What has solving the problem got to do with anything? Why would failing to solve the problem invalidate anyone's moral statement about how important the problem is?
Because if someone says "This problem is worth sacrificing my character's life for" in an exploration of theme, the discussion (as expressed through the game) is put in an untenable position.
Either the character gives his life but the problem is not solved, in which case the character's player's input is not being respected.
Or the character gives his life and the problem is solved, effectively ending the debate - potentially before the other players can make their points.
Narrativism is based on the idea that the
primary purpose of a story should be an exploration of theme, which to me defeats the purpose. The primary purpose of a story should be to tell a story, and if there's exploration of theme as well then all well and good.
To me, nothing is less likely to produce "art" than sitting down and declaring "this is Art because we are being Artistic!", and nothing is less likely to produce literature - or a literary narrative - by sitting down and saying "We're going to make Literature by adhering to a bunch of rules for making Literature that we've made up and are by no means universally agreed-on!" The central claim of Narrativism, however, is that through a systemised set of rules you can produce literary narratives.
Are you approaching this with a superhero-story mentality, where a statement of "I care for this very deeply!" is always accompanied by the power to act successfully upon that passion? Like Peter finding the strength to defend Mary Jane, or Ben Grimm finding the strength to support his team-mates?
No, I'm approaching this from a "exploring theme" angle, which is supposedly the basis of Narrativist gaming. What is the point of allowing people to explore a theme if you squash their exploration if the dice fall out wrong?