For most of my time as a Dungeon Master calling for Skill rolls was my default position, it wasn't until the last few years that I began to take the good advice in many RPGs and apply it to my Dungeons and Dragons and OSR campaigns.
It started simple enough when a Rogue asked about information related to a nation and rolled a 2 on their History check. We all groaned and laughed but then the player said, "I live here and am trained in History shouldn't my character just know that?"
I'm going to assume that this argument very well could have begun the moment a player failed a check the DM asked them to make going all the way back to Braunstein. We've all been there, right? Excitement for a scene and then a bad roll blunts momentum. Sure, you can blame the rules or you can take a good hard look at how you run your game.
The Rogue's player had a point and honestly, there was no reason for them not to know that information, in fact, looking back how often did I muddy the waters on something I wanted or needed the players to know because of a failed die roll? How much extra work did I create for myself and the players? Or worse, how often did I dampen a player's excitement in my game?
The next time the Rogue asked a question related to their History Proficiency I said, "there is no need to roll because your training means you know X". The player was happier and the game didn't hit a speed bump, in fact, I made it became my default assumption if Proficient and things were going really well.
But if something's going really well that means I have to analyze it right? I can't just let it be. If I was willing to eschew failure and default to success and other modern RPGs were dealing with quality of success could I emulate that as well?
The next next time the Rogue asked a question related to their History Proficiency my answer was "You know X but if you want to know Y roll for it".