People who started with D&D (or a similar game) often find that fudging solves a lot of problems.
I'm coming from the other direction, I started with FKR and freeform and story games, and I found that introducing rules added a lot of tension and stakes. Values that would get squandered by fudging.
Since introducing all those rules came at a heavy complexity cost, that'd be pretty pointless. I'd be taking on complexity weight for no purpose.
While those who started out having all those complex rules, for them all that fudging and loosening up is just making the game easier to wrangle at no additional cost. They're shedding complexity weight.
They'e doing that at the cost of the tension and stakes I love, but if they don't value that as highly, moving gradually towards rules light can feel like a step in the right direction for them.
For me, adding in all these rules but then invalidating them by fudging, it'd be like strapping a car to my back while biking uphill. The point of the car was to actually use its engine. But for those who started out saddled with a car that doesn't run the way they want to, adding some pedal power might be just what they've been looking for. (I'd argue that maybe they should ditch the car if they're gonna bike everywhere anyway, i.e. switch to a story game.)
That sounds more like a house rule than a fudge to me. If your entire group knows that you're not using a particular system, like how I'm not using charisma checks for persuation and intimidation, then it's fine to not use a rule,
We use a ton of houserules, including a system to track encumbrance, https://idiomdrottning.org/inventory
because logistics is such a huge part of what I want out of D&D.