| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a cheater. I'm a GM. Fudging has been a part of the game for quite some time now. If it makes you feel bad and think that you are cheater, then that is something you have to deal with. Me? My players understand that fudging is part of the game and crops up now and then.*stuff that still seems to be completely missing the actual point*Just to confirm, you do realize that if you tell the players in advance it's not cheating and therefore you would not be a cheater right?
It literally is cheating if you do not inform the players of it. If you think otherwise, reread the MIR. If people who break the MIR do not want to be called cheaters, my advice is stop cheating.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Changing dice rolls is not cheating because that is something my group has agreed upon as an acceptable action by the GM" Is truth.
"Changing dice rolls is not cheating in Pathfinder" and "The GM cannot cheat in Pathfinder" Are both false statements.
Neither of these Statements are contradictory. Asserting that the second set of statements are true is simply incorrect.
Positing that the second set of statements are false is not an attack on those who cheat dice with their group but have obtained some level of consent to do so as that is the game that they collectively are choosing to play. When it is cheating is when it is done without consent. This consent is not necessarily explicit and can be more nuanced but one would hope that if a direct conversation on the matter were to be had between a player and a game master they could reach an accord in a civil and agreeable manner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is an argument actually. If you want to make a good argument there are rules to that. Not being in debate class does not absolve you of making bad arguments.Actually, I don't. See, this isn't a court of law, this isn't debate class. The staff of Paizo has repeatedly explained why the gods don't have stats. That doesn't mean they are powerless. If you use it as an excuse to have them not do anything, then that is all you.I do not have to provide proof of a negative. You have to provide evidence that there is a rule that allows what you say.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
This barely qualifies as a conversation, let alone an argument. This is me beating my head against a brick wall. You are intent on making people who do not play to your conformed way of doing things wrong, cheaters, or whatnot.
Which is still Pathfinder. Yay! We agree.The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
No.
Pathfinder is different than Pathfinder with House Rules.
If I tell my players we are playing Pathfinder. But Initiative is filled with a D10, All HP is double per level, they get 4 traits to start, and everyone starts with a bonus feat that is much different than Pathfinder.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which all boils down to your opinion on the matter and nothing else. Given that the gods seem to be able to do things within the game and adventure paths, my opinion is that you are incorrect.And they are limited to those things.
Maybe yours would. Not everyone would worry about it. At what point does the game become "not Pathfinder?" One house rule? A wide-spread change like KirthFinder? Swapping out the to hit rules with THAC0?A game becomes "Not Pathfinder" when it is not following the Pathfinder rules. As noted, myself and those who share my opinion have repeatedly indicated that playing "Not Pathfinder" is fine so long as your players know that is what they are playing.Sorry guy, the gods are not limited in anyway. Now maybe I missed the sourcebook, but I don't think there is a stat array for any of the gods.
If I am mistaken please reference me to it.
You are actually avoiding the question. When does it become Not Pathfinder?
I have been running games since 2E in the mid 80s. I have been Fudging rolls the whole time. I don't ask my players if it is ok, never have. It is a part of the game.* So much so that it is mentioned in the rule books.
I have never had a single player show displeasure at the fact that I had fudged anything in a game.
*Citation needed.
Actually do not bother, I will tell you plainly, fudging in fact is not part of the rules (unless the players agree to it under MIR) and I challenge you to support your assertion or concede the point.
And I did answer the question. A game is Not Pathfinder when it deviates from the Pathfinder rules. It's that simple.
402 CRB. Citation supported.
I will tell you that I have never asked for permission to fudge and never had a creation session that required something like that to be discussed.
So, to you, a single house rule means it is not Pathfinder? Oh my. Most people are not so rigid.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is still Pathfinder. Yay! We agree.The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
We could change the OP to say "tabletop" and the argument about fudging still applies. It doesn't matter if it's pathfinder or setting else.
If your character sheet says pathfinder, your material says pathfinder, and your group says "we getting together for Pathfinder?" Then you're playing pathfinder.
My favorite part of this thread is how is like 3, maybe 4 dudes arguing but rotating through a bunch of aliases to make it seem like they've got a lot more support at first. Super trustworthy behavior.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is still Pathfinder. Yay! We agree.The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
No.
Pathfinder is different than Pathfinder with House Rules.
If I tell my players we are playing Pathfinder. But Initiative is filled with a D10, All HP is double per level, they get 4 traits to start, and everyone starts with a bonus feat that is much different than Pathfinder.
And yet, you can still call it Pathfinder. Pathfinder Society is a Pathfinder game, albeit one with house rules that they have worked out. And yet, still called Pathfinder.
My favorite part of this thread is how is like 3, maybe 4 dudes arguing but rotating through a bunch of aliases to make it seem like they've got a lot more support at first. Super trustworthy behavior.
You are such a b%!$*.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So. Core book, page 402. It certainly seems to (A) indicate that fudging is quite alright and (B) is right there for the player to see and understand that the GM may do. So .. that would seem that players have advance notice that this is going on and they are informed.
My favorite part of this thread is how is like 3, maybe 4 dudes arguing but rotating through a bunch of aliases to make it seem like they've got a lot more support at first. Super trustworthy behavior.You are such a b+&~&.
Love you too
The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
Where do you stand on optional rules like: hero points, armour as DR and words of power?
|
|
It literally is cheating if you do not inform the players of it. If you think otherwise, reread the MIR. If people who break the MIR do not want to be called cheaters, my advice is stop cheating.I'm not a cheater. I'm a GM. Fudging has been a part of the game for quite some time now. If it makes you feel bad and think that you are cheater, then that is something you have to deal with. Me? My players understand that fudging is part of the game and crops up now and then.*stuff that still seems to be completely missing the actual point*Just to confirm, you do realize that if you tell the players in advance it's not cheating and therefore you would not be a cheater right?
It is in the rules. You are just obviously not familiar with them. Must be that you don't play Pathfinder
Every group plays their own version of the game (or at least 95%). But it's important to make exactly what version you are playing transparent.
Cheating without it being part of the game you are playing is cheating (such as altering dice rolls in pathfinder, it is even defined as cheating by the CRB), unless such actions have been deemed acceptable to those playing (i.e. they are now part of the game rules and no longer cheating).
As some have noted this consent is not always explicit and is assumed.
It is the assumed consent that several take issue with as they see it as unnecessarily deceitful and poor form.
Personally I would hope that if such an assumption were proven to be wrong and it did upset players that such behavior would be altered to better facilitate the game all parties involved wish to play.
TLDR: One can't ever be cheating if they have the consent of the collective as those powers have been explicitly vested into that player by all other players.
|
|
Which is still Pathfinder. Yay! We agree.The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
No.
Pathfinder is different than Pathfinder with House Rules.
If I tell my players we are playing Pathfinder. But Initiative is filled with a D10, All HP is double per level, they get 4 traits to start, and everyone starts with a bonus feat that is much different than Pathfinder.
Still a Pathfinder base is it not? Core mechanics are the same? Just a little modding here and there, nothing to egregious. That to most people would still be considered Pathfinder.
|
|
Every group plays their own version of the game (or at least 95%). But it's important to make exactly what version you are playing transparent.
Cheating without it being part of the game you are playing is cheating (such as altering dice rolls in pathfinder, it is even defined as cheating by the CRB), unless such actions have been deemed acceptable to those playing (i.e. they are now part of the game rules and no longer cheating).
As some have noted this consent is not always explicit and is assumed.
It is the assumed consent that several take issue with as they see it as unnecessarily deceitful and poor form.
Personally I would hope that if such an assumption were proven to be wrong and it did upset players that such behavior would be altered to better facilitate the game all parties involved wish to play.
TLDR: One can't ever be cheating if they have the consent of the collective as those powers have been explicitly vested into that player by all other players.
Fudging, as PDT likes to call it, is a rule in Pathfinder. Thus it is not truly cheating. It is a part of adjudicating the game
We
prefer to call this “fudging” rather than cheating, and
while you should try to avoid it when you can, you are the
law in your world, and you shouldn’t feel bound by the
dice.
just so, you know, we are all on the same page here as to what the rules actually say.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They still use the word cheating and a synonym for cheating. As the action steps outside of the normal rules of the game. If it was truly a rule of the game that the GM can ignore the rules of the game then they would not have used that language.
Its advice that it might be a playstyle you may wish to engage in. not a rule. (also I beleive it's in the advice section)
|
|
It is a normal rule of the game, that is the point though.
It is advice as to how to handle bumps in the game, it sets down the hard and fast rule that the DM is the law and this is how to handle the game when things look to be going sideways.
This is not some 3pp writing a blog entry.
This is the official PDT laying down how to handle the game. As they have been doing for decades and were shown and taught by those that came before, which would have been the front runners of DnD itself.
Fudging is not a house rule. It is codified into the core rule book of the game .
Where do you stand on optional rules like: hero points, armour as DR and words of power?The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
People who use any of those are cheating, obviously.
They still use the word cheating and a synonym for cheating. As the action steps outside of the normal rules of the game. If it was truly a rule of the game that the GM can ignore the rules of the game then they would not have used that language.
Its advice that it might be a playstyle you may wish to engage in. not a rule. (also I beleive it's in the advice section)
Likewise don't feel bound to the predetermined plot of an encounter, or the rules as written. Feel free to adjust the results or interpret things creatively-espcially in cases wher you as the GM made a poor assumption to begin with.
Its the Gamemastering section. Where people gamemastering go to learn to run the game.
At least if they're actually playing pathfinder and not "pathfinder with house rules"
|
|
People who use any of those are cheating, obviously.Where do you stand on optional rules like: hero points, armour as DR and words of power?The moment you alter the base rules in any way it's not Pathfinder. It's Pathfinder with House Rules.That citation is right next to the one that says gods cannot do anything because they don't have stats.
The game is Pathfinder if that is what you call it. You can call it Susan if it floats your boat, it doesn't change what you are playing.
Those aren't Hero Points....they are Cheater Points.
Burn them Cheaters at the stake!!!
I hear people love the Dark Souls. Who doesn't love a challenge.You know, I don't think there's literally anything I care less about than whether or not the d20 game I'm playing with the Pathfinder Core Rulebook sitting there on the table is or isn't Pathfinder.Your players probably will though. Especially if you told them you were playing Pathfinder.Welcome to your game of Pathfinder™, here we strive to have fun and roll dice*.
Okay just make your level 1 character and let's start playing!
You're in the desert. Make a perception check. 6
You don't notice something move under you and the ground opens up. Make a reflex save. 14, oh so close, you're entangled and prone.
Does a 13 hit your flatfooted, entangled, prone self? You are bitten by something. Does a 21 beat your CMD? You're grappled. Roll initiative. 4
Okay, it goes first so you're still flat footed. It's now going to swallow whole. 21. Still beats your CMD, that's your flat footed, prone, entangled CMD right? Yep okay you're swallowed whole. Now it burrows 20f underground.
Okay what about your friends, yeah sure you can make an intelligence check, 19. That was a Dust Digger, better keep an eye out for more of them!
Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder™ game. Hope to see you all next week. Oh and make sure you bring another character sheet okay? Great see you then.
Demon Souls/Monster Hunter is the better game.
What is challenging about rolling a d20 again? Is there some sort of meta game, MLG pro tactics I am not aware of?
They still use the word cheating and a synonym for cheating. As the action steps outside of the normal rules of the game. If it was truly a rule of the game that the GM can ignore the rules of the game then they would not have used that language.
Its advice that it might be a playstyle you may wish to engage in. not a rule. (also I beleive it's in the advice section)
Likewise don't feel bound to the predetermined plot of an encounter, or the rules as written. Feel free to adjust the results or interpret things creatively-espcially in cases wher you as the GM made a poor assumption to begin with.Its the Gamemastering section. Where people gamemastering go to learn to run the game.
At least if they're actually playing pathfinder and not "pathfinder with house rules"
Like I said that entire section is advice.
It's positing a myriad of suggestions on how one can adjudicate different occurrences in play. It does not offer a concrete rules, only the advice that cheating dice rolls can be a tool for smoothing over undesirable outcomes that the game produces. But it's still just that "cheating", (or "Fudging" if you prefer) as it is by it's own definition and admission stepping out of the bounds of the games rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I said that entire section is advice.
*citation needed
*citation neededLike I said that entire section is advice.
I mean, how is the gamemastering section any more optional than the combat rules? Sure, you can ignore anything written in the Gamemastering section, but you can likewise just ignore everything the combat rules have to say about attacks of opportunity. I regularly ignore like 75% of stuff in Bestiaries. It's your game, run it how you like.
(And no one you should run games for cares whether or not it's still Pathfinder.)
You cannot cheat when adhering to a rule therefore the section about cheating sometimes being nessecary cannot be rules.
You cannot cheat when adhering to a rule therefore the section about cheating sometimes being nessecary cannot be a rule.
Thats not a citation.
It was already cited. It confirms that it's cheating using its own words.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Posting to the forums about cheating is not covered in the rules and is, therefore, cheating.
This is an absolute fact because I said so and reasons.
It was already cited. It confirms that it's cheating using its own words.
Again, thats not a citation of this section being advice rather than rules.
Except when it is explicity outlined and labeled as cheating.
Except when it is explicity outlined and labeled as cheating.
A privilege given to the gm. By ruleset.
It was already cited. It confirms that it's cheating using its own words.Again, thats not a citation of this section being advice rather than rules.
If it is not a rule then it must be advice. As it is proposing a course of action.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question for the "fudging is cheating" set-
Is this true in every rules system, not just Pathfinder? If you start playing a new RPG, how do you know whether or not it's cheating?
Like the rulebook for Paranoia (one of the all time great comedy roleplaying games) explicitly tells the GM to arbitrarily fudge die rolls and change/ignore rules whenever they feel like it, and even encourages the GM to let the players do the same, even changing die rolls which they didn't even make. The goal is obviously to make the funniest series of events the troupe can create, and dice often don't give you the funniest thing. The justification for this rule? Players are explicitly prohibited by rule from reading the section of the book in which this rule is printed.
So is fudging not cheating in Paranoia? Is having the "is fudging cheating" argument, since it's explicitly prohibited by rule, cheating in Paranoia?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Boy, I really enjoy debates between people using slightly different definitions of words and then arguing back and forth over whether or not they mean the same thing! Those usually end well!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think over the course of this discussion, I probably agreed mostly with what PosibbleCabbage had to say on this topic. I used to be in the "if you are a good enough GM, you don't need to fudge" camp, but with my preparation time decreasing and the rules output increasing, I've found that I can't run Pathfinder games the way I like it, if I follow that maxime to the letter.
The truth is, that with limited prep time, I much prefer to use it for preping the setting and the actual adventure than to have to spend it on my game mastery, because the cost-value ratio of the latter has become to high for me. I'm still trying to run my games without fudging, but I'm also less and less interested in upholding the rules just for the sake of it, so I can't and won't guarantee that fudging will never be an option.
As an aside, and with all the Alexandrian had to say about it, I still like to prep plots if only as a contingency in case my players get stuck or aren't the most proactive bunch of players (happens all the time). I'm flexible about it and surely have no qualms about following up on their ideas (instead of following my plot), but I like to have something prepared just in case I need it. Which is why the AP format works so fine for me, because it presents a plot I can fall back to if needed.
I also don't like to restrict players too much from using rule options that are not in the Core Rules. With all the splat books and 3PP material out there, that means that I might players allow to use material I don't know too much about (yeah, trust goes both ways, and until proven otherwise I tend to trust players that they don't try to deliberately destroying the other players' fun by abusing this privilege). Again I will try to do without , but in the end that might mean that I'll have to fudge things way down the road.
All of this meaning that I can't guarantee that there won't be a point in time where I don't have to fudge things, because the alternative would be detrimental to everyone's fun. And especially in live games, I might not even bother to look a rule up but just go with what seems to make the most sense in the specific moment (in PbPs, I normally can find the time to look the rule up to make an informed decision).
And if those things are dealbreakers for you, well, you might not want to partake in a Pathfinder game (or any other sufficiently complex RPG) run by me.
Ultimately this discussion is very simple. The two positions boil down to:
1. Respect your players and be honest with them.
2. Lie to your players and deceive them.I find it bizarre that anyone is defending the second choice. Note this is not Badwrongfun, because it does not attack play styles merely the act of lying to other players.
Well, I respect my players, as persons and as friends. And I'm honest with them, generally and as to my goal: that we can all have fun while sitting around a table and spinning an entertaining story together.
So I do 1).
And I lie to my players, when we discuss my and their playstyles and game options, insofar as I say that I don't fudge dice, when in fact I do fudge them - not to feel superior about myself, but to enhance their gaming pleasure, by letting them feel and believe that they defy the odds, and overcome fate to forge their destinies.
I only lie and deceive them to reinforce what they want from the game. Since it's all make believe anyway, I do it without qualms, and as part of the storytelling medium.
So I do 2) too.
From my point of view, anyway. I expect you to disagree with me (so don't disappoint me, please).
And to honestly admit to my lying way in that forum contributes (I hope) to a lively (if baroque, at times) discussion. Also, I like paradoxes, and to use quaint all-encompassing little conceptual boxes as kindle for my fire.
Posting to the forums about cheating is not covered in the rules and is, therefore, cheating.
This is an absolute fact because I said so and reasons.
I am almost certain that in the Core Rules I've read "Visit our message boards for more information!"
Hello new friend, did you roll/not roll the dice at one point? Shame on you.
Still a Pathfinder base is it not? Core mechanics are the same? Just a little modding here and there, nothing to egregious. That to most people would still be considered Pathfinder.
Eh. While not entirely wrong, a heavily house ruled campaign can easily be a negative factor of if I want to play. It's not even a dislike of the particular house rules. It's more a matter of having to do huge mental shifts of how I play that particular game compared to the vast majority of my other games. The mere act of playing almost become a chore and likely turns into me declining to participate.
Sorry, the argument of something being or not being Pathfinder falls flat coming from you, Anzyr, when you commonly tell us that since there are no rules for gods they cannot do anything. It isn't Pathfinder in your opinion or for you? Sure, I'll accept that. It isn't Pathfinder at all -- which comes up painfully frequently? No, thank you.No, it isn't Pathfinder because the rules do not match Pathfinder. My opinion or your opinion has nothing to do with it. My statements regarding Gods is correct if we are talking about Pathfinder. They have no stats and therefore by the rules are incapable of doing anything. Cthulhu can cast Mythic Wish. Because the rules say he can. Nethys cannot. Because the rules do not say can. Unless you would like to direct me to Wish (M) on his statblock.
Coming back to this little tidbit, so then per your reasoning everything in the rules has to have a stated effect or ability to do something. Therefore since there is no Dead condition if my PC is moved directly from living to dead without losing any enough hp or being otherwise rendered unconscious then I can continue to act because there are no rules for Dead? That is exactly how you sound arguing the gods can't actually do anything.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If my players have a sudden urge to discuss "fudging or not fudging",
and tell me that if I fudge in any way without their knowledge they will end our friendship because I will have irrevocably broken their trust,
and that they will feel as if I've been punching them (repeatedly) in the face, and I am an horrible cheater, and a dishonest backstabbing scum,
and any number of other hyperboles,
I will be seriously concerned that something has gone horribly wrong in our relationship, and I would very much want to understand what the problem is, and try to fix it.
But since my players are reasonably sane persons, I very much doubt I will ever have such a drama-laden exchange with them.
So in the meantime, I will happily fudge and lie about it, and I won't apply myself to solve other persons' non-existent problems.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about if they said, "I much prefer to see dice rolled openly so I know my character's life depends on my skill and the rules of the game. If I ever start to doubt that my character could die in battle, that would kill all the tension for me and make it boring. If I die a random death, that's fine, because then I get to make a new character, and I love making new characters."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a player tells me «Don't fudge, I don't care if my character dies» and then he goes mad because his character dies, he is lying too, and I've seen this happen too many times.
So the player lies about not caring about his character's fate. The GM lies about not fudging the rolls to save the PC. The character is alive, and nobody speaks again of it.
This is a reflection on how too many things in this world work.
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing.
And I admit I have fudged rolls every now and then. Probably no more than once or twice in a lvl 20 campaign but I did. I've also revealed some extra info that I shouldn't be giving to the players to avoid them doing something stupid. I don't want to take them by the hand but sometimes they might need some extra push to keep going.
|
|
So with that set up done few questions.
1) If the above assumptions are true, is not better to be upfront about your playstyle in regards to fudging as it does way less damage?
2) Those that are supporting intentional hiding of the fact, how are you so sure that you know better than any single individual what they enjoy?
Well, first-off, I'd like to challenge your assumptions a bit, because in fact, I have strong feelings about that topic as well. To me, it is the perfect lacmus test for the question if I want to play with someone or not. I don't want to offend anyone in this thread, so if you want to know more exactly what I mean by that, feel free to ask me via PM.
This said: Without any other information available to me, if I had to chose between a GM who guarantees that he won't fudge and a GM that admits he might be fudging things if necessary, I'd probably chose the seoond one. Because in my opinon, the first one holds the rules as way more important than they actually are.
So now to your points:
1) I actually think it's nothing but fair to let the players know beforehand, that fudging isn't totally out of question (even if I also tell 'em that I'll try to do without). Because if someone really hates this very concept then he needs to know beforehand (if only to be able to stay out of the game). I understand if other players wouldn't even know about it. But in this case, I think it's easier for them to know about something they would accept anyways, so the need to inform the No-Fudger is more important to me.
2) I'm not sure at all. Some people I've known for years so I have a pretty good impression about what they like and what not, other people I try to learn as much as possible by working with them together during session 0 (or more general, during character creation) and by encouraging them to give input as much as they are interested in giving.
But in the end, I'm guessing and have to gauge if strict adherence to the rules might be more detrimental to the game than me fudging a bit. I'm only human, so I might err about it.
BUT: What I'm damn sure about is that, as the GM, if noone else, it's me who is interested in every participant having equal share of the fun and that player A's fun doesn't come at the expense of player B's fun (including mine, just to be clear). So if someone tells me that I would only fudge to put my own interests over the players' interests, it's not only blatantly wrong, it also shows me that he doesn't trust my abilities to do what's best for the game. And that's the point where I am with Mike Mearls:
"Think the rulebook has all the answers? Well, then let's see that rulebook run a campaign."
Wow, the amount of people reacting to some dice fudging as if it was the end of the world is baffling to me. I have never meet in all my years of gaming anyone with that attitude... ever. You get upset over such a tiny thing. You would end some friendship over this? How would you react if someone try to set up a surprise birthday party for you? You walk out of the room upset at everyone because they lied to you to keep the surprise? Well, guess what. Humans lie! All the time, to everyone, even to ourselves.
Proof was giving that fudging dice was written in the CRB as completly acceptable. It doesn't mean however, that in a game where the GM admit that he fudges dice that there is no PCs death. It happens. It happended in game I played, it happended in game I GMed, and it's not a rare occurance. Death in TTRPG happens just like there are also condition that take away control of your character. If you want however to play in a system where the rules can't be ajusted to make more sense, or to improved gaming fun for both parties, then play a computer game. No fudging there.
What I don't want in my game is players that feel that the rolled dice is more important then the fun. That every action of your character can be the end of it because of one bad dice roll. If we, as GM, are not allowed to correct some bad situations on the fly, why are we even there? I don't know if you noticed, but there is a huge section of this forum dedicated to all the adventure path with faq and advice on hoe to run them because there are some mistake in them. Am I to beleive that you want your GM to ignore that and just go with how it's written? Even if the completely absurd and would end in a TPK?