as a designer I realised I actively dislike dice because then I have to make a game that works even if someone rolls shit or someone rolls amazing and I dunno that seems a lot of pressure to put on me
Something I think a lot of games fail to grasp is that the dice will not cooperate with you. If someone has a really cool idea that everyone at the table wants to see happen, the dice can (and often will) simply say "no" if you allow them to. If someone is making a desperate last stand against a superior foe, the dice will grind them into the mud rather than deliver a heroic final effort. If you're okay with characters getting unceremoniously dumpstered (which I know some people are) that's fine, but many stories will break under that pressure. If you want to tell stories that reward heroic bravery over statistical advantage, the game rules have to reflect that - or the rules will eventually have to be discarded.
This is one of the dissonance points I run into with the game-art conceit of "dice as oracle", as a nice bonus. I did a thinkchost (is that the term? I don't know if that's the term) a while back about a game called SHIVER which actually did something very clever on that front, but ultimately, that's the other thing about the dice: they can only answer a question we ask them directly, and only give answers in a predefined range. To ridiculously oversimplify, "ask the dice" is basically the same thing as "can you roleplay in Baldur's Gate 3". Sure! You can (and they'll answer) but they can only present an answer predicated on pre-defined conditions. Sometimes it feels like that's not the case, but that's because those pre-defined conditions volley the question back to you: in a PBtA game, a move is made, the dice are rolled, it feels like a natural twist is generated by the dice, but that's because the dice turn around and say "Okay, you got a Partial Progress result but another character takes a String on you and the Facilitator introduces a 'pataphysical twist... what does that look like" and the conversation continues.
In other words, it's... not the dice.
I don't have the oomph to get really philosophical here, but there IS a thesis brewing that every TTRPG is actually (at least) 2 games: the tangible game and the metagame. The tangible game is the "game" part in a lot of ways; if a game includes a skirmish-game layer, a literal board-game layer, that's included here, but as a general rule, the tangible game is where the dice live, right? When you take your defined characteristics, however general they may be (earlier tonight I was asking some of my Lancer players "ok, do you think that any of your skill triggers might apply here, do you think that any of your traits or background elements might apply here, ok cool we can put those into the dice roll" because those are deliberately nebulously designed) and apply the game's mechanisms and briefly abdicate control, briefly say "ok, how far CAN I move on this roll" or "ok, DOES this attack hit" or "ok, what general kind of twist is invoked here?" and then interpret the results based on the same mechanism before taking back control.
The metagame, though, that's what people usually think of when they say "roleplay" or even "roleplaying game". That's the cinema of the piece, that's the narrative and the embellishments, and something that frustrates new and experienced players alike is that by default, the metagame and the tangible game proceed at different paces and are often so out of communication with each other that you get D&D groups bragging about "sometimes we go 5 or 6 game sessions without ever touching the dice" like it's a good thing to avoid the entire tangible game as long as possible! In a lot of ways you could consider the meta-game "the improv community theater activities" that people associate RPG's with more and more these days; this is the layer where D&D allows characters to smooch and be queer and soft with each other, for example, but also it barely intersects with the tangible game (or if you want to get really technical, the multiple different sharded tangible games, the largest of which by an order of magnitude is about violence) in any meaningful manner.
Most of my favorite RPGs have a third game attached, one which bridges the two worlds and acts as a medium that encourages the tangible game and the metagame to communicate, and the good ones do it effortlessly, but typically when I talk about this kind of stuff on discord or twitter my mentions immediately start filling up with "you're thinking too hard about it", "you're too pretentious" and "it's not that deep" and it's frustrating just how incurious people are about their hobbies, and how defensive they get when the idea of examining their entertainment comes up, and so it lives mainly in my head.