You know, it's odd to keep citing examples of the GM playing up front and above board with the rules that he and the players understand and agree to as if somehow they support a gm changing the rules and hiding that he is doing so from the players.
I tend to suggest the group plays by rules they agree on and use, instead of rules they agree on and then secretly when nobody "will be the wiser" one player decides to discard.
There are so many game systems with mechanics for far more fluid "drama based" less action based resolutions. Some of them require far less wasted effort and complexity on stuff like combat bonuses, weapon properties, critical hits doubling dice but not bonuses **because** its openly known within the rules that its preference or flavor or drama that decides when the conflict is over, not all those fiddly bits that eat up time.
Combat in those systems can be as quick as one for roll, maybe one each, and then shared narration instead of a whole lot of back n forth and time in creation and fighting when the **actual deciding factor** is just what the gm wants it to be.
More mid road simply provide gimmick points that allow varying levels of control beyond the character scope to the players, not just the GM, or even have the GM give gimmick points for "I muck with the outcome" etc etc etc.
Guess I never get why some folks think recieving others about the rules we play by is better than choosing rules that suit what we all prefer.