There are many reasons players reload and not all of them are for "bad" reasons.
Re-doing a battle isn't a bad form of savescumming for example, but if you want to limit the amount of times players do it, then do it through positive gameplay design.
There is nothing worse than feeling you've been conned out of something good due to a poor die roll and that's it. Get an item vs don't, save a person vs don't. Something positive vs something negative.
If I know that a couple of die rolls = a cool piece of gear and failing means I get nothing, then yeah, chances are players will reload until they get the item. But what about if getting said item meant also something negative? Like a faction hunting down the owner of said magical item, harassing the player(s), or meaning you miss out on a character joining you later on as a result of you owning said item. What if failure just mean you had to seek a different opportunity. You failed the charisma check, but you open up the opportunity to threaten, or take/achieve by force.
Say for example in the grove I fail to save the child via talking? What if I have a chance, to physically intervene, what would the ramifications be? Give me choice, rather than giving me success or failure so close together that re-loading just frankly makes sense. I appreciate it's a lot of effort to do this all the time, but the player is imho much less likely to reload (other than to see different outcomes out of curiosity), if they still feel in control of their destiny.