For me, it was: “If it’s going to help your players have more fun, cheat. Fudge a die roll. Make shit up. The dice don’t tell you what needs to happen, your players’ reactions do.”
Obviously, many people will disagree with this, but I’ve always appreciated this advice, and I believe it has made me a better GM.
> When I have DM’d there’s often a difference between the intended difficulty of an encounter I create versus how it actually works out in play.
Players are allowed to flee. Enemies are allowed to mock them and walk away.
I’m not sure why basically ever single discussion I ever see about GMing seems to live in this world where the only options in combat is “PCs die or NPCs die”, and the only workaround is to pick and choose when you’re playing a probability game.
Change or fudge enough rules and you’re basically playing a different game.
No time constraints? Now the GM has less levers to pull on to make choices feel meaningful.
Not tracking rations? Then there’s nothing stopping the players from travelling back to town to rest after every encounter.
Lots of game rules feel “less fun” in the moment but the alternative is constantly playing rocket tag because now fights don’t feel consequential unless player death is on the line - and that’s an easy line to accidentally cross. And then you end up fudging rolls to balance encounters.
But you wouldn’t need to make individual encounters so hard in the first place if pc death isn’t the only negative consequence on the table.