Color text v rule details in spell descriptions

In the recent Wall of Force debate we got down to arguing the meaning of a phrase in a spell description.

It brought to mind other debates I've had, at the game table and on line, regarding spell descriptions.

Some have argued that they are mere "color text", to be taken with a grain of salt. Others say that they they as much a rule as the spec block that precedes them.

An example that I've encountered more than once is Fireball: The spell description clearly says "Ignites flamable material in the area", yet many have argued that the "Instantaneous" duration means that it isn't there long enough to do that. Can't melt metal, can't light things on fire, all it does is damage, the rest is "color text".

Note that there are many spells with "instantaneous" durations that last forever. Cure spells, for example, or Wall of Stone. All it means is that the effect can't be undone with a Dispel Magic, not that the tiny bead described in Fireball moves faster than light, or that the Wall is there and gone in an eyeblink.

How do you stand on issues like this? Give examples, if you like.

I'm sure the longer descriptions are intended to be rules. Many spells are by no means completely described in the top block. So I think RAW is that fireballs set flammable materials on fire. I don't think the instantaneous duration is a problem. As noted, many inst spells create lasting substance, so the fireball could last for a few seconds. Or you can just say that game physics is that an instant of fire can set things aflame.

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using EN World mobile app

I agree,vis-a-vis Fireball.

What other spell examples have you seen where someone debates "color text" (by any turn of phrase).?

Greenfield said:

How do you stand on issues like this? Give examples, if you like.

Click to expand...

I stand with EGG:

1E DMG Afterword said:

It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. Never hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, if it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters given in the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons volumes, you are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a whole first, your campaign next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons & Dragons as it was meant to be.

Click to expand...

Should be clear enough, but to put it in non-Gygaxian terms: It doesn't matter what the rules say if you, as DM, decide they need to be changed. The rules do not run the game - the DM does - up to and including CHANGING the rules as the DM sees fit.

If you want it to be unimportant color text - so it shall be. If you want the game to live and die by written text alone, warts and all, then I think you're crazy. But it's not MY game. It's YOURS. As you desire it: So be it. If the game's original author intended that the DM have the authority to interpret, arbitrate, add/delete/modify written rules and authors of later editions deliberately omitted that monumentally important advice or failed to spell it out clearly, you have every right and responsibility to re-assert it and to brook no contradiction of it thereafter. Any issues that arose from failing to explain that DM's right and responsibility is squarely upon those authors. However, if you understand and accept that as DM you have that right and responsibility to simply DECLARE how things will work one way or another, but nonetheless willingly relenquish that right, then it's on you if gameplay consternation results from it.

Just discuss each problem spell description with your players (if desired or necessary), but then perform the job of being DM and simply decide for yourself how you prefer that it should work in your game. Write it down if necessary. Tell the players. Move on. The fun of the game is in the PLAYING of it, not the endless debates and twistings of its rules by game-rule-lawyers. Always has been. Always will be. Certainly leave extended debates of the finer points to take place outside the game - but still you'll need to rule AS DM, and move on.

Greenfield, none. Debates over ambiguities, gaps and rules that seemed unworkable (or just inconvenient...), but I've not heard the argument that the free text part of the spell description isn't a rule.

Actually sometimes what it describes is pure colour (for example, the whether a magic missile looks like an arrow) and doesn't affect game mechanics or significant events, so sometimes people ask to re-skin a spell in their own cosmetic effects. But anything at the level of what the spell actually does is RAW for groups I've been in.

MITFH, yes to all that but RAW are a starting point for the DM so it is valid to discuss what they are.

Sent from my Wileyfox Swift using EN World mobile app