So you're saying to mind the slope, it might be slippery?
Not exactly. More that an urge to tinker, in the context of TTRPGs, is almost never satisfied with a
single change, done once, tested thoroughly, and then left as-is forever.
That is, tinkering, DIY in a gaming context, usually reflects a critical eye and an urge toward improvement....and every system, even the systems I love dearly, has areas that can be improved. I'm sure you've heard someone say something to the effect of "if we required [novels/games/papers/movies/etc.] to be perfect, nothing would ever get made." At some point, a creator has to throw up their hands and say "good enough!" Consumers with an interest in tinkering/DIY are not subject to such pressures. We can keep iterating
indefinitely, because the only cost is our personal time and energy, and we (myself included!) find that "expense" joyously worthwhile....but continuous tinkering has a tendency to produce what programmers call "spaghetti code," and spaghetti code is
very difficult to clean up.
Now that I think about it, actually, spaghetti code is an excellent example of exactly this effect in action. "Software rot" is a real, extant phenomenon that
plagues many developers unless they actively uphold countermeasures, but your logic here would dismiss it as a slippery slope. It isn't. It really happens. Game design tinkering is similarly liable to such changes, because who's gonna tell you
not to tinker with anything (and, thus,
everything) that rubs you the wrong way with a system you
overall like?
Pretty sure that most people would call the DM re-rolling a result they didn't like 'fudging.' You're using an awfully narrow meaning here.
Well, I can't speak for "most people" [citation needed?] but I've already quoted a fairly significant slice of people in this thread who consider secrecy to be a fundamental part of "fudging," and looking through links posted previously by Umbran, this pattern holds at least as far back as 2010 on ENWorld, and seemingly much earlier in general, based on other textual references I have seen/read.
It might not be the case that
everyone thinks secrecy is essential for something to be "fudging," but for a fair chunk, it is. I personally said that several times earlier in this thread, and no one got all up in my grill about the secrecy
then, so it's a little weird that more than one person is
now declaring that secrecy isn't a valid restriction.
Now, to be fair to your points, if I saw that a DM was openly rerolling (because, again, I don't consider this
fudging proper) to an excessive degree--e.g., if it happened at least once in most sessions--I would see that as a cause for concern. But, because I'm allowed to
know that it's happening, I can do something about it. I can talk with the DM (away from the game, of course) and try to find out why they're choosing to intrude on the game mechanics so often. Assuming we have a productive conversation, this means we can actually get on the same page and find a solution that works for everyone involved, rather than having the DM unilaterally deciding what is best for me as a player.