I'll add the ()'s to intra-class method calls, though; the ambiguity between variable references and funcall expressions bothers the hell out of me, too.
Optional parens are a net win.
^ I realize this can also be dangerous and is the same reason '!' is encouraged as an annotation for methods which have significant side effects.
By the way, I'm pouring over the source for Nancy, a Sinatra inspired micro framework in C# and I see where extension methods and implicit conversion operators are helpful in a DSL.
Other languages have been moving in this direction, too. Objective-C has dot notation, C# lets you define getters and setters, Python has the @property decorator, Scala has special "magic" methods and quirky syntax rules to make this work, etc. All of these serve the same purpose as Ruby's optional parentheses: To make simple method calls less inherently "heavy".
For instance, a few years ago, a summer internship project was to build a native debugger for OS X in pure Ruby, and to help with that, I wrote a chunk of X86 assembly as a Ruby DSL:
I think the real answer is what I said: It makes Ruby's syntax lighter and more flexible so the pony could get more mileage out of its one trick (pure OO), and the convenience of writing DSLs just falls out of that.
BTW, that DSL is an awesome hack.