Players characters evading direct questions

[Jason]

This is also how I do it. If you look at your example, the GM is narrating after the dice are rolled, not before.

Yes. Because as I said, I often let the players do it that way in combat.

[Talakeal]

Yes. Because as I said, I often let the players do it that way in combat.

I think maybe we are having one of those miscommunications.

I am not quite sure why you are bringing up narration or what it has to do with rolling before or after you declare what action you are taking.

[King of Nowhere]

Yes, that's a good way to bore everyone to death. Like I said, I don't strictly follow the rule in combat. But if you just say "your turn" and the players roll bunches of dice and only say numbers you have no opportunity to narrate the action in a way that can make things much more interesting.

That's why my combats are (ideally) more like:
Jason (the GM): "The Orc with the notched helmet bats your sword blow aside, and swings it's ax at Baern," <roll> "hitting him for 7 points of damage. Baern staggers a bit at the force of the blow. Bob, what does Baern do?"
Bob (Baern's player): "I scream a dwarven war cry and strike at the orc with the notched helmet's legs with my battleaxe!" <roll> "I hit AC 17 for 12 damage."
Jason: "Baern strikes true! He cuts the orc's legs out from under it. The orc collapses and doesn't move very much. The orc with the purple eye tattoo on its forehead starts chanting something and waving its arms. Baern needs to roll a Wisdom saving throw."
Bob: "Moradin give me strength!" <roll> "Ugh, a 14."
Jason: "No, that's good enough. For a moment Baern felt some magical force trying to prevent his muscles from responding to his will, but it seems to have passed. The orc with the tattooed forehead seems surprised you resisted his spell."
And so forth.

Not giving the GM the opportunity to narrate the action makes the experience much less interesting, IMO.

weird, i have an opposite experience: after a handful of combat, narration gets dull and repetitive, and it would be boring to keep trying to describe it all the time. We do some narration and descriptio, but not for every blow.
otoh, fights rarely are about repeatedly hitting a bunch of monsters undistinguishable from each other. we discuss a lot of tactics, both we and the npcs have a lot more complex moves available, and we deal with more complex math

[Jason]

I think maybe we are having one of those miscommunications.

I am not quite sure why you are bringing up narration or what it has to do with rolling before or after you declare what action you are taking.

You said that having the GM "control" rolls means a lot of saying the same thing over and over again during combat. I explained that my combats don't work that way and gave an example.

The point remains that having the GM control non-combat rolls is not only important, but necessary to have a good game. Letting the players take the initiative is fine, but the GM is the world. He has final say for what won't and won't require a roll and what factors effect a roll.

[Talakeal]

The point remains that having the GM control non-combat rolls is not only important, but necessary to have a good game. Letting the players take the initiative is fine, but the GM is the world. He has final say for what won't and won't require a roll and what factors effect a roll.

I guess it really depends on the system.

I tend to play crunchier games, and you don't really need to the GM to tell you what dice to roll for a given situation; the rule book already has a list of what tasks fall under each skill and what difficulties are used in various situations. The GM is just kind of there to make the decision in gray areas, for example is balancing on a rock that is slippery due to algae going to count as a "wet surface" or an "icy surface".

But some games maybe not so much.