Generally I don't get offended, just very engaged (enthusiastic) and irritable. So, I'm not offended by what you write.
1) Again with the experience and age - as if its relevant or matter. But fine, I am mightily impressed by your experience and I bow down to your superiority. Now, that that has been established can be move on? If only you'd stay on topic and not come with arguments based on an appeal to authority due to having played games for x numbers of years, and read what I write and not read into it that which isn't there. Then this could lead somewhere.
2) I'm not insisting you're punishing your players - if you read my posts you shouldn't interpret it like that, especially if you read my post with bold writing a bit further up. So stop accusing me of that and start to read what I write instead of what you feel and think I write. As you said I don't know you or anything about you (except that you play RPGs and post on these forums.) So why do you take everything I say as an insult? I'm not directing it at you as insults. You're not simplistic - but some of your points and arguments are, in my opinion, but there's a difference between you and your arguments. At least to me. I see your arguments and their content, I don't see you. I can judge what you write, not you. That's a premise for online discussion.
3) I have not ignored you suggestions, I've pointed out that those are basic and obvious. And that they are already included in my perspective - I could've been a lot clearer about that, and I apologise for that. In other words, coming up with those examples has brought nothing to the conversation that was not already implied and part of it - from my point of view. Reasonable they were, I'm not disputing that, but unnecessary from my point of view.
4) Failures can have rewards, most failure do, so to speak. At least in the real world. It's called learning. In games, I also want the possibility of an unintended and surprising boon or interesting effect that, so far, has not been covered by your musings on how to incorporate failure into roleplaying. The games, my games at least, are about (wannabe) heroes, future heroes, people who somehow are at the centre of events in an unfolding story of our collective creation. That makes them special. My idea of rewards in failure, or
reward is a
misleading term.
I don't want rewards, but I want
effects,
positive as well as
negative,
neutral,
surprising, and
unexpected effects. That may or may not be positive, depending on creativity of the player, the GM and the situation. This is not a novel or new or crazy idea (you need look no further than WHFRP and SWRPG from FFG for some recent examples.) This idea has been around as long as there's been roleplaying games. The problem of binary pass/fail systems is obvious and apparent. It can be seen as a feature or as a bug - I see it merely as something to overcome through creativity and collaboration with my players. It has its strength, but also its weaknesses.
5) I'm sorry you feel offended by being challenged.
I'm only joking! Seriously! We're talking past one another. That much seems obvious. I'm not so much disagreeing with your examples and suggestions, as I disagree with your (seeming) absolutism on failure v success and what they should and must mean and cannot and don't mean. And of course I disagree with your misreading of what I write. As you disagree with my misreading of what you write.
6) No, consequences doesn't necessarily equate reward, but it doesn't exclude it either. It can be both. Failure in itself can be a reward - for as you write: future missions, stuff to fix, stuff to create, and so on.
Failure is lack of achieving or accomplishing an aim or purpose. So maybe my earlier suggestions that were ignored would be an idea.
Lack of achieving aim or purpose doesn't exclude other positive consequences, if narratively fitting and desired.
I'm not saying every failure needs this or should have positive consequences, most are simply failures. But taking inspiration from the cascading resistance roll tables and the scanner/sensor tables in HARP SF makes for a lot more fun and interesting games - in my opinion.
There's a disagreement of terms here, I think, more than a disagreement in principle, but I may be too positive