I'm not sure if this fits in with the "exploratory play" format being discussed, but this feels like the roll is in fact quantum, as Elfcrusher describes. The roll isn't to determine success or failure, and the requirement that there be consequences for failure in order to require a die roll don't make sense. Instead, the roll is to establish the state of the universe itself.
For example, when you search a room, the roll isn't to determine whether or not you found the doodad, but whether or not there is anything to be found in the first place. There's an implicit two-step process, though most ignore the non-roll related step when discussing these matters.
1) Is there something to be found? Using approach A, this is decided beforehand, and no roll is needed to establish this. Using approach B, this is unknown, and only becomes 'real' after a roll.
2) Did the player find it? Using approach A, this is what's being rolled for, if there's a likelihood of not finding it, or consequences for not finding it. Using approach B, this is not rolled for (basically using the auto-find aspect of approach A), as the act of making it real in step 1 makes no sense if you can't discover the new truth.
Now, approach A might be the "exploratory play" system (based on further clarifying posts in the thread), and approach B is "something else". I'm not clear on how people are drawing the lines there, or what the "something else" would be formally called. Nor do I know what the various "drama" terms are really referring to.
I'd probably use the terms "exploratory play" and "revelatory play". Exploratory play explores what does exist; the truth is predefined. Revelatory play explores what could exist, revealing and defining the truth in the course of play.
Welcome to the beginning stages of some actually different playstyles. There are many games where players can make truth propositions that the mechanics then test rather than leaving it up to the DM. There are even others where players can just assert things about the fiction without any adjudication, or win the right after a table challenge.
In the case of the standing stone example, the roll might be for whether the character remembers anything important, or the roll might be to determine whether a connection exists at all. It's not a matter of "consequences for failure"; it's a matter of "determining truth". The roll result isn't necessarily binary; it can result in an entire range of changes to the world. For example:
- A friendly druid taught your younger self some details that are of consequence to maintaining the circles and keeping the forest from being corrupted.
- You had a bad encounter with an angry druid when you got too close to their group, and examining the stones causes a flashback that leaves you Frightened just as something starts appearing in the circle.
- The druids were actually a secret cult attempting to summon an evil deity (though you never realized that), and they taught you the proper ritual to use if you ever encountered another stone circle. You're convinced you need to perform this ritual to help protect the forest.
- Etc.
In this case, rolling low doesn't mean, "You don't remember anything", such as might be the case in the Exploratory style. Rather, it results in something potentially problematic — having the
wrong knowledge.
And, many find this outcome very problem causing. For one, the player likely knows they rolled poorly, so they know the information is bad but have to act otherwise. This puts a strain on authentic portrayal of the character. In effect, you've now tasked the player to play in a way that's best for the story rather than be the strongest advocate for their character possible. Also, this method involve you, the DM, providing false information to the players. This can (and usually does) erode player trust in the DM.
The GM often leaves plot hooks for the players to follow. This type of roll is the GM allowing the players to create plot hooks for himself.
In some systems you can do this deliberately, by spending some resource (eg: fate points, hero points, dark/light side points, etc). However it's always available as just an implicit part of GMing, and is often "accidental" — the player tries to do something the GM didn't expect, and the GM finds the possibility of this new truth interesting enough to let the player make the roll, and possibly change the "truth" of the world.
Note: While
@Ovinomancer makes good points about the negative aspects that this approach can have, I think he's missing the point in treating it as purely negative. D&D may not have an explicit mechanic for introducing new world truths, but it's trivial to treat most skill checks as a means of engaging in that style of play.
Yes, you can do it, but the system is bad at it and you will get poor results. If I, as a player, can assert fiction in play by leveraging my best scores and playing to gain advantage, then I'll start directing play in ways the GM has little control over. Since I'm then creating my own problems and then their solutions, we're now in a degenerate situation for game play. This isn't good. The only factor the GM would control here is setting DCs, which the temptation is to set high for control, but, again, this leads to players stacking powers for high rolls and also erodes player trust in the GM. It sets up a bad adversarial position in play. As such, I say that 5e has no mechanical means to enable this kind of play because just doing it leads to degenerate play situations.
However, I agree that GMs will often incorporate new fiction based on player action declarations (or out-loud thinking) because that sounds fun. The point I was making is that this kind of thing is based on the GM's approval, not any mechanical functions in 5e. The GM decides is the only means of new fiction, and the system is built to enable and work with this. The resolution tools in 5e are, after all, only engaged after the GM considers the situation and the action and determines there's uncertainty and a consequence for failure. Note that this only happens if the GM decides.
Even if you go with players asking for rolls, it's still the GM deciding what happens for any outcome, not the player. Again, GM decides in the controlling mechanical structure.
What I'm discussing here is player initiated fiction introduction in a direct manner. 5e is not built to support this.
