All RPGing includes
basic units of fictional happenings in which the PCs participate, whether or not the rulebook and the participants self-consciously use the terminology of "scenes".
Here's an illustration from p 2 of the 5e Basic pdf:
Dungeon Master (DM): After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east and Castle Ravenloft towers before you. Crumbling towers of stone keep a silent watch over the approach. They look like abandoned guardhouses. Beyond these, a wide chasm gapes, disappearing into the deep fog below. A lowered drawbridge spans the chasm, leading to an arched entrance to the castle courtyard. The chains of the drawbridge creak in the wind, their rust-eaten iron straining with the weight. From atop the high strong walls, stone gargoyles stare at you from hollow sockets and grin hideously. A rotting wooden portcullis, green with growth, hangs in the entry tunnel. Beyond this, the main doors of Castle Ravenloft stand open, a rich warm light spilling into the courtyard.
D&D can't be played without these sorts of fictional happenings or states of affairs being established and agreed among the participants.
We can look at this particular example and notice certain features:
*It elides time, and also movement by the PCs ("After passing through the craggy peaks, the road takes a sudden turn to the east");
*It assumes that information about the nature of this building, and its immediate surrounds, flows one-way (from GM to players): the GM confidently describes the castle, its architecture, the chasm, the fog in the chasm, the wind, the growth on the portcullis, etc;
*Some of that information imposes a certain logic onto the situation, both an aesthetic one (the narrator tells us that the towers "keep a silent watch", that the gargoyles "stare . . . and grin hideously", that the light is "rich [and] warm") and a functional one (the protagonists recognise the towers as "abandoned guardhouses" and can tell that the chains "strain[i[ with the weight" of the drawbridge).
This raises immediate questions, such as
*When is it OK to elide time and movement in this way?
*Do the players ever get to provide information about the buildings and environs in which the PCs find themselves, and if so when and how?
*Are there limits on the GM's imposition of aesthetic logic, and do the players get to contribute to the aesthetic?
*When should the GM hold back from conveying a functional logic and (for instance) wait for the players to ask a question ("Do the chains seem sturdy?") and/or call for a check ("Roll INT(Investigation)")?
Moldvay Basic provides answers to some of these:
*It's OK to elide time and movement between dungeon expeditions, and it's OK to elide time when resting in a dungeon;
*The players do not get to provide information about buildings and environs.
It also tends to suggest the GM should hold back on the aesthetics (it doesn't figure in discussions or examples of the GM's role, and seems at odds with the emphasis on GM "distance"/impartiality). I think it's not entirely clear on functional logic, but tends to suggest - again from the examples - that the GM should be waiting more on questions from the players.
Torchbearer discusses most of these:
*It has clear rules about when and how time and movement get elided, with adventure phase, journeys as a subset of that, camp phase and town phase;
*The players don't get to provide information about buildings and environs - even for their friends and family, a roll is made on a table (and a comment in the rules notes the unreliability of the PC's memory of the family home);
*There is a good discussion of when and how to convey a functional logic, call for checks, etc.
It doesn't say much about aesthetic logic. The only RPG rulebook I can think of that does expressly discuss that is In A Wicked Age, which (p 10) tells the GM, when describing things, to "Use your senses, including senses beyond the five, like your moral sense, your sense of humor, your sense of direction. Give your observer a voice."
Anyway, the assertion of the OP is that the objection to "prescription" is an objection to including rules or principles that address the sorts of questions I've identified. (And others too, that are also about these sorts of aspects of RPGing - managing scenes, and establishing what flows from them.)