Most people who talk about fudging being a good idea talk about using fudging to "increase the fun".
But I've discovered that fudging usually does the exact opposite of that: It removes the memorable and unique experiences and replaces them with whatever prepackaged experience the GM was planning.
A key example is In the Depths of Khunbaral. If I was the type of GM who fudged outcomes, I'd probably think something like, "Oh no! They've just killed the BBEG in a single action! That's no fun at all! I'll just fudge this by claiming he had fortification armor."
But if I had done that, I would have eradicated one of the most memorable moments I've experienced in 20 years of gaming.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the screen, I can frequently tell when the GM is fudging. It rarely seems to have a positive impact on the game: It lowers the stakes, trivializes my involvement, and generally deflates the table.
Ultimately, I've come to the conclusion that fudging is a deeply flawed technique that's used to paper over the failures of weak GMs. (Or, in many cases, reinforce their failures. For example, when fudging is used to keep a railroad on track.)
I asked my players about this before I began my Deadlands game - they have no problem if I fudge on occasion.
Average DMs fudge die rolls; great DMs fudge tactics. You can roll in the open and let the chips fall where they may, and the players will never notice when the evil ogre fails to take the finishing swing on the wounded wizard in favor of the "more dangerous" fighter.
Thanks for all the answers. Always interesting to see whats going on outside of my own little gaming bubble.
For the non-encounter-fudgers, what do you do if a party member (or two) can't attend a game session? (e.g. have the characters NPC'd, have someone else run them, robot them in the background unless there's and emergency, or come up with an excuse for them to wander off and adjust things down? -- needing everyone isn't an option for us unless we want to give up all hope of a regularly scheduled game).
Tangentially, shouldn't the really old evil thing with the high int and wis, who has led lots of other past do-gooders to their deaths and seen how they've fared against his minions, have figured out that they should train their less intelligent minions to always stab the unconcious invader one more time?
It seems to me that what you are guilty of, here, is stifling your son's friend's creativity. He has all sorts of creative new ways in which to interpret the (previously narrowly understood) words "cheating" and "railroading". A good set of (language) rules would not limit these words to the boring and limited meanings that you seem to ascribe to them - it would allow the speakers to use their creativity to come up with new meanings and uses for the words, just as your son's friend did.I had a conversation about this at my son birthday dinner. He is a gamer and so are all of his freinds. I was surprised to hear one of his friends say that as a DM I didn't have the right to change monsters to fit my game better that the fact that sentient creatures in my game get to choose their alignment the same as PCs so a silver dragon maybe be evil and a red dragon may not be is a form of cheating.
He also felt that if you introduce a plot hook about something bad being planned for the world and the PCs chose not to do anything about it but something else instead and you let the plot unfold where the bad thing happens that is rail roading.
Note how nobody seems to be saying that they *always* fudge to make things come out exactly as they want them?
[snip]
It isn't a "one-method-fits-all" kind of thing. For some groups it is a good tool, for others it is a lousy one. Know your players, and you can figure out if it is right for your table.