He went on to boast about how, as a GM, he was looking forward to rolling dice so his players would think that what was happening was random, but routinely exercising his prerogative to just change dice rolls to whatever he wanted them to be, because no one would know the difference. He really seemed to expect me to be impressed by his audacity, or his manly exercise of control, or something.
Needless to say, I was not exactly lining up to be in this guy's first game.
But anyway. I imagine most people would find this attitude repellent, if nothing else because of the open bragging about it. What I'm wondering is, are there any GMs out there who wouldn't do something like this for story purposes? I'm not above fudging a die roll to keep a character from dying or to make a combat more fun for the players (to keep them from getting utterly steamrollered if they're rolling poorly, or keep them from utterly steamrollering the opposition and finding the whole thing unchallenging), though I'd never admit it to those players, let alone boast about it.
But I know a lot of people have strong feelings and superstitions about their dice and their dice luck, and I'm wondering if that extends to strong feelings about the "sanctity" of GM dice rolls. What's the general attitude on this? Are you all fine with ignoring the dice now and then and pushing events in a more interesting direction, or do you feel duty-bound to let the dice determine the course of events? Do you feel committing to dice randomness adds something important to the game?