Oh, by the way, since we all want to bring up actual quotes, here's the quote from X59 of the Moldvay Expert rules:
So, yeah, fudging was part and parcel to the game since day 1.
That quote does not advocate fudging. It advocates
good judgment in addition to the rules. Every single thing I have advocated
is not fudging, but IS using good judgment to
build preferable solutions to undesirable results, as opposed to
invisibly forcing desirable results.
But in situations where a die is normally supposed to be rolled, choosing not to is the same as fudging, because you're deciding on the outcome as DM rather than letting the dice decide.
It is not. My players know immediately when I choose
not to roll the dice (or, rather, when I choose not to have
them roll the dice). Usually because I tell them.
I have said several times that the concealment is a vital part of this. If it isn't concealed, it's not fudging. How on earth could you conceal
choosing not to roll? You literally have to tell them about that!
You trust the DM to facilitate the entire rest of the experience so why are these once-in-a-blue-moon scenarios where they fudge a single roll to keep things from going south quickly so different for them to adjust things behind the scenes the same as they have adjusted probably a hundered other things that you never knew about but which weren't actually dice rolls becasue it would have been too harsh on a battered party, the poisoned dart trap that just didn't trigger, the ogre that was meant to be with the pack of goblins but wasn't, when the dragon didn't immediately use it's breath weapon the instant it recharged...
I would be very unhappy (probably not
quite as unhappy as with fudging, but very unhappy nonetheless) to learn that the DM was secretly doing things like rewriting combats
solely because the party was already beaten up or removing traps
solely to not upset the players etc. Cohesion in the world matters to me. The causal link between
my choices and their
results matters to me. Because that means the DM doesn't take my efforts seriously; I would feel like a coddled child being secretly pulled along from one attraction to another with no actual agency.
Fudging is there as a last ditch saftey net to be used when utmost required, but it is not something a DM should seek out opportunities to do it (not that i think it is something many if any DM's seek out to perform)(hence the lack of 'very positive' votes on the poll)
Personally i think i would rather revel in my ignorace of not knowing if fudging was happening and that the DM has my best interests in mind than compromise my own fun worrying about something that might not even be happening?
Okay, but hear me out: What if you could avoid undesirable consequences
and at the same time avoid any risk whatsoever of "compromising your own fun worrying about [possible fudging]"? Would you not agree that that would be the best of both worlds--preventing both the bad thing caused by unvarnished bad luck
and the bad thing caused by not believing that the results are genuine?
Because that's what I've been advocating this whole time. I have been saying that it
is not necessary to do the thing people are describing here. That it is entirely possible to retain consistency in the world AND avoid making secret invisible changes AND address unwanted and unpleasant side-effects, all at the same time. It just requires being open, diegetic, or prepared, or any combination of the three.