Again, I understand that you value transparency with your players, and that's absolutely fine. I just believe that fudging--misrepresenting how my dice rolled--helps me preserve uncertainty where it matters. I see the dice as merely advisory, telling me what I could do if I followed the tides of fortune. It seems that you feel similarly, so we're on the same page there.
No, there is a very, very important distinction to draw here.
To say the dice are merely advisory is to say that they are just suggestions. I reject that notion completely. The dice are
not advisory: they (plus the rules) are the
starting point. Foundational, if you will. Building something new or different off the foundation already laid is
not the same as totally scrapping that foundation. Hence why I have been using a new phrase (for me, I've no idea whether it has had wider use before): "going beyond the dice."
Treating the dice as "advisory" does not mean going beyond them, it means
discarding them. That's something I oppose. Going beyond the dice means you accept what the dice say, but you reject that their result
needs to be terrible for the game. That's the core of all these approaches: accepting the dice, but not accepting that the dice need to cause a problem for the people at the table.
I gave a diegetic solution example earlier. A "remove the option" solution is (for example) to tell your players that character death won't take away their ability to keep telling their character's story. Hence my "no random, permanent, irrevocable character death" approach to my game. Every death will either be revocable via resurrection of some kind, temporary, or agreed to by the player. That doesn't mean characters
can't die. They can. But if they do, it will either be fixed on its own (impermanent), or the party/PC will fix it themselves (revocable), unless the player decides (non-random) they would rather accept that death and start anew.
As an example of the "prepare in advance" approach, this one actually developed by my
players rather than by me, there is a gold dragon NPC in my game. He is undercover as a mere dragonborn priest, secretly hunting a
black dragon that fled their common homeland centuries ago, said black dragon hoping to start anew in this land that has no dragons in it. I had feared the players would find Tenryu Shen (given name second, as his culture is East Asian inspired) annoying or, worse, an unbearable DMPC, but instead they found him charming and mysterious. After they learned his true nature and agreed to help him on his mission, they grouped together and asked him if he could also aid them with theirs. I levelled with the players, saying I was uncomfortable giving
too much aid here, as I didn't want this to become "Shen Saves The Day" simulator, but that their request was perfectly valid and I would figure something out. In the end, Shen and his artifice-focused Wizard fiancee, Hafsa el-Alam, took a small portion of Shen's power and forged it into a pair of earrings for each party member. One, in white, allows them to communicate with Shen and each other even over very long distances (though long ocean voyages are a bit much for them), which allows him to advise and guide them and even (when he focuses) to limitedly observe their surroundings. The other, red, is their emergency "get out of jail free" card. If it is intentionally destroyed, Shen will know that the situation has gone completely pear-shaped, and can do something to save or aid them in their hour of need.
They have never
used this power, but knowing they have it has helped them become bolder about their choices (my players are mostly shy, so I have no fears of them becoming crazy gonzo chaos gremlins; it's much more about persuading them to come out of their hidey-holes and take a few risks.) Thus, for my game, I have made use of all of these techniques. Formally speaking, I
cannot fudge dice themselves most times, as Dungeon World DMs roll nothing except enemy damage rolls, but I always roll in the open for those too. There is no need for fudging or deception, because diegetic solutions, tailored options so the dice
cannot cause problems, and preparation in advance cover the potential issues, sometimes multiple times over.
But as DM, I like to have the ability to alter fate, so to speak
Can't you still "alter fate" diegetically? I don't understand why you
need it to be deceptive.
In my world, it's understood by the players that I may secretly change dice outcomes to advance the bigger picture. They don't know when or how often that happens, but surely, they must know by now that I fudge sometimes. Why else would I be keeping my rolls behind the DM screen? Yet at the same time, they don't have a problem with it because it provides a seamless transition between fickle dice and the flowing story we wanted to tell.
What creates a seam when using the diegetic solution? "You know you should be dead, but aren't. Better take advantage of it!" As all advocates for fudging have ever told me, this sort of intrusion is
supposed to be very, very rare--only a few times in a campaign, generally speaking, to the point that more than (say) twice a year would be incredibly unusual. Are you suggesting otherwise?
If so, why do you intervene so often? How does that not
damage the uncertainty? The main reason most pro-fudging DMs make clear that they do it rarely is because frequent intervention so easily pushes the game toward "DM's Story, Observed By Their Players" and away from "The Story Told By These Players (facilitated by DM.)" If you intrude frequently, doesn't that risk invalidating the players' choices? And if you don't, what causes diegetic solutions to not be "seamless," if used with all and only as much care and consideration as fudging would be?
Hidden rolls keep players from having to know that their heroic feat needed a DM's intervention. Now, as you've shown, you can always improv a reason for overriding inconvenient dice. But I'd rather not be compelled to present a reason when that occasional crit does pop up. Just a different perspective on dice, I guess. Thanks for keeping the discussion civil
So you would prefer to be compelled to deceive the players...? I don't understand how that's better. If you haven't prepared in advance nor tailored the results so none of them are unacceptable, you are by definition "compelled" to do
something. Why is being compelled to deception better than being compelled to storytelling? The latter is literally what you're compelled to do all the time anyway!