Through combination of serving right people, being utterly ruthless and determined, and sheer dumb luck, my warrior was awarded by the king with some lands, noble title and some treasure. Now I got heavy GM hints that it is time to settle down and instead of murderhobo game have a bit of Game of Thrones game (he is a fan). My problem is that I couldn't care less about that type of game and my warrior doesn't have any governing skills anyway (Leadership and Tactics don't count). I can't refuse king's gift, and he somewhat relies on me. My party's opinions mixed, but mostly they want to use my castle as base of operations. What to do?
There is only one option: Diplomacy at the end of your blade. Invite everyone in, and find the best reasons to kill them. When you have no quarry, stalk around like a caged rat. Keep sating your lust of blood until you either die trying or have won the campaign atop a mountain of corpses, and long hail your new imperial empire. Immediately launch the war train to the neighboring lands.
>>44601391 here: in an IC perspective, I would give away the lands and the titles to a trusted friend, who is big in stewardship and into politics and all of that.
Then I'd go back to adventuring.
Walk into the street, find a beggar. Drop the deeds into his bowl. Keep walking. Walk until you've left the kingdom entirely.
Congratulations! You have escaped from responsibility!
I told him exactly that. He shrugged and said: "Well okay, you can let someone else rule in your place, but you still need to be at least decorative figure. If you absolutety adamant about this, you can create a new character." So, my choice is essentially is play his GoT game in one role or the other, or roll a new character. But I like this one very much, I put my soul in it.
My castle is right up on that frontier, and that makes it part of the problem, because just about everyone in this setting is interested in moving it one way or the other.
>I would give away the lands and the titles to a trusted friend, who is big in stewardship and into politics and all of that
Not possible, 'cause, you know, king's will. I tried to persuaded him give them to someone else (begged for it, in fact), but he would not hear any of it. Besides, sad as it is, I am probably the only one in party he could give a noble title (one player playes woman, other one - a barbarian. third one plays shady thief-like character, who tries to avoid any and all attention due to curse).
>my warrior doesn't have any governing skills anyway (Leadership and Tactics don't count).
>but you still need to be at least decorative figure.
Why do you need to be that? What does the king care if you give away the titles he gave to you without asking first?
If the king asks "Why did you give away the titles I gifted you" the correct answer would be "Because I don't want to be a noble: why would you give all of them to me without asking in the first place? I have no interest in politics, I only wish to fight."
That is basic roleplaying.
A character can have high combat score and still have only slightly above martial skills. You could argue that he can be a good teacher for the people, a Marshal, perhaps, but no one would put Bron in charge of lands or make him a noble or anything: nor would Bron want to be anything else but a money-grabbing mercenary.
OP! The king gave you the titles, what does it matter if you give them to someone else? The king might get offended and not give you any more titles in your lifetime, but that wouldn't warrant any other consequence, in my opinion.
It is an option, but: 1) I like him, and I played him for almost a year, I don't want to roll another character and 2) he will probably kill him as soon as possible to further the plot, and I don't want this. Playing him as PC gives him at least a bit of security; for NPC, all bets are off.
He was raised up for the role and was given excellent education. My warrior does not know how to read.
>What does the king care if you give away the titles he gave to you without asking first?
Because he thinks I am capable warrior (which I am), that I am loyal to him (which is true, at least partially) and that exactly what he wants at his border - guarding his lands.
>Because I don't want to be a noble: why would you give all of them to me without asking in the first place? I have no interest in politics, I only wish to fight.
Ahem, he is the king, I am his subject and he doesn't give one shit about what do I want. He think he's done me a great favor, raising me up to nobilty, and deny his gift would to become object of his wrath.
Everyone has this wrong OP.
You are no longer your character, guy who goes into dungeons and kills monsters.
You are now the lands and army under your character, who go into neighboring fiefs and steal shit.
Make your land mighty, strong arm everyone around you into following you, carve out though force and blade your own empire.
THEN leave a son to do the leading while you smite dragons.
>Because he thinks I am capable warrior (which I am), that I am loyal to him (which is true, at least partially) and that exactly what he wants at his border - guarding his lands.
And why, exactly, didn't he make you captain/general of an army, if he wanted that?
To be honest, it sounds like your GM didn't think this one through: you don't need to be a noble to receive orders to keep the borders safe and shit.
>Ahem, he is the king, I am his subject and he doesn't give one shit about what do I want. He think he's done me a great favor, raising me up to nobilty, and deny his gift would to become object of his wrath.
So he's basically a Neutral evil son of a shitnozzle, I take it? Why don't you flee the country? Go somewhere where the king is not fucked up in the head?
>My warrior does not know how to read.
Lots of medieval politicians didn't. They paid people to do their writing and reading. Hell, in some societies, EVERYBODY paid a dude to write their letters and shit, because who has the time to learn to properly script when there's crops to be sewn and harvested and plagues to catch?
>Nobility and honor are the two biggest killers in all of GoT.
I think commoners die a lot more, but since GoT is all about nobility and intrigue shit we don't really get to see it.
Given that GoT is shit anyway, all of this means nothing at all.
Be a massive scumbag. Move the fences on your land so you are stealing turf from your neighbours. Send out the party ranger to rustle cattle. Get the wizard to brew up hardcore drugs in your basement. Start honor duels with other nobles over imagined slights. But be such a bro to the king that he's cool with you marrying into his family.
In Game of Thrones, the biggest scumbags live the longest, so be a massive scumbag.
Its less about being noble and more about not understanding court life and diplomacy
A fantastic warrior and military commander with zero tact and intrigue is doomed in anything GoT inspired
there's only so much poison you can ingest before failing that fort save after all
He was a noble dude who tried to turn a bunch of backward, under supplied, massively outnumbered faggots into something that might survive the GoT equivalent of Armageddon. He was doing well, SO OF COURSE he gets shanked.
Nobility and doing good kills in the GoT-verse.
Littlefinger is not making it to the end of the series
heck wouldn't be surprised if one chapter started with "And littlefinger was found dead at the bottom of the stairs having tripped over his own cloak" or something like that to show that no matter how well you plan everything, shit happens
>be fights mcbarbarian
>leader of small squad of mercenaries
>do loads of missions for king during war
>eventually win war for king
>he gifts me land and titles
>gm wants to shift game into more political intrigue
>fights mcbarbarian doesn't have time for this shit
>tells king he is a merc and doesn't want land so give him gold/weapons
>king gets offended
>leave kingdom to fight another war
>gm stops game session later
Moral of the story is figure out where your DM is on an emotional level before reacting as it could be a game ender. Also make sure the majority of the players wouldn't prefer a political campaign.
So, does your friend have any deeply held beliefs? Become the biggest SJW cunt troll ever. Fuck, work against the kingdom. You're on the border, right? Sell your king out and start a war. Fake your death and become a rebel.
I mean, I don't know why your friend is so insistent that your game turns into his shitty fanfiction.
On the other hand, if he's bored with GMing what you're doing then there isn't much else you can do about that either.
I personally would just make my character the leader of a mercenary troop funded by the lands and shit and be all group murder hoboing, and just ignore political bullshit by stabbing people. Have him smash around like a bull in a china shop, stabbing important players and ruining alliances. Make him take petty slights far too seriously and murder people's faces. Have him turn on people for no fucking reason at all.
Play Conan in Gay of Thrones essentially.
check what the other players think
if they want a more GoT inspired campaign try to ask the GM if he'd be okay with a civil war taking place in the nation.
This would allow folks more interesting in court intrigue to handle the diplomacy and subterfuge while giving you and maybe other players the chance for some good fightin'
and like others said: be the guy that's smart enough to know he aint smart enough to run a county and leave that to others who you may or may not trust
Is it just me, wondering what the fuck the other nobles would have been doing while the king just goes "Hurr durr, better give the peasant a piece of land, hurr."
In a lot of kingdoms the nobles would've just gone "wtf are you doing, you shitforbrains? Giving lands to a peasant?"
depends how powerful the nobles are and how well established the feudal system is
after all every noble family traces its lineage to someone who at one point was a commoner and distinguished himself to the local ruler in some manner
OP, you still here?
First of all: get the other players on your side. From the sound of things, it seems like they don't care much for the intrigue game either, since they only want the castle as a base for operations.
Secondly, tell the GM that you really like this character you're playing and you'd rather not reroll a new character to continue doing what you've been doing up until now.
Third: state your expectations. Tell him straight up: we don't want to partake in politics, it doesn't interest us. We want to go adventuring, kill enemies and get phat loot!
Fourth: start looking for another GM/group, just in case your current one doesn't stop being a fuckwit.
Walk the fuck away. In-character I mean. Just pick a direction and start walking, or sailing, or riding your flying carpet, or however you get around. Walk a couple countries away, then go back to the "kill and lewt" lifestyle. What's the king gonna do? Have you assassinated? Fucking why? It wouldn't accomplish anything, and with the rest of the party backing you up he'd probably have to hire a whole team of assassins to take you down, and no doubt that money would be better spent elsewhere. There must be hundreds of assholes who are both better qualified for the landlord job and actually fucking want it.
>>but you still need to be at least decorative figure.
>Why do you need to be that? What does the king care if you give away the titles he gave to you without asking first?
>If the king asks "Why did you give away the titles I gifted you" the correct answer would be "Because I don't want to be a noble: why would you give all of them to me without asking in the first place? I have no interest in politics, I only wish to fight."
That would be a huge insult to the king
Just assign somebody to look over your holdings, medieval people did this all the time. Grant him the position of governor and pay him well so he does not go corrupt. Make sure it is somebody you like and holds the same vallues.
Sure, it's an insult.
But to be honest I don't give a shit. I would just go to the border as he expects me to, then drop everything and just bugger off into the other country.
I'm not his slave, fuck that shit: I'm out of there!
OP here. Talking to other players and that seems to be at least partially their idea, to quote "it would be nice once in a while to play something on more strategic level." Also, GM is trying to console me with "don't worry, there still will be many fights left". Maybe I am overreacting after all. Or maybe it's just start of my downfall.
>So he's basically a Neutral evil son of a shitnozzle, I take it?
>depends how powerful the nobles are and how well established the feudal system is
He is the tyrant bent on establishing absolute monarchy, metodically stomping other nobles into the ground the second they start to look up and question. I was awarded castle for gathering group of mercenaries, seizing the castle of one of minor rebellion lords and killing him along with his whole family. Also, saving king's daughter from leaders of said rebellion might have counted. So,
they already hate me, couldn't care less, and
already done by a wide margin.
>Why don't you flee the country?
That would be equal to retiring the character. GM was clear on that he wouldn't play my awesome adventures alone somewhere else.
You could always just hire someone to run the place and be generally grumpy when people make you do stuff. Reminisce of the days when you were stoveing in peoples heads and stealing their crap.
Why did the king give these titles to you specifically? Why didn't he give them to someone else in your party, if you don't act like the leader?
If you don't want to have a part in the intrigue, you can have another player deal with all the shenanigans.
>Why did the king give these titles to you specifically? Why didn't he give them to someone else in your party, if you don't act like the leader?
>I am probably the only one in party he could give a noble title (one player playes woman, other one - a barbarian. third one plays shady thief-like character, who tries to avoid any and all attention due to curse).
>they already hate me, couldn't care less, and
Sure, but they have no reason to, since it was not your choice to begin with.
Seriously, does anyone have at least a quarter of a brain in your setting?
He probably already had a general. Also being general would involve way more administrative work than owning a castle.
Hes working for a guy stomping them into the ground. I think they have a reason.
>Also being general would involve way more administrative work than owning a castle.
Not really. There is a reason there are captains, lieutenants, et cetera. To be honest, though, there is no reason why he shouldn't be able to go and kill shit with the men of his personal levy, now that he owns a fief of his own.
If the king needs something he just needs to send a message either way. I don't see the issue.
>Hes working for a guy stomping them into the ground. I think they have a reason.
>I am probably the only one in party he could give a noble title (one player playes woman, other one - a barbarian. third one plays shady thief-like character, who tries to avoid any and all attention due to curse).
Wait, why would the king even give a fuck if one player playes a woman in the first place? He's a tyrant, that means that he doesn't give a shit if his vassals hate his guts or not: he shouldn't have any qualms about giving the title to a woman. Unless he's a faggot and/or hates women.
No, I think it's strange that he gives a fuck. The GM should give the position to a player who wants it, not someone who is reluctant to do it: since the others are not opposed to GoTshit, they should take the fucking titels themselves.
>You think a tyrant is the sort of guy whos into gender equality?
I'm still trying to understand why he would give a shit: he only wants the party to follow his orders. It doesn't make a nick of change if he gives the titles to the woman opposed to the man: as long as they do as he says, there shouldn't be any problems.
The GM is just pushing a certain responsibility/role on a player who clearly doesn't want it.
But the player doesn't want that responsibility. It's not too dissimilar from pushing your Magical Realm on someone, what the GM is doing right now: trying to force the player to play something that he doesn't want.
The warrior is a male warrior trained to fight and lead people in combat.
The woman is a female in a very sexist time period.
The barbarian is a barbarian and the thief is a thief.
One of those options is better than the others.
I'm not saying its what I would do or I approve of it but in character its not that far fetched.
>I'm not saying its what I would do or I approve of it but in character its not that far fetched.
Sometimes you have to metagame a bit to keep everyone happy. If a player doesn't like something and tells you about it, but you go ahead and don't care about it, the game is not fun for that player anymore. Comprende?
That's why the GM is a fuckstick and should just give the thing to someone else who isn't reluctant to play that role.
What are you even trying to accomplish here? You can't affect the outcome of this in any single way, stop arguing like the GM gives a single fuck about what you're saying. you're not even talking to him!
OP is obviously on the wrong side of the conflict.
Gather your party and every able man in your stead, spend a couple sessions developing your land, building roads and fortifications, it's doable if you have someone with high CHA to lead peasants to work and if your mage can summon workers from another plane.
After that, make a speech to your people telling how the king is a fucker and should eat shit, them send a letter to the king telling him he's a fucker and should eat shit.
Sign non-agression pact with other nobles and enjoy war game
There is no advice to give about handling over the title to someone else, you dumbass. He's made that clear, the GM has decided that he's the one who's noble, not any of the other ones regardless of what justifications you make up.
>If you absolutety adamant about this, you can create a new character
I would leave the game at this point. OP is obviously not interested in this type of game, and will just end up resenting future game sessions.
This is the best option IMO. If the party is friendly with any NPCs who aren't cunts, I'd say hire one as a retainer and let him handle shit while you're gone. You'll still have to deal with politics occasionally, but it won't be the entire game.
People change. Sometimes for the worst.
According to OP the GM only recently wanted to make this into a cloak and dagger game. If he is as inflexible toward his players as he is with OP, he can become even worse.
Clearly, he's forcing one of his players into a role the player himself doesn't wish to play. That is the sign of a shit GM.
>I told him exactly that. He shrugged and said: "Well okay, you can let someone else rule in your place, but you still need to be at least decorative figure. If you absolutety adamant about this, you can create a new character." So, my choice is essentially is play his GoT game in one role or the other, or roll a new character. But I like this one very much, I put my soul in it.
>It is an option, but: 1) I like him, and I played him for almost a year, I don't want to roll another character and 2) he will probably kill him as soon as possible to further the plot, and I don't want this. Playing him as PC gives him at least a bit of security; for NPC, all bets are off.
>COMPLEX WEB OF MUTUAL ALLIANCE
>WE WW1 NOW!
OP is here. Sides are split: barbarian player and I want to continue murder, loot and gamble away rewards, GM and other two players want to play "more strategic". Currently trying to find a happy medium.
>OP is obviously on the wrong side of the conflict.
Well, he pays better and never made us wait on his payment and promises, unlike these "noble" bastards, who seriously think that their "noble word" is worth a damn in advance. Last time we tried to deal with one of these noble bastards, he tried to make us work in advance, relying on "his good word", little shit. Turned out he had nothing to pay with.
He is general of his own army (pretty good one - up to date has lost only two minor battles and escaped with a bulk of his army).
>Unless he's a faggot and/or hates women.
Well, the entire conflict is started partly of because he brutally beaten his own wife after reading one of her letters to her father. Make of it what you will.
Well, he pays better and never made us wait on his payment and promises, unlike these "noble" bastards, who seriously think that their "noble word" is worth a damn in advance.
GURPS. We started with 100 points, grew up 50 points or so (I am 158 right now, without Status and Wealth). My character have IQ 10, does not know now to write, but does have War-Leader Talent (so pretty decent Tactics and Leadership).
>ITT: idiots all
From the GM side, this was clearly something set up from day 1 to throw a wrinkle into the pcs work, put them out of their murderhobo element and have them matter on a far wider scale. The GM has no desire to run murderhobo game #2334445218, and has basically gone full Conan on the group, whereas the only person that could reasonably accept the honor doesn't want it because they enjoy their murderhobo game too much. Honestly, if the player thought they could serve at the right fist of the local king and NOT get somewhere in life, they clearly didn't think ahead all that well.
As another GM who has no great love for hurrmurderhobo games, why is OP so afraid to do something different? Most gms are terrified of the players gaining actual power within the setting they are playing in, and further, the OP could use his rl trepidation as excellent roleplay fodder as his warrior finds himself entirely out of his depth on a new road in life, just like Conan did.
Seriously, just leave the game. With an inflexible GM like that, you're better off without a game.
There are plenty of ways to not make you the nobleman he's wanking over.
When it comes down to the GM wanting something more from the game than what is accepted as the absolute basics, and the players don't want it, it makes me wonder about the players.
Seriously, it's not hard to find a dungeoncrawl simulator. A decent political game where the players have insetting power is a lot rarer.
Wait, wait, wait. Slow down. Let me get this straight.
>People want to play checkers
>They play checkers
>suddently, the other player changes the rules and says "we playin chess now"
>that is fine in your book
Is this correct?
People like different things, you know? Some people even play simulator games: incredible, I know.
What you are doing just now is basically scoffing at those who play checkers and say "Look at these scrubs who play checkers"
Get off your high horse. Before you fall and hurt your pretty face.
>why is OP so afraid to do something different
I am not afraid of doing something different, I just don't want to:
1) Sit through long and boring scenes of "witty" dialogue, strategy and infodumping;
2) Play more then two sessions without a good fight;
3) Die a stupid and unpreventable death from assasins/poison/bertrayal/etc.
Really, I just like the role of enforcer. Playing noble is a whole different game. I would like to play some more mass combat, though.
In middle of civil war, which is on the brink of becoming just great war between four states? You betcha.
Also, to whose who asked, why king made my character a noble and not the military high rank: that's the part that worries me, because he didn't give me some remote and peaceful lands, oh no, he gave me lands right near to the borders of neighbor state, which could go at war with his kingdom any moment now. This isn't "you did a great service, here is your reward", that is "here is your chance to serve me some more, and if maybe you survive this war, then you might become a real noble. If I'll be in good mood to leave you alive, that is".
Well, I said that in the OP post - less murderhoboing, more intrigues and knifes in the back if not big war. If big war, then being assigned to border is death sentence, so I don't think GM will do it. I think he'll make someone stab my character in back before that.
You are giving your GM much less trust than he deserves. I seriously doubt that he will just off your character. "Intrigue" is just window dressing, "knife in the back" quickly turns into combat encounters with PCs.
If you are really this paranoid, just treat it like camping in the field: rotate watch among group members. But you shouldn't be. This is a great thing.
This is wonderfully easy. Kill the opposing army, then come back and if the king doesn't play ball, kill him too.
You'll be fine, you pansy. Kill the backstabber, then their family and friends.
I feel you OP, one of my GMs always try to lure players into his games by reeeeallyyyy stretching the description of what kind of game it is, because he knows that you're not really interested in playing through his novel, and every single time the whole group is sitting there feeling unhappy, and the GM is unhappy because the players aren't what he wanted and aren't acting like he wanted and everything sucks. Our next session is on Friday.
OP here. If anyone still interested, we struck agreement with GM: he will give me steward Ally, who would do actual governing for me, and he will die first in any plot directed at me personally. We also agreed that at any feast or ball (or any other social conventions), my character drinks and doesn't join any conversations, so I as a player can not attend to any pure social sessions. So, I'll play less, but more or less the same game, except that now I have much more cooler armor and weapons.
Also, if GM will prove to be dick, I'll shit on his planes by going apeshit on upcoming peace talks. My warrior is tanky, I wonder how many soft weaponless nobles he can kill before dying from multiple crossbow shots?
You need to marry a noble woman with a good head on her shoulders but otherwise lacking in prospects. She can guide you through intrigues and courtly affairs. You'll be a fucking power couple ruthlessly climbing your way up the ladder. Have your fellow PCs help you climb as what's good for you is good for them so long as she share your good fortune with them. Give them positions of power within your modest house so that they are invested in its growth as well. Also get your missus with child asap.
I'm confused, how are both you and your character this obsessed with just fighting and weapons and completely detached from any social events? What was your characters goal once the campaign and BBEG were all dead and buried?
>he will give me steward Ally
This should have been a given though. It's not a gift he does to you. It's something that comes naturally once you become a noble vassal. You got screwed over dude.
>and he will die first in any plot directed at me personally.
To be honest, if the GM just kills you off without giving you a fair chance at surviving, you might as well skip to the "rocks fall, you die" part.
>except that now I have much more cooler armor and weapons.
Some would think that this is also only part of the course. Which king in their right mind would let one of their vassals have shittier equipment than their soldiers?
I would still advise you to leave, but I also really want to know how this trainwreck will go. Keep us posted.
No. Yes. It doesn't matter what your interests and hobbies are, a title and lands are a title and lands. What sort of moron would deny them? Your not even obligated to them, you could just fuck off to go joust in tournaments and win renown.