Is non-violence bad for Narrativism?

[Callan S.]

Hi John,

Dude, you justified having no violence in any nar game because MLWM has a restriction on violence in it. Then when I demonstrated it's only there for that particular games design goal rather than to just curb violence, you agree with me and say its just there for that particular games design goal - thus it as an example doesn't apply to other games. When that's my point..."no violence to the master" in MLWM doesn't support a "no violence" rule in all other nar games. You brought up how MLWM restricts violence and is a nar game, in order to show a no violence rule in any other nar games wouldn't hurt them.

Hold on. That's a bogus question. The proper question is "Could some nar games have a problem that 'no violence to anybody' would solve?"

The title of the thread is about any nar game. I've proposing that any attempt you see in a nar game like MLWM to curb violence in it, is to meet its specific game design goal, by eliminating problems it's premise may bring up. This is to show that only if you have a problem with your premise and violence, do you have a reason to curb violence with rules.

If I'm wrong about the thread and it instead asks "Does it hurt a nar game that needs "a no violence" rule to help its game design goals, to have a no violence rule?", then I'm way off...I should be answering "No, its doesn't hurt it and is a good thing"

If it's asking if non-violence is bad for nar, including games that don't have any problems (in regards to design intent and violence), then I say yes, they are bad for nar. Like unnecessary surgery, non violence rules are bad for such nar games.

That's it for me on this, especially since I've used the 'Dude!' phrase.

[Victor Gijsbers]

Uh Callan, I don't think anyone ever suggested that all Nar-games should have restrictions on violence?