The DM acts as mediator between the rules and the players. He or she isn't bound by them. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Perhaps the influence of another edition of the game?
I never said it couldn't harm enjoyment. I said it can't harm enjoyment if the player doesn't know. That's a fact. If someone doesn't know, then the game is perceived no differently by that person than if no fudging happened. Therefore, his enjoyment cannot have been harmed.
So if he's not bound by the rules he can't really fudge things? It may be a higher order rule she is "breaking" by ignoring dice (except he isn't cos he is the DM) but it's still one he is equally not bound by isn't it? Now confused.
As I have said I believe perception is usually the most important thing.
Also FWIW I do try to plan outs for encounters I feel may be too dangerous for the PCs - 3rd party rescue/interruption or capture not kill being the obvious ones. Either of these become unsatisfactory if over used but then they are not supposed to be used unless the dice go awry or I have messed up.
So...since I seem to be not at all thinking "fudging" means the same thing you do, how do you define it?
I define it as rolling for something, and then deciding after the roll that no, you won't use the roll, because the rolled result isn't what you want; or, alternatively, as providing information (whole or incomplete) that the players can and should act on if they're playing intelligently, and then later contradicting that information without giving the players any opportunity to correct their now-mistaken understanding.
The DM acts as mediator between the rules and the players. He or she isn't bound by them. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. Perhaps the influence of another edition of the game?
The outcome absolutely is known, as I have explained and will again: We know that defeated characters are knocked out and robbed - them's the stakes, or more specifically, that's what's on the line if you fail.
We know the wizard has 1 hp. We know that even a single hit will drop the wizard to 0 hp which is sufficient to say he or she is knocked out.
What if by secretly changing the roll (from a crit to a normal hit), the DM changes a fight that would have come down to the wire to one where the PCs end up winning by a larger margin?
Or having the BBEG stay up a round longer only to have the party all miss their following round(s) of attacks and feel incompetent?
As a DM, I don't know what the next rolls will be or the next actions of the players. Maybe the next PC in initiative will roll amazing well (or poorly). Maybe if the party is on the ropes someone will have an inspired plan that will save the day. Lacking precognitive abilities, I wouldn't know at the time I was deciding to fudge or not what would transpire next so I could have made things less enjoyable. I'm not saying it is likely, but it is possible.
Nope. You're just confusing the ability given to the DM by the game to change the rules with the DM somehow being able to do whatever, whenever willy nilly. The rules require the players and the DM to play a certain way. Then they give the DM the ability to change rules. That ability doesn't mean that the rules don't have the requirement, or that somehow the DM isn't house ruling when he steps outside the rules and changes things.
This doesn't exist in D&D with ranged weapons unless you invoke a house rule. There is no provision in the rules that allows it.
We also know that the bow does 1d6 damage (I'm assuming a short bow for those goblins) and a critical does 2d6, as required by the rules. A crit can deal enough to kill the wizard outright. That means that we are in fact uncertain about the result of the attack. Anything else is a house rule by the DM.
That's not a possibility with me, as I won't fudge until things get so extreme that a round of hits by the party won't help. I also doubt that a party that is kicking the arse of the BBEG is going to feel incompetent over missing a round of attacks. My players aren't bipolar.