At low level this would work better I think - @Baron Opal II 's example of the Cleric and his plundered chapel is brilliant stuff! - but at high level when the characters have more specific abilities and items etc. it might get stickier.I might misunderstand this question. Following the Czege principle a single player doesn't control a character's adversity and the resolution of that adversity. What is being tested is if it is fun for a single player to setup a character's adversity and control the resolution of that adversity. GM controls the adversity once setup in conformance with the CP.
Putting player in position of narrating complications leverages the same premise (i.e. as a setup or soft move, rather than a hard one).
What I hoped to understand better is if setup is the same as control in terms of its impact on the risk of being unfun. If it is separable, then that's useful.
The potential red flag I see here is players excessively setting themselves up to succeed - as in, setting the characters' adversity in full meta-knowledge that the character or party is well-placed to overcome said adversity.
An example of where it could go wrong might be where the adversity is set as a small horde of undead - a significant challenge for a typical party - but where the players know their party is full of Clerics and undead-slaying devices and intentionally set the adversity to suit that. Yes, this is probably borderline bad-faith play, but it's still a consideration.