Funny how I can so strongly agree and disagree wiht the same post.
I haven't really been addressing your posts because I feel like we play very different games. I've been playing D&D since 1986 and running (for real) since 1991, and your style is not one that has ever interested me. That doesn't mean I don't respect it -- I suspect we both firmly believe the other is missing out, and that is one of the great things about the game.
Completely disagree. If the die results (and the parameters of the adventure as written, e.g. DCs) aren't to be honoured as binding on all involved then why bother rolling?
In short, because 99% of rolls don't
need fudging (from our perspective), but from a philosophical standpoint, because it is important to maintain the illusion that every roll and numerical construct is legitimate. That's where players' fun comes from, the perception of risk. On that point, at least, I think we agree.
Let me remove dice from the equation to try and explain my opinion in another way. As dungeon masters we make a lot of decisions that impact the players without the benefit of randomization, particularly when we are asked to improvise content because a player choice has taken the session in a direction we did not expect.
We decide if the NPC innkeeper in town doesn't like or rent to adventurers, and whether there's a goblin scout camp in the copse of trees just outside town the party has opted to investigate for their own camp. We decide if those scouts set a lookout, or set up punji sticks. All of these decisions fall under the categories of "worldbuilding" or "encounter design," we do them to keep the game interesting for our players.
What's more, the players have to trust that we are being fair. That we are prepared to expand the fiction to explain the innkeeper's attitude and allow for mitigating it, if the players press the issue. That they won't be surprised by a goblin patrol at melee range that didn't exist while they were watching the trees from a distance. That the goblins have set traps is not contingent on the party not looking for them. That the challenges we pose to them are merciless without being cruel, and that the rewards we provide are commensurate.
But this fairness is largely an illusion, and it becomes more so the further we are required to range from our session notes, as we are forced to react rather than rely on preparation. Even when we succeed, we may be dependent on the quantum ogre principle, and when we fail, we could decide the innkeeper is intractable because it simplifies the scene, or stick the fighter with a punji stick because their player is being a jerk and the rogue didn't think to check. As far as the players are concerned, these things could have been our intent all along, and the only test they have for our fairness is the time they've spent with us and the trust we've built with them.
So, then, why does the arbitrary involvement of a cheaply manufactured chunk of bubble-filled plastic suddenly absolve us of this responsibility to build that trust and uphold the illusion of fairness?
Reasonable minds can absolutely disagree as to whether fudging should be done. My position is just that it is a tool that dungeon masters -- particularly new dungeon masters -- should be encouraged to
recognize in their arsenal. No moral judgment should be laid here; it's a game we play with friends. If everyone at the table is having fun, the goal has been achieved.
Roll three crits against a staggering party? There's gonna be some deaths. It's part of the game. (then again, rockin' three consecutive crits - the odds of which are 1 in 8000 - isn't something that happens every day or even every campaign; sometimes a bad beat is just a bad beat)
You'll like this -- it happened to me the other night. I was gleefully preparing to roll damage, and the player says, "You made those rolls with disadvantage, right?" I'd forgotten about his Cloak of Displacement.
:: deep sigh ::
Had those three rolls been fumbles instead would you overturn two of them and make them hits? Or, had the PCs rolled three crits against your dragon would you jump in and say two of those were just normal hits? I rather doubt it.
I was specifically trying to avoid a description of a situation where I was taking up an antagonistic position to the players to avoid controversy, but I've absolutely done this too. It's not about ensuring the PCs win easily, or win at all, it's about keeping things entertaining. Again, that is a definition that varies table to table and even player to player, just like showmanship varies audience to audience.