Got to thinking about this as waking up. Pre coffee, my thoughts might be garbled......
Purely conceptually, I think the chance to hit the green or a specific pin should generally be about 2/3 positive. I use the 2/3 because the USGA Slope system and other research show how big a target must be for 2/3 of golfers to reasonably hit it, obviously tweaked a bit for wind, uphill/downhill, etc., most golfers expect to be able to hit at least some part of the green.
If, for whatever reason in fitting a green to a site, some smaller target areas may arise. There could be a few pins on a green that approach 50-50% chance of success, and those odds of success for the bailout make that choice the most tempting, which I think would be the key to artificially create missing the green as an option.
And, I don't think laying up short is really as conceptually strong as playing wide, or even over a green for score. Coming up short to avoid hazards is too easy, and happens naturally way too often by mistake[size=78%].[/size]
In other words, I think golfers find that kind of hole appealing enough when they are given a choice to make but won't like it if the green is so contrived that the architect makes the decision for them.