"Make failure interesting" comes from Fate.
"Say yes or roll the dice" didn't originate with Apocalypse World and PBTA games, but is probably most notably associated with them.
I bring this up as a response to a recent Ideas topic where "mixed response to IC failures" is being discussed.
We at Sindome talk a lot about consequences. There seem to be a lot of players who perceive consequences to have discouraged taking risks. As a game-master, I personally always did my very best to dole out a consequence which opened doors rather than slamming them shut. For example - instead of removing a privilege as a consequence, imposing a responsibility gives more and better RP. For example - instead of firing someone for a misdeed, using the offense to manipulate them into additional compromise gives more and better RP. For example - Pushing someone caught having the brass to break rules into breaking them MORE gives more and better RP.
It's up to the player, at that point, to do what they will with these sorts of reactions. These examples provide way way more choices and opportunities than just lashing back with a wall of punishment. I think GMs get this, and I want to ask players and staff two things:
First, players, can you try to look for this? When a NPC gives you some kind of consequence for some kind of mis-step, can you put effort into seeing whether it really is just a cockblock or is something else going on? Too many times I've seen people give up on something when they really had a LOT more latitude to proceed, or continue, or escalate what they got caught doing in the first place. Or when they were really being given a brand new avenue of RP as the result of daring and being bold but getting caught. Or when they were really getting a slap on the wrist rather than a career and spirit breaking permanent record punishment. Can you try to look at things from this point of view and "Illegitimi non carborundum" so to speak? This seems to be something that some players "get", intuitively or have learned, and others seem to have no clue that there might be multiple layers to an interaction or multiple ways to interpret it or multiple legitimate, non-blocking ways to react to it.
Second, can we use this topic to have a conversation about this? Obviously IC specifics can't be shared but: Players who have been given a leash-yank and taken a mile, and turned it into an IC boon of some kind - can we hear from you so that others can know this is real and not just "something everyone says but I never see?" GMs who have tried offering a player a lifeline or sideways direction from an ostensibly negative interaction, can you provide any advice to players who might need to be shown that you're not out to get them no matter how obligated your puppet is to appear to be not letting them get out unscathed? Can you consider trying to make it as obvious as you can without being harmful to theme or hammy with the RP when you're crafting ways for the PC to exploit or work around the NPC's obstacle?
Let's begin this conversation and while it's going on I'll do my best to relate one or more situations I GM'd where a PC was fucking up and getting caught, and I was crafting multiple outcomes for them and they took all the rope I extended, for better or for worse. These would be LONG-ago situations involving LONG-absent PCs and players, and could be illustrated generically rather than specifically if I do it right, within the @rules.