Interestingly, in your example of stealth, you move failure from just not being able to get surprise to the opposition becoming hostile. This isn't just denial of a reward, it's a change in fiction away from the intent of the action.
Personally, I think that evaluation of the goal in goal and approach is important for failure consequences. A success moves towards the goal, a failure away. This simple framework does a good job of removing questions and firmly rooting decisions in the fiction of the moment. It's what you've done with your stealth example, assuming the goal of the sneaking is to get the drop on the opposition. You succeed, you get the drop. You fail, they not only notice you, but immediately move into hostilities without you having the drop. Towards, away.
If you can't think of how to move away from the goal of the action, then don't call for a roll. I think it's okay to involve meta-goals, here, though. Moving away from a meta-goal can be sufficient punishment, like, say, losing time in a race against the clock, or having a fight when you're trying to conserve resources. Goals can be layers, but a failure should move away from a player stated goal.
Er…. you get that the "change" was a second consideration on how to handle the same thing, in case the OP doesn't consider the first way valid.....
"
I am not sure "consequence of failure" trade of thought includes "benefit for success" by your definition.
If it does than the question needs to be "
Does failure have meaningful consequences and/or success have meaningful benefit over not attempting the action?" If the answer is yes, it seems reasonable to call for a roll since, failure to gain a benefit is also a consequence.
Though, I can defiantly see scenarios of "and" being more interesting than ether/or."
Example 1. was a "denial of benefit" equals a "consequence of failure", do you need more?
Example 2, was if you do not consider "denial of benefit" as a consequence justification for role by your definition, perhaps having NPCs react to the action of the check on failure would be a way to grant players the role by creating and for warning the consequences.
Example 2 was stated as a possibly ALTERNATIVE,
incase me and the OP disagreed on what can constitute a consequence. This lets me address the intended scenario in question in a single post regardless of the OPs interpretation of "consequence of failure". It does not "change" my original response, however, I felt I should respond to both trains of thought so its clear that my question was sincere and I was not detailing the OPs method as "wrong" but just trying to make sure I was clear of the intent of the question.
I don't see a problem with "
A success moves towards the goal, a failure away." as general guidline however,
I don't really feel the need to hold it as a hard rule. Sometimes the success is just not failing and failure is just not success, however in order for a role to have meaning
at least one of them must be significant to the progress of a goal. For example, with jump over a deadly trap pit trap, if they succeed the jump and can clear the trap, they just continue on their way having avoided danger. If they fail, then they fall in the trap they die. They don't get set further from danger because that was make them safe. Success here is simply not failure, but the consequence of failure is sufficient enough that the role is meaningful. Could they look for another way around? Sure, but if they choose to jump and except that risk, I am not going to stop them from jumping and will give them the role. I am not going to give them a bonus for not dying if they making it though unless I told them in advance there was some benefit to jumping the whole. Sometimes players just want there characters to go the scarier path because they want there PC to look death in the face and laugh.... some times death says "welcome to the after life" to the PC when they do. Alternatively, a PC be short on time but see a valuable gem stuck in the wall and want to try and take a hammer and knock the gem out, grab it and keep running. Success means they swing knock them gem out and pick it up. Failure means the don't get them gem (ether failing to knock it out, or knocking out but not being able to find it and keep running). It doesn't mean there attempt to gain wealth while running out causes them to mysteriously drop their coin pouch.
…. Now... If players take the jump because I told them it was a short cut then they have two objectives, saving time and not dying. Perhaps they are willing to risk a jump because they are athletics but not a fight with pursuers because they vastly out numbered. The pit of death might be better odds of escape than other options and their pursuers might be duergar in heavy plate unlikely to attempt or make the jump. Then success helps them escape from death and failure takes them strait to it. The thing is players don't always do things to achieve reasonable goal. Sometimes a players does something silly and you blink twice and say "are you sure... are you really really sure.... you could die...." and they are totally, "Yep, someone hold my bear and watch this!"
… Critical Role example, Kealith a jumps off a cliff into the ocean AFTER the battle is over, turns into fish and attempts to avoid the jagged rocks just described at the bottom. Goal.... to look cool, if successful she gets style points and if she fails she dies a horrible death. The GM makes this clear... the player "oh well I am going for it, its in character" ….. This happens all the time at tables I have been at.
Some version of "oh well I am going for it, its in character" usually comes right before players attempt a goal that will result a test of which ether the success or the failure is not really relevant but a test is needed. Its usually a "hold my bear" moment and they are usually character defining moments the players will remember for years. I will let players call that role even if it lacks consequence or benefit but its amusing to let fate decide the outcome.