In D&D there is no "move" by the DM. The PCs are interacting with the world around them. Maybe they heard an alarm go off when they failed because this door was really a trap, maybe they set off an alarm somewhere else, maybe they wasted enough time that something else happens. Maybe there is no consequence. It all just depends on what makes sense for the scenario.
(1) Then as per the 5e DMG, the PCs probably shouldn't bother rolling dice or making an ability check if there is no meaningful consequence for failure:
Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. (5e DMG, p. 237)
(2) In DW, for example, "the PCs are also interacting with the world around them." The purpose of player moves is to tell us (a)
when the players roll for their PCs' interactions in the world and (b)
what their successful outcomes for the respective moves may entail. Similarly, players/PCs may not always know what the negative outcomes of their moves will be, since that power is assigned to the GM and their respective moves. And what moves they make follows the same idea as you say here: "It all just depends on what makes sense for the scenario." And what makes sense for the scenario is really another way of saying "follow the fiction."
A lot of the different "maybes" you describe above could very well be different outcomes for failure as per the moves the DW GM makes. Since you are listening/watching to some Dungeon World actual plays to learn a bit about the game, it may also be helpful to read through the GM Moves section of DW alongside that, possibly on the
Dungeon World SRD. I think that it would help you see the sort of things that the DW GM is supposed to do and the sort moves that are at their disposal. In many respects, the GM moves exist mostly to codify and provide guidance/suggestions for the sort of things that GM could do.
As per above, the 5e DMG says the DM should only call for ability checks when there is a meaningful consequence for failure. However, the DMG fails to provide much (if any at all) elucidation on what a "meaningful consequence for failure" looks like. Now imagine in the 5e DMG, if you will, a list that provided suggestions for different ways that the DM could make consequences for failed ability checks meaningful. Some consequences are quite obvious - damage, spell/trap effects, etc. - but other consequences for failure are not always so clear. That's basically what GM moves do. However, I will say in contrast to other games, including D&D, that the design intent of GM moves in PbtA games is to keep the game fiction
moving in some new direction by giving the PCs stuff to
react to or
interact with.
I fully understand and appreciate that this is not how you and others choose to run D&D as per your aforementioned stated preferences. I am not interrogating or villifying those preferences. My purpose here is informative and descriptive rather than persuasive since you explicitly expressed interest in understanding these PbtA games better, particularly Dungeon World.
I do think that you can intuit some of the differences between your preferred playstyle of D&D and Dungeon World, namely how it's off-putting or rubs you the wrong way. However, I also think that it's helpful to understand that behind the different terminology, which may seem strange and alien to you (e.g., Moves, Fronts, etc.), how some of its design is grounded in similar game concerns shared between DW and some subcultures of D&D and OSR.
For example, I heard that Vincent Baker
partially developed his Apocalypse World game in response to a prevalent method of character play in 3e D&D (and its era of games) regarding skill checks: e.g., "I roll a Perception check." This is to say, it was a more "mechanics first" game style rather than "fiction first" one. (FYI, this is a common shared criticism as well among OSR circles.) Baker's solution to this in Apocalypse World was the
Player Moves system. This is to say, the player can't roll a Perception check (i.e.,
Read a Sitch in AW and Discern Realities in DW) until the PC
does the thing in the fiction and triggers the GM's call for the appropriate roll. Similarly, the
GM Moves system is meant to alleviate another problem that Baker (and OSR circles as well) had with a lot of what we may call "Trad" play: i.e., GM pre-authored story.
It's perfectly acceptable if you
prefer the more OSR style solutions to these problems over against PbtA ones. I enjoy OSR ones too. I also like playing OSR games. However, I personally found it useful in my own enjoyment of both OSR games and "narrative games" (like PbtA ones) to understand how both share a common set of concerns and how they went about addressing them albeit in different ways. Moreover, there was and still is a lot of overlap in the design space between these communities.
I realize that this is a long tangent, but all of this is to say that while D&D may not have "moves" in a PbtA sense, GM Moves in PbtA are very often consequences that "[make] sense in the scenario" that have been codified as a list of suggestions and guidance. Even if D&D doesn't have
Moves, I have personally found that the list of GM moves in DW helped my own D&D play because of how it helped me think about play in D&D, particularly in regards to the consequences of the PCs "interacting with the world around them."
I am not saying or expecting that Moves and PbtA will or should help you do likewise. However, if you want to understand "WTF is going on?" when watching the actual plays that you requested, for whatever your reasons may be, I think that understanding how moves work and what they are for and what they are not for would be really helpful for your expressed purpose.
You keep speaking in PbtA terms as if it's relevant to a D&D game. I don't think it is in many, if not most, cases. I establish the world and it's inhabitants. Maybe someone or something will hear if they try to bust the door down or cast knock. Sometimes nothing will happen because no one will hear it. The only response I'm going to have is one that's logical to the scenario.
Sorry, I just don't see anything relevant to D&D here and I'm not discussing PbtA any more.
I'm kinda perplexed why you are telling
@pemerton here that he is speaking in PbtA terms and how you won't talk about PbtA anymore while replying to a section where he is talking about the GUMSHOE system. Did you already decide in advance what you were going to say without reading what he wrote first?