Well, I think there are (at least) two alternatives to [MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION]'s approach. [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] is describing one. I think [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] may be describing something a bit different, but he can clarify that if he wants to. I'm not sure what your overall position is.Yes, I know. I play Dungeon World.
Honestly I find this conversation a bit surreal. I'm not even sure how to respond. One of us totally doesn't understand what the other is talking about. Or possibly both of us.
Both alternatives equate action declaration with describing something that happens in the fiction. This is a contrast with Oofta, [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], etc. In [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s approach to 5e, following such an action declaration the GM then adjudicates this to determine whether or not a check is required, and if so how hard it is. As he puts it, the ultimate player goal is to avoid the risks of the dice. I see this as a type of puzzle-solving play, though (obviously) not like solving riddles or chess puzzles.
By way of contrast, in DW, DitV, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, The Dying Earth, etc (just to name some of the games I'm familiar with that adopt this alternative approach), there is no avoiding the risks of the dice, assuming that something is actually at stake. (If nothing is at stake, then the GM should just "say 'yes'" and try to work with the players to progress the fiction to something where there is something at stake.) The point of the player's account of what his/her PC is doing is to provide fiction that is able to be extrapolated either in success or failure. The emphasis of play is not on puzzle-solving but on (i) protagonism and (ii) fiction creation.
Now drawing the distinction between these two alternatives is slightly tangential to the main thrust of the thread. But I think that it is probably worth noting that there can be a reason for RPGing to prioritise dice rolls in action resolution which aren't connected to "distrust" of the GM, and which aren't connected to wanting to avoid the fiction, and which don't require the idea of skill checks as prior givens that cheat-y players might try and "bypass".
This same tangent can also feed into some other stuff that's come up in this thread, like whether DCs are set before or after the player declares an action. Eg in BW, Prince Valiant and Maelstrom Storytelling the DC is established in response to the player's action declaration, and reflecgts that fiction. Whereas in DW, D&D 4e and HeroWars/Quest the DC is established by the system (typically reflecting an inbuilt pacing logic).
I don't think either is "better" or "worse", but they can produce diffrent dynamics in play. And I think it's at least conceivable that someone could approch 5e using some sort of system/pacing logic to the setting of DCs, and using a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" approach, which would obviously be different from what iserith is doing but also would be different (I would say even more different) from what Oofta is doing. (I think the biggest hurdle facing this in a 5ae context is the lack of a die roll required for most spell casting; and obviously it would tend downplay eg the role of equipment in resolution, but 5e is meant to be a big tent!)