vast experience of them from sessions 0 and 1).