For the sake of brevity I'll just quote this one piece, but to your example, because it's so similar to Man of the House, I'll be relating it to that in how I, still keeping the life sim format, and following the game, would have managed this type of interaction.
[...]
Things progress from here though almost entirely on an accumulation of points through repetition. You will also get her to sleep in the same bed as you only if you watched a horror movie, which on top of being repetitive, seems a bit silly, because there should come a point where you can simply invite her to sleep with you.
Apparently I messed my post, too bad for my hopes
Because the example I gave is (well, seemed in my mind) not Man of the House, but what Man of the House should have been.
First off, there'd be no dialogue with a character that didn't serve a purpose. If you see your sister in the morning at breakfast, I am going to write a dialogue scene that is relevant to where you are in her progression, maybe more than one, to space things out for the sake of some anticipation, but each will be unique.
That's part of where we differ. I don't talk about making it a big part of the content, but small talk is part of the life and, in its own way, have both a purpose and a meaning. Perhaps is it because it's something I hate to do, but with the years I came to understand its importance in human social relations. And it don't need to be a full scene, a single dialog line can be enough.
I'll say it again, I do not talk about it as a big part of the content, like it is in Man of the House where almost every single dialog is just small talk. But making the girl disappear/not appear because there's nothing more to do is for me a lame and lazy solution. The author don't know how to handle the fact that nothing will happen, having no idea for realistic and still relevant (in its own way) small talk, while perhaps not knowing how to correctly use randomization here, so he simply remove all content.
Take a book by example. A simple, "she was here, in the distance, and while Marc was talking to her, she discretely blinked at me", (when wrote better) say the same than a, "She made me sign to wait for her, and when her discussion with Marc was finished, she came to me and we started talking [blablabla she really liked it, she want to do it again some times]". Being a good book writer is being able to summarize this kind of scene in a single fully relevant line.
This also apply to games. I forgot the name of this game, but you're facing the dean, trying to convince him that no, you didn't past the night in your teacher's bed. And there's this girl, standing beside him. She say nothing, it's just her facial expression which change. But this small changes say the same than a full scene where she would have explained that she's pleased by the way you answered, shutting up dean's mouth, defending your sex buddy teacher, because she like your teacher, she's a friend of her, and anyway you're really a reliable friend, the teacher can be glad to have you, oh by the way, if you were free, she would have banged you right now. And because of these small change, the scene with her which happen later is fast and small. All is already said, she just say a "you did well, tell her she know where to find me if needed".
All isn't just in the scene. If you go full scene every time, even to express small things, you risk to end being boring. At the opposite, if you use everything at your disposition to express the narrative, including sometimes small talk, you'll dynamize the game. Varying the pace of the dialogs isn't enough, you should also vary the pace of the game itself. Exactly like when you write a book or a movie. In fact it's perhaps even more important for a game, because of the full interactivity. And when they are well handled, small talk are one of the way to do it, especially if you don't have full control of the game because you chose to not stick to a linear VN approach.
But obviously, it should not be stupid fixed small talk like it's in Man of the House and, alas, most of the games. Small talk are relevant only if they are made relevant. To keep the example of the little sister, the small talk at first can be something like, "what will you do today". Then it can become something like, "thanks for your help with my lessons, I have better results now". After this it become something like, "I hope that you'll have time to help me again today", then finally it start to be something like, "I really loved our kiss yesterday, can you do it again today".
Obviously, the dialog must be wrote better, but it's part of the narrative and, at least for me, it can say more about a relation than a full scene. At first it's impersonal, the MC's her brother, but that's all. Then it become personal, before becoming more passionate. She don't just need his help, she want his presence. And finally it start to become intimate. What do you need more ?
Put these lines in the game, and with the morning small talk you know exactly where the MC is in his relation with his little sister. So, when it's well handled, it's not a time wasting thing, it's the opposite. Pass 10 seconds talking to her in the morning, and you'll know if there's change in your relation or not. For a game like Man of the House, which is pure grinding, these 10 seconds will tell you if you need to continue your actual grinding, or if you should start to play again the sex scenes, because the relation have evolved and the scene should have done the same. All this with a single line. So it's time saving, you don't have to guess, you don't have to try, you explicitly know.
All this works simply because small talk are out of context. It's easy to say, "I love you", when he's ball deep in you and already made you climax three times in a row. Saying the same out of context, when you cross him in the elevator by example, is a totally different thing which mean way more.
After, when it replace the disappearing/not appearing character, it's also the responsibility of the player to deal with it. Not in a way where he'll have to endure it, but in a way where he understand that, "ok, there's nothing more here for now, I'll come back later, when I'll see a progress somewhere else, to see if it unlocked something new". And, obviously, once you fall to small talk instead of fully relevant narrative, there's no points to gain.
I want to be clear, that with the little sister and the big sister, aside from creating romantic/corrupt and vanilla/depraved routes, I'd hit all the same beats the story does already.
Honestly, this annoy me way more than stupid mini-games and full emptiness grinding scenes.
Why (and it's not directed against you) romantic/corrupt ? There's so much more to do, while in the same times both path aren't necessarily different. You can romantically fuck her deep in the ass, like you can corruptly cuddle her. Offering a comfort session after a strong BDSM session is more than common, and it's not because you're truly and deeply in love that she don't want to be fucked like a whore. The same apply for vanilla/depraved. Having sex with your mother doesn't mean that she's depraved ; it's not a taboo in all civilizations/religions and legal in half of the world. And you can have vanilla sex with your depraved married boss who sleep with every dick she can found.
And once again, here come the power of small talk. You where banging her deep all night long, calling her whore, making her ass sore as fuck while she was begging for more. And in the morning she'll greet you with a, "good morning sweet heart", showing that despite the (relative) roughness of your sex sessions, you're in a romantic relationship. No need of a full scene for this, no need to even write it better. These four words are enough here and say everything which need to be said.
@GuyFreely don't really have time to answer you, but I read what you said, in particular regarding my words about the barrier language. I don't disagree, but I'm not sure that I agree. Not specifically because of what you said, it can be more because of what I read (or how I read it) and the psychological influence that the past discussions have. So, don't think that I ignore you.
