While obviously not a practical agreement (to stop playing if someone else plays the game normally is ridiculous), it is a tactful approach to dealing with conc

While obviously not a practical agreement (to stop playing if someone else plays the game normally is ridiculous), it is a tactful approach to dealing with concerns about desensitization to actual violence, and an interesting exercise in metagaming. I would suggest that parents do more to familiarize themselves with the actual nature of the games, though. They only make use of the imagery of reality, and don't support a range of actions remotely approaching reality, so many of the rules that make sense in reality make no sense in the world of the game. Adding arbitrary rules can just as easily strip away the enjoyment of the game as it can add to it--it depends heavily on the game and the other players. This kind of lesson would work better if tailored more closely to the set of interactions available in the game world, so that the player can continue to play the game effectively, but must be conscious of additional restrictions--which is really what the Geneva Conventions are about. The ideal is for the child to both learn something and enjoy the experience.