Why is success not interesting? If Vertigan's player succeeds we get to play through warm embrace of blood brothers. Vertigan is still a fugitive, in the citadel of his enemy. He still needs to decide his next move. Is now the right time to stage another coup? Draven, his younger bastard brother, thinks so, but Draven always sees blood. Vertigan's forces are still in disarray. To add to all that Vertigan gets word that the Lady Saris, his lover, has escaped her husband's estate to the south a fortnight ago, but has not yet arrived to the citadel. Bandits are known to travel the path. What does Vertigan do?Your example plays into the point I was trying to make: sure in this case it's a difficult check, but a hot-rolling player who makes a series of these successful checks is going to bypass all the interesting stuff, regardless of whether it's pre-authored or made up as a failure consequence, and quickly end up on the throne. That really cool idea about the father's ghost in the crypt will never enter play, which is kind of sad.
That's all I was getting at.
Success should be just as interesting and consequential as failure.