I don't like them either. It just takes me out of the experience when, say, a character that in my head is good at persuasion fails every other persuasion check. Doesn't help that rerolls, for some reason, fail 8 times out of 10, even with 'easy' rolls (and sometimes they give the same bad number a few times on a row)
The thing is that in DnD you might still be good at it, but you are still talking to real people, and you might not hit the topic correctly etc.
I think a better compromise is to let us see the actual difficulty of a check BEFORE we choose. At the table a player can ask the DM, does it look like this guy is easy to convince? to get some idea of how difficult that particular check is.
This is not DnD, though, it's a game. Like you said, there's no DM and no other people, therefore the random adventure is only enjoyable if you're looking for that in a RPG.
I also don't see how seeing the difficulty of the check before choosing would make a difference, to be honest. A needed 15/16 with max proficiency in whatever is still gonna be a 15/16. A 5 on a 10 roll with maxt proficiency is gonna come out either way. Bottom line, if i gameplay gimp my wizard by giving him 16 charisma i want more than a borderline 50% chance on most persuasion rolls to get the result i want.
I don't know if it's because of Pathfinder's rule, but either way Kingmaker's system is much more fun. There's way more of a progression with rolls getting harder as the game goes on, but at the same time chars' proficiencies play way more of a role (even those of companions)
