Claims about casters having "strategic" capabilities are really mostly about wizards

[Segev]

Is losing 300 gp a significant consequence? Play a game of chess with a party member, bet 300 gp. This inspiration system invites players to take actions not based on the narrative, not aligned with the fiction, but based on mechanics and rules. Until the DMG tells you in no uncertain terms what a meaningful consequence is, this rule is bad.

Lets go by the rules. So on a natural 1 you gain inspiration. Four players get a combat, eight easyish enemies as just a fight in their standard adventuring day of eight encounters. They spend inspiration and beat up seven enemies. They all now stow their weapons, and start punching the last enemy to regain their inspiration. The ones that regained it start inflicting debuffs on the enemy to mitigate the risks. Make sure the enemy has disadvantage on every attack, no weapons to attack with, can't escape, all that.
Even in the strict mechanical framework of combat which tells you when to roll quite explicitely, this rule leads to weird results.

Again, if the players are that desperate for Inspiration, they are welcome to have their "I never turn down a drink"-flawed character get drunk at camp rather than having to engage in thirty arm-wrestling matches waiting for a natural 1 that may never come because the DM says, "you engage in arm-wrestling, and the stronger player wins most of the time."

[Psyren]

Until the DMG tells you in no uncertain terms what a meaningful consequence is, this rule is bad.

The DMG cannot tell you what your playgroup will find meaningful. That is the DM's job. The sooner you come to terms with that the better off your games will be.

[Segev]

The DMG cannot tell you what your playgroup will find meaningful. That is the DM's job. The sooner you come to terms with that the better off your games will be.

It seems like it should be able to provide guidelines. I think it does, myself. Given how often you have expressed incredulity over certain things being called for rolling, it seems you have a notion of some universal if fuzzy lines.

I agree with your sentiment here, but am sympathetic to those who feel that they could use more guidance.

[Sneak Dog]

The DMG cannot tell you what your playgroup will find meaningful. That is the DM's job. The sooner you come to terms with that the better off your games will be.

Hm. We're getting besides the point?
D&D isn't a video game, where rolls are pre-set and loosely limited. I have literally seen video games where the equivalent of my combat example earlier happens. Darkest Dungeon 1 for example. You'd get into a fight and if it has an easy enemy you'd keep it alive as long as possible, outhealing their damage, taking two 'offensive' actions each turn that do awful little damage to avoid triggering the anti-stalling mechanics. All for the sake of being allowed to spam your stress healing and hp healing skills. Something you cannot do outside of combat.
Meanwhile were this D&D a player would ask whether they can use their healing magic without an enemy present, because they're wounded and it makes sense to.

What you're saying seems to me like the equivalent of needing to figure out what constitutes combat and stalling in Darkest Dungeon if it were a TTRPG. Instead, I'd rather let the player use their healing magic outside of combat, because there is nothing in the narrative, the fluff, the background explanation of how the world works that says they need to be in combat to get this bonus.
(From there we'd get into balance concerns, resource mechanics, et cetera. But at least the fiction and the mechanics would add up. Synergise, rather than counteract eachother.)

[Psyren]

It seems like it should be able to provide guidelines. I think it does, myself. Given how often you have expressed incredulity over certain things being called for rolling, it seems you have a notion of some universal if fuzzy lines.

I agree with your sentiment here, but am sympathetic to those who feel that they could use more guidance.

I expressed incredulity on my own behalf but ultimately I come back to one mantra: if your group, including you, are having fun then you're doing it right. That extends to your players asking to roll dice every time they cross the street - if both you and they are having fun and consider that act meaningful to you, then by all means enjoy yourselves. That is the point of D&D at the end of the day, to provide a framework where rolling dice is fun for everyone, not to dictate One True Frequency for every table to follow.

Hm. We're getting besides the point?
D&D isn't a video game, where rolls are pre-set and loosely limited. I have literally seen video games where the equivalent of my combat example earlier happens. Darkest Dungeon 1 for example. You'd get into a fight and if it has an easy enemy you'd keep it alive as long as possible, outhealing their damage, taking two 'offensive' actions each turn that do awful little damage to avoid triggering the anti-stalling mechanics. All for the sake of being allowed to spam your stress healing and hp healing skills. Something you cannot do outside of combat.
Meanwhile were this D&D a player would ask whether they can use their healing magic without an enemy present, because they're wounded and it makes sense to.

What you're saying seems to me like the equivalent of needing to figure out what constitutes combat and stalling in Darkest Dungeon if it were a TTRPG. Instead, I'd rather let the player use their healing magic outside of combat, because there is nothing in the narrative, the fluff, the background explanation of how the world works that says they need to be in combat to get this bonus.
(From there we'd get into balance concerns, resource mechanics, et cetera. But at least the fiction and the mechanics would add up. Synergise, rather than counteract eachother.)

Whatever you land on for "what constitutes combat" or "what constitutes meaningful" - all that matters is whether your group finds it fun. No one but you can answer that.