I run a very story-oriented campaign, but I am pretty strict on letting the dice fall where they may, so I reject Votan's dichotomy as well. I've run a 1st level to 19th level game over the past four years, based on defeating an eldritch evil. I can't recall fudging a die roll in more than twenty years.
It was so much intended to suggest that blends are not possible so much as to point out that the focus of the combat encounters does a lot to determine if fudging makes sense. If your game is story focused and the outcome of the combat leads to a horrible anticlimax then everyone will probably enjopy a fudged game more.
You can do a story oriented game with no fudging but, in my experience, it requires a fair amount of "flex" in the storyline. Many games have an option where a character can die in a single die roll. If the character is crucial to the plot that can make things . . . awkward. You can still tell good stories without central protagonists but some sorts of stories go badly if key characters die in anti-climatic ways.
My understanding of how this is usually handled is to make sure opponents are really weak relative to the party (removes no more than 25% of he party resources was advice given in one edition of a major game).