I think that 4E was doing something similar to what some games like Dungeon World do.
The description of the Fireball spell in 4E is super short. But although it doesn’t say that the spell is supposed to burn stuff, it has the “Fire” keyword, it’s described as fire damage in the “Hit” part, and the fluff description mentions a flame that explodes. So I believe that the idea is to paint a general image of what the spell does, but leaving the actual flavor and consequences up to your gaming table.
Because one of the problems with D&D (be it 3E, 5E, or some other editions) is that they try to describe everything an action can or can’t do. But they can’t possibly list every possible consequence of any action, because they have limited space.
And this kind of rules book creates a mentality (in some players) of rules lawyers saying that if something obvious isn’t described, then it doesn’t happen. And if a game does that enough, it can create DMs that are too rigid instead of interpreting what’s happening in the world.
I remember there was a spell to create bonfire (or maybe it was something else related to fire), and it said that throwing water at the fire will extinguish the flames, or something like that. Do we really need a game to say that?
4E tried having terse descriptions, and leaving the rest up to you. I really like that. So it says that Fireball creates a flame that explodes, engulfing everything in its area. If one of it’s targets is a person holding an important letter (made of paper) in their hands, it should burn, even though burning things is not explicitly described.
Maybe I just had a very rigid DM at the time as he wouldn’t let us do anything not explicitly within the spell discription.
I think that 4E was doing something similar to what some games like Dungeon World do.
The description of the Fireball spell in 4E is super short. But although it doesn’t say that the spell is supposed to burn stuff, it has the “Fire” keyword, it’s described as fire damage in the “Hit” part, and the fluff description mentions a flame that explodes. So I believe that the idea is to paint a general image of what the spell does, but leaving the actual flavor and consequences up to your gaming table.
Because one of the problems with D&D (be it 3E, 5E, or some other editions) is that they try to describe everything an action can or can’t do. But they can’t possibly list every possible consequence of any action, because they have limited space.
And this kind of rules book creates a mentality (in some players) of rules lawyers saying that if something obvious isn’t described, then it doesn’t happen. And if a game does that enough, it can create DMs that are too rigid instead of interpreting what’s happening in the world.
I remember there was a spell to create bonfire (or maybe it was something else related to fire), and it said that throwing water at the fire will extinguish the flames, or something like that. Do we really need a game to say that?
4E tried having terse descriptions, and leaving the rest up to you. I really like that. So it says that Fireball creates a flame that explodes, engulfing everything in its area. If one of it’s targets is a person holding an important letter (made of paper) in their hands, it should burn, even though burning things is not explicitly described.