But you do agree that the DM judges the efficacy of the approach to the goal, correct?
If we are going to play it this way, sure. The DM is the one who decides what happens after the player declares their actions, and as such they must determine how effective that approach is based off a variety of factors.
And you also accept, even if you do not agree, that the game tells us to call for rolls only when there's a meaningful consequence for failure?
Nope, the game tells me nothing of the sort.
The rules give some suggestions to that end, but the game is what myself and my players make of it. Just as I would disagree that "the game" tells me that a rogue gets a 1d6 sneak attack ability at level one, I disagree that "the game" tells me there must be meaningful consequences for failure before rolling the dice. The rules suggest it, but I am free to do what I like to make the game more enjoyable for myself and my players.
I mean, if I was going to put hidden poisoned spikes at the bottom of a pit, I’d probably telegraph that with an earlier pit where the spikes were not hidden - maybe with the mechanism that hides them visibly jammed. I want to provide players with the opportunity to pick up on clues, and use that knowledge to avoid future danger or assure future success by making smart choices based on that knowledge, not just by getting lucky rolls. I want them to fall into traps and go “Oh! I totally could have avoided that if I had noticed/remembered/thought about [whatever]!” not to just take surprise damage because they didn’t decide to roll a Perception check on this door in particular, or because they got a low roll. This is what I mean when I say, my style aims to put success and failure in the players’ hands rather than the dice’s.
So, sure, if for some reason there’s a pit containing poisoned spikes that the PCs couldn’t reasonably be aware of, no, I’m not going to tell them they’ll fall on the poison spikes they don’t know are there on a failure. But that’s also just not a scenario that’s likely to arise in my games. Again, you already have an example more Germaine to my games: “breaking the door down will alert nearby creatures to your presence,” not “the ogre on the other side of the door will hear you.”
If all you are meaning with "tell them the consequences of failure" is to remind them of the obvious, then I would have far less issue with it at the table. I can't say it would never get aggravating, but that would require sitting at your table to determine for certain.
However, everything else you say seems that it really wants to take the majority of surprise out of the game. If the players are paying attention there will never be a time when they are caught off-guard, you have laid out every clue possible to point out to them what is dangerous and requires extra attention and what is simply window dressing that has no bearing on what they are doing.
I find the idea of that mildly boring. I mean, I love puzzling things out as much as the next guy, and I'm sure you build a mean plot that will keep things moving, but some of my best memories of these games is the moment something I had no way of seeing show up and the scramble to solve it
now. That seems harder to come across in a game where everything has been laid out for me to solve beforehand.
Nobody’s forcing mindsets on anyone here. If my players don’t ask questions and charge forward, great, that’s the action I’ll adjudicate. If in my adjudication I determine that the action they are rushing into has a chance of success, chance of failure, and consequence, I’ll tell them what might happen if they fail, and what DC they need to beat with what Attribute to avoid that outcome. Whether they decide to follow through or reconsider is 100% up to them.
That ignores some basic psychology though.
See, if they rush forward and things bad things happen, they may look back and decide next time they aren't going to rush forward. They made a decision, there was immediate repercussions. This might change how they act in the future or act as character growth for them.
If they rush forward, you stop them, tell them the consequences, suddenly they have a choice. Continue doing what they wanted to do, ignoring the potential consequences, or back off and think about it. They must confront this, because you have stopped them and gated their action behind a second decision set, and they must choose to either consider their actions or ignore the consequences. They can no longer just go forward, they must go forward after consciously weighing that they are willing to take the risks associated with that action.
Fundamentally, you have taken control of their character and changed how they act, because you are determining they must slow down and consider the consequences.
I can only speak for myself.
To me, you are the one who is making "analysis" a focus of play, by requiring "testing things out" in order to establish what is at stake in the play of the game.
My approach is the opposite: the players choices about PC build, thematic and goal orientation, etc, establish what is at stake, and then I as GM build that into the ingame situation. A player can choose to play his/her PC as analytic, or reckless, but either way the player knows that his/her interests/thematic concerns will be at stake in the game. They don't have to choose between playing an "analytic" PC or alternatively guessing what the GM might have in mind.
You are going to have to explain this to me. How is not telling the players the immediate consequences of their actions making analysis a focus of play and making them choose between being analytic and guessing what I have in mind?
If a player wants to take time to study a situation, they can make that choice. IF they do not, they can make that choice. I'm not making anything a focus, I'm simply running the game and letting them make the decisions they want to make.