Then you've slightly misunderstood the argument. It isn't that I think that LOL evaded mechanics when, it's that if you allow her to narrate as if she evaded mechanics in the first place, you've set this situation up and the latter case definitely requires that you evade mechanics.
Therein lies the contradiction. She narrates
as if she evades the mechanics but without actually doing so, and thus there are no mechanics to evade the second time. The reason for the narration the second time is not to evade mechanics, it's to sustain a consistent fiction.
When ZoT gets cast she could just as easily as have said, "Ehh...I was just telling that story earlier to hide the fact that I'm thick as two planks. I don't know the answer to the Riddle."
Or: "I don't know. I forgot. I'm a genius with a really poor memory (look it up in the PHB! That's one of the things that Int measures!)"
There. Fiction sustained, mechanics upheld. Not nearly as colorful/interesting in my opinion, but maybe you'd be happier with that.
But regardless of which tale Eloelle chooses, the mechanics are unaffected.
It's
only if you believe that mechanics were actually altered in the first scene that this doesn't work.
I don't have a problem with LOL's player writing fiction in their off time. Why would I?
But I do have issue with it at the table. And the difference is that she's not writing a story, now, she's entering information into the shared fiction. That narration impacts the other players and the DM because it informs them about how LOL is as a character, and modifies how the will interact with her and engage her. The fiction shared at the table is fundamentally different from writing a story in your room because it is shared fiction. Everyone at the table buys in and will use that narration to inform future actions. The DM should be listening to player narrations for story hooks and to understand better what the player wants out of that character. Insisting that the narration is totally divorced from the game a la independant fiction writing is a total non sequitur. It literally doesn't follow from the basic premise of a roleplaying game.
Now, some systems exist that do totally separate narrative from mechanics, and they're fine games. But D&D, and 5e in particular, weaves far too much of the fiction into it's mechanics. Charm person, dominate, ZoT, and other spells all interact at the fiction level to a greater or lesser degree. In D&D as written, you just can't separate the two completely without modifications. Which has been my singular point all along -- you can do it, and I'm sure you have a blast playing, but you're changing some rules to do it.
I'm distinguishing between action narration and, for lack of a better term, state-of-mind narration. I think you are treating those two things as categorically the same.
If you read the "rules" that were quoted earlier in this thread, the DM describes the scene, the players narrate
what they want to do, and the DM narrates the outcome. I'm not trying to change any of that. Eloelle tries to solve the riddle, the DM asks her to roll dice, she does and the DM tells her she doesn't solve it.
Then Eloelle adds an extra narration that doesn't have her "doing" anything. Not performing an action, not interacting with other PCs or NPCs, not even looking at an object. Nothing. She (or her player) is just telling a story for the purpose of entertaining (see below) the other players.
So here's a thought experiment. (Max, are you paying attention?) Imagine that, every time Eloelle is about to enter her state-of-mind narration, she gives the table a warning, and you stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalalalalalala" so you don't have to hear it. So you never hear any of the Patron stuff.
You will find that you can detect
no impact on the game. Nothing in the game 'state' has changed. When she says "I don't know" to ZoT you'll think, "Yeah, she failed that Int test a while ago." And I will further posit that if you *do* detect a change in game state, if there's some mechanical detail that doesn't add up, it means that Eloelle's player is failing at her responsibility to separate narration from mechanics.
Now, if you are listening to her narrations you may not actually find it entertaining. That's a legitimate gripe. I'm playing AL CoD at the moment and we've managed to make children (or the ghosts of children) cry, kill the priest, burn the church, get kicked out of the store for shoplifting, etc. etc. etc. I really don't enjoy playing RPGs this way, and I'm not really enjoying how a couple of the other players choose to play their characters, but that's how the game goes sometimes when you play with other people. Those players "entered something into the shared fiction" that I'd rather not have in there.
But also notice that their storytelling is actually impacting my game, because they are taking actions not just narrating state-of-mind. The game state has changed: the priest is dead, the church is burnt, we've made enemies in town. Eloelle, on the other hand, has not actually altered your game. She's
just telling a story. So what is there to complain about? Only that you don't like the story. That happens sometimes.
True, but a concept that hinges on gainsaying mechanical outcomes is one that needs a lot to make not annoying.
Valid, but a matter of personal preference. See above. If I ever find myself at a table with you I won't play Eloelle, but I will do so out of courtesy not because it requires a house-rule.
