|
Forgive me if this is a silly question to ask, but I've been wanting to find some other opinions on the subject for some time now. Also, I hope I'm posting this in the right place, since my question does deal slightly with the fluff of Golarion, but I do believe my actual question is setting-agnostic.
What should a GM do when his players want to tell a story he doesn't?
I believe we can all agree that its good GM practice to work the backstories of his PCs into the plot of an ongoing campaign, yes? I've run several games in the Inner Sea setting, and every time I do, at least one of the same two players will turn in a backstory that involves laying waste to Cheliax (with the intention and expectation of eradicating it from the gaming group's canon permanently, for no other reason than that they, the players, find it distasteful) The problem is, I actually like Cheliax (Dark Archive, baby ;) ) I like that despite its diabolic nature it actually does a lot of good in the world. From a storytelling standpoint, they're a great vehicle for shades of gray morality stories, and I haven't even been abe to use them, because I know that as soon as I try the story will go straight out the window as the weapons get pointed at any red and black in sight.
I've tried discussing it with them, nothing. In any scenario where they have autonomy they want to get rid of it, and I refuse to railroad my players. I've tried making villains of Chelaxian nobles to let them deal a lesser blow to the nation, no dice, the hate train keeps on chugging. I've offered to run Hell's Rebels for them in the name of catharsis, same thing, they want it GONE.
These aren't bad players, they're great people to play with that have been a pillar of my group for years, but even recently, as I solicited backstories for an adventure in Garund with conceivably nothing to do with Avistan whatsoever (one simple question: what do your characters seek in Katapesh?) I still got "mercenaries to stage a coup and a diviner to find a power capable of eradicating House Thrune once and for all." I honestly have no idea if this campaign will even get to the point where that might be possible, but, obviously I'm going to have to find an answer to this eventually.
So what's my move here? I suppose good GM Etiquette demands I let them do it, but even if it means amputating one of my favorite parts of the setting? Considering their goal would be nearly impossible (given that the nation is economically in bed with 90% of the Inner Sea and has a god with a vested interest in its well-being) should I just let them run themselves into a buzzsaw of failure? That doesn't seem like a particularly honorable solution either. What about for the high-level campaign I've got flapping in the breeze? Do I let that campaign end with the kingdom they've spent two real life years building getting crushed beneath the allies of a super-power? If I do let them take it down, where does it end? They've already started talking about "Nidal is next." I would like my games to be a little bit more than lining up cans for them on a fence.
So, I am at a loss fellow gamers. Any advice or opinions on the matter is greatly appreciated.