WhiteShark
Learned
Strike! had a system like this. I'm not a huge fan of it for a couple of reasons. It feels like the game designer is just offloading the work onto the GM. Instead of instituting logical outcomes for failure/success within the game itself, the designer just makes the GM come up with it all on the fly. These designs also typically push a more narrativist and meta approach that I don't like. I've seen examples like, "If the player gets a success with consequence when picking a picking a lock, you could rule that they succeed but there was a guard on the other side of the door." That rubs me the wrong way because the presence of the guard is logically unrelated to how well the PC picked the lock.Another system that helps with this was this very simple mechanic for one-shots. I forgot the name but you were rolling d6 + modifier for everything, and results were interpreted as:
<=1 = you failed AND something bad happened
= 2 = you failed
= 3 = you failed BUT something good happened
= 4 = you succeeded BUT something bad happened
= 5 = you succeeded
>= 6 = you succeeded AND something good happened
I know as GM I don't have to create consequences like that, but then you end up just coming up with the same reasonable consequences repeatedly. If a "consequence" when picking a lock pretty much always just ends up being "it takes longer than it should have costing you valuable time", then it might as well have been baked into the system from the beginning.