I don't fudge and would prefer not to play in a game where the DM is fudging. I also don't just slog through wood-chopping simulations, though, if an opponent has "too many" hit points and a combat is taking "too long." I try to run encounters that are sufficiently dynamic that something will change after a couple-few rounds of wood-chopping: the opponent changes tactics, the extended combat draws the attention of something/someone else, the environment changes, whatever, or better yet, the players decide to change things up before one of the above developments occur.
If you want to talk about it in Threefold terms, I prefer games where player and DM decisions are made for some mix of gamist and simulationist reasons. I've found that, in my experience, fudging doesn't support that style of play very well. I love dramatic moments in the game, of course (doesn't everyone?), but not if I know the drama has been dictated, rather than emerging spontaneously from play.
Note that the DM still has a lot of control in that kind of game. Someone earlier in thread mentioned getting an elf-killer bow, waiting around for many sessions with no elves showing up, then being shot-blocked by a broach of shielding when he finally rolled a crit on an elf. In my view, the DM made a mistake in that game, but the mistake wasn't playing the opponent as written. It was giving the PC an elf-killer bow and then not providing opportunities to kill elves -- ideally because the PC decides to go hunt some evil elves and the DM is ready and able to support that course of action. Chekov's gun, I guess.
I also know there are lots of players who just want drama, narrative and story in their games and don't want to wait around for the dice to land right. That's cool, too -- different strokes. If you and your players are having fun, you're doing it right.
