Here's a doozy I ran into tonight while running my game, and something that's been bothering for a while about this specific group:
There's no protracted engagement with the campaign.
What exactly do I mean?

Over the course of game sessions, players will quickly forget about even the most important details of the game; even from the previous session.

Here's an example: The characters have found a strange, notched rod of metal I've described at least three times as being two fingers wide. It was also found with a piece of paper wrapped around it which said "This is the key."
Two sessions later they come back to a magically sealed door which has a round keyhole two fingers in diameter...and they can't figure out how to open it. Keep in mind this mysterious rod was a major find, and mentioned repeatedly and the note which accompanied it.

An additional example: The magically sealed door is interesting in itself since this was the first thing the characters came across in this locale. They knew about the keyhole's shape and width at that time, and they knew they couldn't get through it yet.

However, when they needed to find a treasure hidden in the locale they were and had been in, and they had visited every other place, they never once thought to go back to the sealed door. Even after such dropped hints as "you are thinking about the task you promised to perform as you pass the rune-marked door."
(They even forgot about the *task, though it was a major event in the campaign, and again, referenced repeatedly, even by them...suddenly, they forget all about it though)

Now, just to make this clear, this is not about some preplotted scenario I have demanded they must complete and are refusing to. Don't make that mistake. This is simply about a constant lack of memory: names, places, people, events.
And the above examples are only the tip of the iceberg; every "important" detail except the most obvious -- we're being paid to get this item -- has been forgotten since the start of the campaign.
Simply, game-to-game it is as if they had never encountered or done anything before that game.

It's annoying to say the least, exasperating and frustrating at worst. Additionally, I have the horrible, horrible feeling that this stems from too many years of railroading by other GMs...the "tell me a story" syndrome.

However, when I refuse to move the story forward myself and don't push events or NPCs to the forefront, they sort of blunder and flop about like fish on a dock while I fall asleep watching them "role-play" (ie: act and pose in character), hoping that it will move their characters or the plot somewhere. It's like reading a bad Eddings novel: all talk, no action.

I swear, I feel like just turning it into a hackn'slash dungeon crawl with no point or purpose or any thinking required: open door, kill monster, take treasure, repeat. Which, of course, will absolutely aggravate them since they want to role-play.

Now, the obvious answer is "drop the group", which I would if I had another group to play with. However, also, they are good role-players -- when they engage!

I've attempted to increase that engagement by granting extra experience points for keeping a log/journal and showing it to me, by making things personal for the characters and players, but engagement hasn't happened yet.
I'm thinking of perhaps making the log a requirement, and that it is sent to me end of every session, so I know they are taking notes.

Anyone else had this problem with a group and managed to fix it?

I -always- keep a very large whiteboard on an easel to the left of my chair, and I write down names and places on it, with a three-word description of who they are. At the start of a new session, I give each player a handout with a "cast list" of people they've met before and important pieces of information they've gained.

If they -still- won't engage, dump 'em.

If your players check the net fairly often, try setting up a campaign webpage. If they glance at it during their lunchbreak or something during the week between sessions, they'll refresh their memory just enough to for you to fill in the blanks.
Try http://www.blogger.com - it's a web-paged journal program. You just type in your update into a form, and blogger handles all the file transfer stuff. It's cute - I'm using it for my blue planet campaign log (www.mytholder.f2s.com/bp).

Hello,

I don't know Raven's group, but I suspect there's more going on here than just "happening" not to remember.

One mode of play, as a player, is to suss out ways to get the GM to carry as much weight as possible. A small example of this from the old days was refusing (tacitly, via "forgetting" or "not getting around to it") to calculate any negative modifiers. If scolded, the player would coolly reply that that is the GM's job. It would then get to be such a pain in the ass for the GM to calculate all of these modifieres for every PC or NPC, that he'd bag it, and thus the players (who of course kept a close eye on their POSITIVE modifiers) came out ahead.

In terms of plot and story-content, as Raven describes, it may be that his players are using him as their "collective memory." Either they can rely on him telling them what to do, as in basically TELLING them that the key they have will get through this door, or they know that he has to endure their absolute refusal (disguised as inability) to do so. Since they know he hates this, they know they are in the catbird seat. They can basically pay NO attention to what's going on except in terms of immediate threats, and he has no choice except to comply unless he wants to endure a mode of play that he cannot stand.

Balance of Power issue, I think - and a pretty dysfunctional one. (If this is what's going on.)

Best,
Ron

Hey Raven,

My instinct on this is that you're clearly failing to hook the players, and that there's a lot factoring into the situation. And because it's complex, and some of it's social, I'm not sure you'll be able to isolate exactly what's creating the problem and subtract it from the superset of everything that's going on with your game. I think you might have better success by putting a whole new game experience on the table for your group, something that shakes up their learned behaviors in a substantial way and also forces a reinvention of the social dynamic of the group. I think your situation might be partly driven by a game system that rewards killing things and collecting treasure, and leveling up the guy, and that even if you've created a relationship-map scenario designed to hook the players, that you might be working against an experienced player syndrome that's undermining your goals by featuring learned behaviors from player history with the game system. I suspect you probably actually have the players hooked on the killing and collecting treasure that's the game's explicit reward system. I also think it can be difficult to hook the players with campaign play, because often the drama of human relationships that is most compelling to the players is too extended to keep them consistently interested. But also, I think you probably have a counter-productive social dynamic that's reinforcing your current situation. My recommendation would be to get a game system without traditional reward mechanics and run a closed-ended, five session relationship-map scenario and blow their socks off. You want a scenario that features a turbulence of human relationships the way a James Bond movie features chase sequences. And you want it to come to a dramatic climax quickly.

Paul

Ron, Paul -

Boy are you guys paranoid !
(Which doesn't mean you're not right :wink:

- James

This is not a pleasant explanation, but maybe they find the story boring? Maybe they just want a different kind of story. From what you've described it seems like a questing story, maybe they want intrigue, or a mystery story.
In any case, in my opinion the best (if probably most daunting) approach is to discuss the matter with them directly. Be careful not to put them on the defensive. In other words, don't tell them to pull themselves together, but ask them for help.
For what it's worth, my suspicion is that the players are unhappy about _something_. Maybe they want a less traditional campaign. Maybe they want a more traditional one. Maybe they do want hack and slash and are only kidding themselves about wanting to roleplay. Maybe they want a sci-fi campaign. Maybe they created characters that don't fit the campaign.
There really are a lot of possibilites the situation may have come about.

Damocles is right - unpleasant as the prospect of confrontation is, the only hope for a solution to the problem lies in asking the players directly.

Best,


Jim

Hello,

My problem with Jim and Damocles' position in the above posts is this: "communication" is a beautiful ideal but a social rarity.

Role-playing groups can easily "discuss" any current disagreements endlessly. They can go around and around, happily reinforcing whatever non-constructive social dynamic exists, each person carefully cementing a wall around whatever social role or role-playing priority that they don't want violated. Such discussions are predicated on getting nowhere.

My experience is that the all-powerful, all-resolving "communication" advice tends to be like "happiness" advice. Sure, it would be great if we all communicated (or were happy). That doesn't address the issue of HOW to do so.

The situation I describe - which may or may not be Raven's situation - is way past the "Let's work this out" phase. In many cases, it's too late. The behavior patterns, relative to that game, that group, and that social context of interaction, has been concretized, and a considerable amount of ego-protection or social conservatism will be marshaled to protect it. I suggest that one path to success in role-playing is learning when such a no-win situation is the case, and moving on to other players, or perhaps starting with one of the current players and building a new group from there.

Best,
Ron

First of all, let me thank everyone who has responded with their ideas. They're all helpful, some of them I do, some of them I might have to implement or implement differently, some of them I need to clear up to get what I need out of the discussion (selfishness!).

On the topic of communication, thus far in my group I have explicitly opened communication with my players; however, my players have not taken to it. Two examples, hopefully, will illustrate:

From the beginning, I have repeatedly told the group I would not be providing a plot or direction for the game, that it was open-ended and would go where they wished it to go. In response to this, during the game session, the actual belief of how the game worked -- in response to a situation that arose -- was voiced as, "Whatever would be best for the story you're telling."

I was floored, but I repeated that there was no story being told by myself, and that they could choose to hold down regular jobs and role-play getting the baking ovens stoked every morning (I might not GM it if they did, but they were free to do so).

The second example is that of a player flat-out not telling me that they found after playing for a while that they hated the character they made, and played him for four months longer than he wanted to. He didn't want to wreck "my story" by changing or killing off his character.
I talked with him about this immediately when it finally came out, and stated this should have been brought up as soon as he realized it, since the game is played for enjoyment.

I write to my group every couple weeks with new ideas or things I believe we should try in order to get over rough spots I've noticed in play (such as handling time). This included two long posts, one about "what you want out of the game as a player," and one about "enjoyment" (ie: what they found the most exciting and enjoyable thus far).

Quite notably, I have yet to recieve answers to the latter, and I recieved sketchy responses to the former, as though they had no clue how to answer what I was asking and giving me a virtual look rather like I'd posed to them an advanced question on astrophysics, complete with sound of crickets chirping in background.
("What *I want out of it? I've never thought about that before...I don't know.")

Additionally, weekly I provide a summary of the previous session, for all the good it does in the long term.

These are my on-going attempts to engage my players in the group, as co-authors instead of passengers or readers.

Ron is right in that the social dynamic of the group is set, at least in regards to two players. Partially this is my fault, partially it is the fault of the GMs who came before me with these same two players.

The name of the game in the group these players and I shared for four years was "tell me a story", not only my game, but the game we also all played in under a different GM.

The game would move forward towards a predetermined point, with various previously prepared scenes already set up. The players could easily coast, perking up only to engage in in-character bickering and ceaseless dialogue (I admit there were numerous times I barely paid attention to the game, and it didn't matter).

In other words, there was an implicit contract set-up in the group which carried over to my game, and which I have now been desperately trying to rewrite.

For example, I rid myself of the player I had the most personality conflicts with by stating the part of the implicit contract about character death (that it never happened without player approval) was now explicitly defunct.
I wanted to avoid players becoming too comfortable with the challenges of the game and turning their characters into vehicles of the ego, as was commonplace in the groups described above.

Frex, one would normally not sass at an ancient dragon which is barely restraining itself from killing you and your companions, especially when you are in no position to hope to survive its attack (excepting due the implicit "no character death" contract).

This left the entire game as an exploration of the interaction of personalities (resulting mostly in head-butting, since everyone was playing to their ego (their idealized self-image)); as you can imagine, a poor substitute for good role-playing or a story.

As you can see, there are no real challenges and no real way to affect the story, leaving this as the only option for play.

Thus, on to the topic of what my players want...is it killing and gaining treasure? Heck no. My players are in no way hooked on this type of gaming. From experience, doing anything of the sort bores them to death and the interest level falls. They really are "wanna-be narrativists" trapped by years of bad gaming habits.

Looking at all that, I'm more comfortable now with my original statement about the problem stemming from the "tell me a story" syndrome.
Who needs to remember anything when the GM will just tell you what to do or point you in the right direction?..wind-up-and-go style of play.

Coupled with the expected (implicit) contract, regardless that I've attempted to alter it explicitly, it looks to me like they're still behaving the way they're used to...expecting that they are simply passengers or readers and behaving as such.

With that mouthful in mind, does anyone have any further comments or insights? Ways to somehow break the communication barrier? I'd like to stay with the group, and I'd hate to leave them knowing (I think) what the problem is and not helping them enjoy their games more.

Raven,

If you look at it from the perspective of the band metaphor, there comes a point when one person cannot be responsible for ALL of the following:
- identify a shared problem
- convince everyone that it IS a problem
- present the solution
- teach everyone how it is to be implemented (i.e. how THEY should change)

Without a clear indicator of "success" (e.g. profit margin or something equally external), it's going to be ... well, I think it's going to be impossible to do.

This may be intrusive on my part, but I suggest considering that you are not there to help them with a "problem," especially since you are encountering such resistance regarding whether a problem even exists. I suggest that your main task is for YOU to enjoy role-playing. And bluntly, at present, severance may be the best policy.

Best,
Ron

Raven,

If you look at it from the perspective of the band metaphor, there comes a point when one person cannot be responsible for ALL of the following:
- identify a shared problem
- convince everyone that it IS a problem
- present the solution
- teach everyone how it is to be implemented (i.e. how THEY should change)

Without a clear indicator of "success" (e.g. profit margin or something equally external), it's going to be ... well, I think it's going to be impossible to do.

This may be intrusive on my part, but I suggest considering that you are not there to help them with a "problem," especially since you are encountering such resistance regarding whether a problem even exists. I suggest that your main task is for YOU to enjoy role-playing. And bluntly, at present, severance may be the best policy.

Best,
Ron

Severance may be the only solution but I do not think it's an especially happy one to consider.
Are you friends with any of these players?

If so, you may wish to consider how to deal with this while keeping your friends somehow.

You also may wish to consider how you'll find a new group and how you'll handle the new group so you don't have this same thread next month.

Starting with a fresh page can be nice, but if you're using the same leaky pen it will still wind up a big mess.

Raven,

Have you tried the direct approach from your point of view? That is, just saying flat out, "This isn't turning out to be the kind of game I wanted to play. I'm not having fun with it anymore. Can you guys help me out?"

This reframes the question in terms of how they can help you (rather than in terms of how they aren't doing it right), which they might respond well to.

And, if it turns out that they don't want to play anymore, either, but wre afraid of hurting your creatorly feelings, it gives them a graceful out.

Lon

Hey Raven,

They really are "wanna-be narrativists" trapped by years of bad gaming habits.

Okay...you've convinced me this is true for at least a few of your players, so I'm going to predicate the rest of my reply on it. But I do suspect that if you really accomplish Narrativism, you'll lose the interest of a few of your players. I thought the exact same thing as you before I ran Everway, that to a man, my group were wanna-be Narrativists. And I was pretty damn surprised that one of my friends, a guy who's failed college courses because of too many late night game sessions, suddenly lost interest in RPG's. It happened after character creation, but before we even played the game. And he has subsequently voiced some strange rationalizations for his disinterest, one of which was that he wasn't interested in games that didn't "have enough rules."

I write to my group every couple weeks...This included two long posts, one about "what you want out of the game as a player,"...

Quite notably...I recieved sketchy responses...as though they had no clue how to answer what I was asking


I think this is exactly synchronous with my friend who's GMing Theatrix emailing to ask the players what we wanted "to do" in the next game session. I wrote a little about this in the "Serial vs. Unified Campaign" thread. Like you, he was disappointed with the lack of response. And I think you're probably having the same problem as him. He was hoping for the players to tell him stuff like what NPC's we wanted to talk to. But if you truly have wanna be Narrativists in your group, that stuff is irrelevant. You don't even think about that stuff. Maybe that's what your character would be thinking about, if he was thinking, but you're an Author...you presuppose your character's protagonism and you think about Theme. And because the game's Premise is unrevealed, it's impossible for the players to be doing anything thematic. So they wait to see what the Premise is. It's only at that point that NPC interactions become important to them.

I have repeatedly told the group I would not be providing a plot or direction for the game, that it was open-ended and would go where they wished it to go. In response to this...the actual belief...was voiced as, "Whatever would be best for the story you're telling."

I was floored, but I repeated that there was no story being told by myself...

I really think the absence of a Premise is shutting you down. It's almost impossible for a player to invent a story with thematic substance from whole cloth. Know that having a Premise does not mean having a pre-scripted ending. In the Sorcerer game that Scott Knipe is kicking off this evening, the Premise is something like "demons are the evil in electronic entertainment," and every player knew it prior to character creation. As the game plays out, all the players will be riffing on that Premise. And this doesn't mean the players have a pre-scripted ending in mind either. My character is a remarkably unsavory dude. He may redeem himself. Or he may get a rude comeuppance. It's irrelevant to me as long as I'm satisfied with the resulting theme. Premise gives the Authorial efforts of the players and the GM a structure to build on.

Paul

Paul summed that up better than I could have, but there's a sub-Premise present in the game I'm going to attempt to run, and it has never been voiced as such. It deals with family and parenting, and runs the gamut from television becoming a surrogate parent to the ways in which celebrity can destroy youth and innocence. All of the players picked up on this immediately, as witnessed by the characters and Kickers they created. It's a good example of "give them an inch, and they'll take a mile." In roleplaying games, that's a good thing.

Hello,

This is in response to Jack's (pblock's) good point that friendships are involved too. However, I'm going to suggest something that might shock people.

*A friendship that relies on continuing ONE specific activity between friends is no friendship at all.*

In other words, if the friendship cannot survive the dissolution of the activity, then I don't think it's worth much. Real friendships are predicated on more than that.

Why endure a bad game for the sake of a lukewarm friendship? Or conversely, why preserve a lukewarm friendship for the sake of an un-enjoyable game?

Best,
Ron (way beyond Tough Love)

I read all of these posts and I keep thinking that this is a great GM and a great group, so what's missing? Then Czege hit on it exactly. Lack of premise. Maybe its absence is being over-emphasized.

Either that, or these players are totally new to gaming. Because I don't see a narrativist lacking the skills to *role* play effectively, recalling names, etc., and building the adventure.

I'm also wondering, do they speak in character? I don't mean describing (no matter how lavish) how their character is behaving, but actually becoming their character.


Jeff Diamond

Long post replying to many different points by folks:

How experienced are the players?
Two of the players in the group are relative newbies, having played sparsely, if at all, previous to this game (one played in my previous game for a few months...the other played L5R once, or something).

One other player has gamed for many years, but only with one other GM. Before this game, she'd never had to roll dice or reference her character sheet, and her only exposure to gaming was with prescripted scenarios, no character death and endless ego-based "role"-playing.

The other player is an experienced, long-time gamer, and I should say I have less problems with him than anyone else.

And to answer the question about them speaking in character, yes; actually, TOO much.

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned the idealized ego-play that the game sometimes drifts into. There are long bouts of in-character interaction that do not accomplish anything or have any meaningful result; they are, in essence, hour-long in-character conversations or bitch-sessions (I don't consider it role-playing).

The real problem, the honest-to-Gods real problem is that they aren't bad role-players, they just have bad habits which have been reinforced by years of exposure to nothing but those bad habits passed off as the norm.

Much like me, I do not believe it is so much that they are not narrativists, but they are unaware narrativists. They know, vaguely, what they want from a game, like me six months ago, but they lack the ability to express that concretely and alter their style to fit what they want. It isn't because they lack the tools, it's the same problem I had: they want something else out of the game, something better, but they don't know it or know how to do it.

Right now it looks like wanna-be narrativism...that's where they want to be, though they don't have the tools to get there or a real idea of what "there" is like.

So they keep playing the same way they always have, because it is the closest thing they have to "there", and perhaps they're doing it wrong and maybe, just maybe, they'll get it right once and then they'll start enjoying the games again...of course, that will never happen: it's a dog chasing its tail, hoping that one of these times they can catch it and get that thing to stop chasing them.

Or perhaps this isn't a narrativist issue at all, as Paul considers, perhaps they're simulationists and they're just BAD simulationists, or gamists and BAD gamists. So the question is not how to get them to be better narrativists, but how to get rid of the bad habits and make the game move, how to get them to engage.

I'm firmly convinced that no matter which stance you take, in-game movement towards some goal is essential to an enjoyable session...perhaps then the goal is lacking, because an out-and-out Premise to riff on has not been stated. I would need to develop one concretely and then somehow explain to my players that this is what the game is about and they should feel free to develop their characters towards reflecting that premise.

I should also point out that I'm not really shooting for pure Narrativism (I don't think); I'm shooting for immersive, player-driven story-telling in a non-medieval heroic fantasy style.

I honestly don't know if I *could do a good job with pure Narrativism and I'd really like to participate in a good narrative session before I go and try to expose my players to it (I'm thinking "Elfs" is going to be my and my group's stepping stone).

Note this game started before I had a real cognitive grasp of Narrativism and techniques, and the explicit "no story" was a reaction to the railroading and preplotting that I'd already experienced and been running previous to this...it is an attempt to put the burden of story-movement back on the players, where it belongs IMNSHO.

I see my role as facillitator of those things which players would have no knowledge or control of, or desire to control (we have not moved into Author-stance yet in my game...though perhaps that's another way to solve the problem...more control to the players), and that it is up to them to take the game wherever it goes, not me.

The lacking thing is still the long-term engagement, finding that magical "engagement" button for this group and pushing it.

As I said, when they do engage, the game is fantastic because they are excellent players.

Ron does make a couple good points about when to drop a group, though in this case that is the harsh road I'm not ready to take yet.

I can't or won't sever my ties to the group, take your pick. If I do sever ties, I'm out a group to play with, period; no way around it. I won't be role-playing for months or even years because of where I live and the utter lack of gamers in this area (no, they won't crawl out of the woodwork, I've checked there).

People here still think D&D = Satanism and blood sacrifices, plus I've no local friends (I don't really like the people around here as I'm not a gun-totin', beer-guzzlin', meat-eatin' redneck)).
Hence I'd prefer to work with my group than just abandon them and screw myself in the process; after all, I am screwed either way, "bad" group or no group, which is the lesser of two evils?

So, all that said, I think I'm going to speak to my group Thursday, ask them if they are enjoying the game, what they're enjoying about it, and also state that I'm not having fun with the current game because I feel too much like I'm pushing things, reminding them of too many details and that it seems there isn't enough movement per session (spending two sessions standing around talking isn't my idea of story-movement). Ask what they think we can do about that, if they want to do anything?

If they can't stand the current game, either, we'll have to talk about what they want to do to improve it, what they would like to see changed or try, and if they can't come up with anything, I'll have to suggest things.
I might suggest they must make a log/notes and show it to me at the end of every session as well, and ask what would help THEM remember important details better (perhaps providing a list of obvious current possible goals with each pre-game e-mail).
I'll also bring up creating a premise to riff on, and describe how to do that...basically, "just act as though the reason for playing is to highlight the premise."

And get them to play Elfs.
(That's going to be like pulling teeth for some of them...Hrm, how's this sound, "I need a break from the current game and its system. I'd like to try something new, a short 'Elfs' session; three or four nights. Then back to this whether we finish that or not. Or if you like, we can keep playing that for a while. We can decide later.")

I'll let everyone know how all the above turns out.

_________________
Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
http://www.daegmorgan.net/
"Homer, your growing insanity is starting to bother me."

[ This Message was edited by: greyorm on 2001-07-11 14:16 ]

A couple of thoughts I hope might be useful:

1) It sounds like you're running a simulationist campaign but looking for narrativist behaviors. As you note, you've announced no premise, and informed the PCs that you have no pre-planned story in mind. As the discussion among narrativists on this site proceeds, I think I am actually getting a handle on the concept, and the way Ron and Paul etc. make it sound, announcing a premise is something of a prerequisite for authorial and directorial behavior on the part of the players - it's that bit about limits making for power again.

2) Assuming I am not plain wrong, the question is why number 1 is the case. I see two utterly distinct possibilities:

a) You really are the simulationist you claimed to be historically and your first attempt at narrativist RPGing is simply having the maiden voyage shakeout problems one would expect.

b) You really are the simulationist you claimed to be even still, and your heart really isn't in narrativism, so you are avoiding things like premise-promulgation that our most advanced narrativist thinkers consider essential to the whole thing.

Needless to say, for where you go from here it matters hugely which of the two is the case.

3) It remains possible that the players are having fun with all that "unproductive" actor-mode stuff. That doesn't mean you should settle for not having fun, of course - you're the GM and it has to be fun for you if it's to be sustainable. But it would be a non-negative reason why they wouldn't complain.

If they are having fun, then the earlier suggestion (subclass "vaunted communication") that you should approach the players on the "How can you help me have more fun?" level may be especially productive. Of course the flip side is that they may enjoy "unproductive" in-character conversations so much that they will be fatally resistant to changing.

4) It's a truism of GMing that the one thing you can count on players failing to do is solving what seems to you to be the simplest possible puzzle. (A personal war story of mine involves Lex Luthor, a barrel of tea leaves and a video monitor, but therapy has done wonders.)

I admire your unwillingness to give up on your players and I hope things work out.

Best,


Jim

Jim,

One thing springs to mind in response to your comments: the main problem I'm having (and perhaps I'm not being clear enough) is in-game movement based on player participation.

I'm pretty certain I know when my players are getting bored, and I know how they work (I've been playing with them long enough): discussions are the slippery slope into long, boring segues which can last for five or six sessions where nothing whatsoever happens and everyone sort of utterly loses interest.

This has happened before and isn't an exaggeration, can you imagine running six sessions where nothing important happens? Six sessions?
(That, tangentially, is when I started using narrativist scene-resolution style play, conflict-resolution, to try and make things flow: situation, conflict, resolution)

Does anyone here, even the hardcore simulationists, feel that spending a session haggling over equipment or the price of your horse, is a worthy exercise for the time spent? Even in a simulation?

I don't have that much time to game during the week...I don't feel that it is worthwhile to spend my gaming session doing this, even if it is accurate and "what the characters would do." I feel this, along with describing bodily functions and how one eats one's meals, is one of those things that can be safely glossed over without ruining the versimilitude of the simulation.

Because such things are nothing short of boring and uninteresting, they are utterly without useful end. If it is simulation, it is bad simulation because no one is doing anything.

I can think of about a dozen things I'd rather do than play out horse-haggling, no matter how "in-character" it is, because it ultimately accomplishes nothing of importance.
I have, at times, gone to do other things while my game is running, and come back twenty-minutes, even a half-hour later, and the game is still going, completely without me, and it is still the same thing I left.

And, as I said, it is boring to the players, who swiftly lose interest themselves, even though they initiate it...they can't seem to figure out on their own how to move forward.

Therein lies the "engagement" problem.

4) It's a truism of GMing that the one thing you can count on players failing to do is solving what seems to you to be the simplest possible puzzle.