RAW includes Rule 0?

[Ranes]

It's just a minor little conceptual difference that I think is lost a lot. I'm surprised it didn't make it into 3.5 quite honestly. I hope there's a similar statement in 4e.

It's a difference in emphasis. The 3.5 section still qualifies the DM mandate and the 3.0 DMG still points to DM mandate.

I'll be interested in how the DI accommodates the concept.

 

[Folly]

All that said, I will agree with you on one thing... While nothing is illegal unless you get caught, the easiest way to not get caught is to not do it.

I am just continuing this logic by saying that not having to do it is the best situation. And that the DM should be more willing to apologize for a poorly designed encounter than adjusting it on the fly. This is not to say that the DM should never do it, just that it is the tool in the toolbox that is in the box, but rarely gets used. A DM that uses it every session (or even worse, every encounter) needs to spend more time thinking about his encounters, and balancing them.

Thinking about the times I have seen this worst in play, an issue that creeps up is when the DM becomes too willing to modify off the cuff. This results in encounters changing wildly from too easy (then the DM overtweaks) to overpowering (then the DM overtweaks again) back to too easy. This situation breaks suspension of disbelief and ruins the feel of the encounter.

I think our difference of opinion on the matter comes from how we have used / seen the tool used. When it is used with great diligence, it can have positive results on the gaming session. When it is not used with diligence, it ruins the gaming session.

 

[Pbartender]

While I can't honestly agree with this...

And that the DM should be more willing to apologize for a poorly designed encounter than adjusting it on the fly.

...for the same reason -- that is to say, It's better to not have to be in the position of having to apologize in the first place -- all of this...

This is not to say that the DM should never do it, just that it is the tool in the toolbox that is in the box, but rarely gets used. A DM that uses it every session (or even worse, every encounter) needs to spend more time thinking about his encounters, and balancing them.

Thinking about the times I have seen this worst in play, an issue that creeps up is when the DM becomes too willing to modify off the cuff. This results in encounters changing wildly from too easy (then the DM overtweaks) to overpowering (then the DM overtweaks again) back to too easy. This situation breaks suspension of disbelief and ruins the feel of the encounter.

I think our difference of opinion on the matter comes from how we have used / seen the tool used. When it is used with great diligence, it can have positive results on the gaming session. When it is not used with diligence, it ruins the gaming session.

...is something I can whole-heartedly agree with. Which goes back a bit to my original point... If you're going to do it, make sure you're doing it right. Trust me, when I say that I've seen the tactic greatly misused myself on any number of occasions.

But if applied with subtlety, care and discretion, DM "cheating" can often fix certain mistakes without the players ever having to know a mistake was made.

"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."