Yes, but when you say "the game being played", do you mean the system and rule book? I am not aware of any difference between 3.5 or 4E rules on player narration versus 5E rules on player narration, because I'm not aware of *any* rules in 5E on player narration. There is some tradition and culture, among D&D players, which interacts with the rules as written, and which varies from table to table. Hero System has a genre-specific rule about player narration *in character*; when you're using Hero System to play Champions, you can establish that *in-character* monologues are Zero Phase actions (equivalent to free actions). Hero System doesn't have RAW about out-of-character player narration. (Well, not as of Hero 4E.)
Universalis has rules for what players establish about the fiction. It does not have rules for what players say when speaking in the voice of a character; the declarations which spend Coins to establish Facts are out-of-character. (Universalis is a no-DM system.) I have only played Fiasco once and didn't read the rules book, but I gather that Fiasco allows quite a bit of player narration, including narration which establishes facts in the fiction.
I meant the game system being played. As you go on to point out, this view would not work well with all games, like Fiasco. I was thinking more along the lines of what we'd consider traditional games in the vein of D&D, where there's a clearly established turn order and all that goes with it. In a game like that, I've noticed that need to keep things moving as both a player and DM. I absolutely love when players add a bit beyond "I stab the orc" and other basic action descriptions, but it's a fine line between what adds to the game and what becomes self-indulgent noise.
I've been playing a lot of Blades in the Dark lately, and it does not have an initiative system, and all its action resolution works the same, from social interaction to combat, and I think that's a big part of its appeal. Try to convince a guard you're authorized to pass a checkpoint? Try to sneak past him? Try to quietly murder him? It's all resolved using the same mechanics. The game also expects more narration on the part of the players than D&D expects. I still want to keep the game moving, but that feeling isn't as strong as it is with D&D. D&D can take time because of the nature of the way combat works with "attack- HP loss- repeat" so I think anything that significantly slows that process down rather than speeding it up seems like a negative. So I think the shift in focus is just enough to ease some of that feeling.
I find that self-indulgent. I imagine that player writing novels which are Mary Sue homages to the awesomeness of the protagonist. How about player narration which isn't a zoom onto the face of that player's PC? For example, a narration in which one PC turns attention towards another PC - "Aspar sprints to the side of his fallen comrade Lavinia, to see if she yet lives" - which is meant as a set-up for either the DM, or Lavinia's player, to narrate Lavinia's status? (It's possible that the GM doesn't know Lavinia's exact progress along the Wound Track; so the GM might turn to Lavinia's player for further narration.)
Sure....sometimes it can be worthwhile, or it can be something that adds to the game by giving the GM or another player something to build upon. I have no problem with that at all....quite the opposite, really.
You mention "it’s a player’s turn". In my experience, gamers apply rigorous standards of "it's my turn, now it's your turn" more during combat (or chase or other action scenes) than during most non-combat. I've also experienced (recently) wrangling over who's taking too a long turn, when PCs enter a village, and split up to pursue a variety of non-combat downtime goals. The dwarven paladin went to the local smithy, the sorlock sought an appointment with the local mayor, the rogue found the worst bar in town, and the DM spent some time on each of their conversations with NPCs. Those scenes aren't mediated by the combat rules; they're not in initiative order as modified by DEX; they still raise the question of which player gets how much of the DM's spotlight. And in all those scenes, one of the time factors, is how much the DM narrates to establish facts and tone about the smithy, the mayor, and the dive bar. If the dwarf paladin's player goes to the smithy, and the DM spends five minutes describing the smithy then five minutes of NPC in-character speech, the local smith telling the story of how he was once an adventurer before he took an arrow to the knee, then that's ten minutes of that scene, before the player has a chance to say *anything* about what he wants at the smithy. If, at that point, the rogue player gets itchy - "when can we resolve what I find at the bar?" - then that player's impatience is understandable AND the paladin player might feel caught between "I want to play my PC!" versus "my scene has gone on too long already".
Yeah, combat and social interaction having different mechanics can cause some murkiness about the amount of time or effort needed for such scenes. And these scenes you've offered as examples are very much in line with what I'm thinking of in relation to the thread topic. Most people have offered examples of creatures encountered and important locations.....and I think such things will by default demand a bit more from the GM in terms of narration. But this kind of "downtime back in town" kind of scenes....I'd simply narrate them each with a couple sentences, and maybe a couple of die rolls to see how successful things went if the player had a specific goal in mind. "You find the smithy....is there some item you want forged? Okay, roll a Charisma check, and you get advantage because of your standing in town." That kind of thing.
The only way I'd go into more depth with the scene is if the smith was important in some way, or if the reason for visiting the smith was of importance to the character. So if he wanted his father's sword reforged, a stated goal of the character, and the smith in question was said to be the one person who could do that....okay, then let's expand a bit.
Wait, what does any of this have to do with literary value?
IMO a story in which the PCs *each have their own interests*, in which the paladin's interest in the forge comes from his worship of Tharmekhûl, while the sorlock's actions follow from his Noble background and his membership in the Lord's Alliance (plus he's the high-CHA "Face" of the party), and the rogue goes to the dive bar *to differentiate himself from all these lofty heroes he tags along with* (he's in it for the loot, not the heroism), is a story with more potential for literary quality, than a story in which the PCs stick with the trope of "go to the local tavern and flirt with barmaids".
This potential for literary quality comes from the players, not from the DM. But whether this potential gets realized, or not, depends in large part on how well the DM rises to the occasion. If the DM has a pre-written speech in which the mayor has a side quest for the party, and thus the DM spends time only on the sorlock's visit, while dropping the ball or giving token attention to the visits to the smithy and the dive bar, then the DM is missing an opportunity, and the DM is rewarding one player with more spotlight time than the others.
In this situation, perhaps the sorlock player should interrupt the mayor (and thus the DM) with "Hey, I came here because I've discovered clues indicating a regional threat, which I'd like you to communicate to the rest of the Lord's Alliance. If you have a mission for my party, then how about I gather the rest of them, and you tell all of us at once." The sorlock might, in the process, lose the scene the player hoped for; and the player will discover, if he doesn't already know, how well the DM responds to narrative interruption.
I think this is an interesting point, and again, there's a fine line.
I like players who invest in their characters. I like when they bring material to the game for me as a DM to use in the game....when they exist as part of the world, with connections and goals and drives. I think that's vital to immersive play.
Ideally, all the players will be interested in all the characters, so when focusing on one character, it won't be an issue for the players of the other characters. But to expect the same level of care as everyone has for their own character is a bit unrealistic, generally speaking.
So the way in which those connections and goals and drives are established or displayed is the issue.
Yes and no. In most mainstream, bog-standard D&D, this is often a reasonable position, *especially in combat scenes regulated by initiative order*.
In a non-combat scene, within a D&D game, this could be unreasonable. Consider the previous scenario in which the PCs split up on arrival at a town. While the sorlock visits the mayor, for the sorlock's own reasons, the mayor responds with a mission for the whole party. Perhaps the mayor pitches the sorlock, and the sorlock's player and the DM count on the sorlock relaying the information to the whole party; so the DM reminds all players at the table to listen closely to this scene, because though their players aren't getting the information *in real time in the fiction*, their players will get the information as soon as the party regroups (at the Bog-Standard Tavern, that evening). This scene at the mayor's office occurs during the sorlock's non-combat turn AND this scene IS how the story moves forward along the DM's intended plot.
If the rogue's player then jumps in with "Riley, let's not spend the whole session on your sorlock hob-nobbing with his fellow nobles. Wrap up your scene so we can move the story along", and if that pressure to shorten the scene *succeeds*, and three sessions later there's a question of "wait, did the mayor warn us about the dryads? we wouldn't have set fire to the forest if we knew about the dryads!" then that's a consequence of poor narration management between players and DM.
That's an example within D&D. In Fiasco, or Fall of Magic, "finish your turn so the game can keep moving" is a *horrible* position. Without player turns, there is no story progress, at all.
I think that such interactions can be summarized in many cases. Rather than the DM adopting the role of mayor with the player as the sorlock and each speaking in character at depth, I think a quick summary of the interaction can serve the purpose just as much. Rather than trying to figure a way to creatively "display" something personal about the sorlock, just have the player say it.
For example, "The sorlock is always most comfortable dealin with other people of means and standing, so I'll seek an audience with the mayor and see if there's any news he'll share with me". The DM can then summarize the results of the visit, maybe calling for a roll or two if it makes sense. In my opinion, this helps keep things focused, helps keep the other players invested in what's happening, and establishes something very clearly about the PC that may have not been obvious in a more drawn out interaction.
Again, I'm not saying this is always the way to handle it, and that there's never a reason for a scene to be played out in full....but when it's more specific to an individual character rather than the group, I tend to use that approach in all but the most important of scenes. Or, potentially important scenes, is probably the better way to put it.
