Results 1 to 10 of 14
04-06-2007, 08:57 PM #1
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Need Objective Opinion (Rulership Question)
First post, so I'm a little shy. Forgive me.
I am playing a Birthright game now. I am an heir of the Roele line, found the sword of Roele, the banner, etc.. The game is epic and my goal is (obviously) to unite the land and try to put Anuire back together. The GM asked me if I was ok with this role as I had the most experience in the game and knew the history/background. I'm also not a big powergamer (which he was also looking for.)
The problem is this. My party is giving me grief about my birthright. They all want to rule as equals (I think some kind of council) that is all equal, without a figure head. After playing this game for over a year, working on how to move strategically, building my diplomatic relations, etc.. And I feel like they are trying to take away everything my character has worked for because they want to micromanage everything. This group never agrees on anything, not to mention the fact that some of the lands I want to begin investing belonged to my father (in game.) Yet, they are insisting that everyone be equal, 100% the same.
I'm trying very hard to be accomodating, but the more I try to explain to them that this is my Birthright and that I'd love an advisory council and would love for them to help me, that I can't see Anuire being ruled by council, especially one that cannot agree. The more I try to make them see my point, the angrier and pettier they get. One player threatened to walk off the game.
I just need some honest feedback on this. If I wasn't a descendent of Roele who was given this destiny, I guess I'd feel different? But, do I have a right to be a little peeved? I've done all this work and they want to jump in and take over. None of them are landed regents or have parents who are landed regents. I'm just so confused and the game isn't fun for me anymore. I feel like if I give in, my character will be giving up his birthright. Even the GM is upset and agrees with me that the group is being greedy.
Am I in the wrong? I just need some outside opinions. Maybe I really am being a tyrant here.
04-06-2007, 09:15 PM #2
- Join Date
- Jan 2004
- Denver, CO
I had the same issue in a game I was playing. I was the heir. And we never resolved the problem. I too felt like it was a lost cause trying to explain that "hey, this is the land of my parents and my forefathers." It all kind of soured me on playing the game again. Just grew tired of trying to defend my position.
All I can suggest is that you just try to be as honest as possible. I don't think you are being unfair, but I may be biased. Councils could work in BR, but in the end, only one may rule Anuire, imho. What good is the entire campaign setting and the line of Roele if you aren't going to use it?
Hope it all works out!
04-06-2007, 11:16 PM #3
This is an out of character problem, and defending yourself with in-character arguments, like this is the land of my ancestors, won't solve it. The DM and players have to sit down and discuss how the IC (in character) power arangements work, versus the OOC (out of character) arrangements will go.
Its a peculiar feature of the D&D culture, that an party of differing archtypes is master of their own sphere. This is such an unusual social organization, its almost party of the fantasy element. Normally, groups have leaders. There is someone who is the source of direction, decison, and values that most influences the group. Sometimes these people have institutional authority, and sometimes one person has informal leadership. A gaming group (aside from the DM) has no institutional authority vested in one person, and sometimes players are reluctant to role play inequality, afraid that IC leadership means giving up some OOC power.
I mostly lay this at the feat of the DM. The DM can't let the party run around as a group of equals for half a campaign and then suddenly shift gears and make the group unequal. This is changing the gaming contract. If the campaign is going to a High King campaign instead of a Collective Rule campiagn, the players need to know that as soon as possible and agree to this style of play.
In a High King campaign, one of you is Arthur. Its cool to be Lancelot, Merlin, Gwaine, and so on, but only one of you is Arthur. You may have a round table and try to foster a sense of equal participation many ways, but at the end of the day, only one of you is Arthur.
At the begining of a campaign (and the earlier the better) I like to talk to the players about what roles they are going to take. And then I try and make the world reflect that. People who are scions of great heritage are treated differently than characters of minor or especially common lineage. Lancelot is a cool fellow, but when Arthur is present, they'd rather fawn over him than Lancelot.
Typically players fall into one of two catagories: "I'm not sure if I ever want to rule a domain," and "I think I might want to rule a domain." Later on as players get experience you can add "I do" and "I don't."
If the DM waits until the party finds the sword in the stone to tell them that only one of them can pull out the sword and be hailed a the king of all Briton, he has put them in a serious situation. Arthur had to go to war with his rivals for the throne.
04-07-2007, 12:20 AM #4
I agree, the high king can demand all the spotlight...he is after all the king and has a lot of important things to do. Players can develope a left out feeling and no one games so that they can feel excluded.
A D.M. has to be enormously careful to keep everyone engaged and feeling as though their charecter has somthing at stake or the "secondary" players will start to feel like "secondary" players and I know that I don't enjoy playing the sidekick much myself.
It also helps if you remember not to greet the other players with "Good Morning Peasent!"
Last edited by Dcolby; 04-09-2007 at 11:47 PM.
04-07-2007, 01:07 AM #5
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Virginia Beach, Virginia
Kenneth pretty much nailed it.
In the past I've found the best way to handle things is to have everyone have an equal influence.
Note this does not mean that all are emperers.
The game is designed so that there are multitude of holding types so that no single character can effectively rule without the aid of the others.
Now if everyone is playing law/province rulers there is a problem (and was from the get go).
Someone should be dedicated to being the source regent, someone the guilds, someone the temples, etc.
IMO the most powerful regents are the guilders adn then the temple regents.
Even though most think that the province ruler is the most powerful - he also has the most head aches (and expenses). The others do not need to maintain armies do they?
The guilders control the money and the preists control the people.
That is of course my opinion, but past play has proven that true in my experience.Duane Eggert
04-07-2007, 01:18 AM #6
It is important to realise that, while generally accomodating, players truly hate standing outside the limespot; it sort of makes their characters second-rate, and the maturity needed to realise that, at times, equally (or even more) important and powerful people did not have a place on the stage for the crowd to lay their eyes on is not a prerequisite of being a roleplayer...
The best possible solution is for your co-players to assume some seat of power, as already suggested; it does not seem you fail at that as much as delivering the message: the King is much less powerful without his Barons, Clergy and Guilds behind him, even if the people love him. Should your team-mates manage to realise that a council CANNOT be accepted by the people (an issue your DM should have taken care of all ready, as far as I can tell), the rest is a piece of cake by all means: their "council" is only replaced by their corresponding seats of power (which, admittedly, is far more interesting).
04-07-2007, 02:23 AM #7
04-07-2007, 04:50 AM #8
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
As others have said, it would have been best for your
DM to make sure the other players are satisfied with
the game, it shouldn`t be up to you to accommodate
their need for "importance" or what have you.
If none of the other players have been truly involved
(until only recently when they saw the power you were
gaining) then your character would be in his right to
tell them to shove off and quit being such leaches.
On the other hand, if they were instrumental in
helping you attain the sword, banner, etc... then you
may perhaps be obligated to them much more deeply than
even making them advisors.
Others have said that having different spheres of
influence is the usual method for playing in the
Birthright setting, and for your group it may be a
very good option. If you have a wizard, promise him
the highest seat of wizardly power in the empire,
controlling all the magic and having your treasury for
his needs should make him feel just fine! If your
cleric isn`t of the church of Haelyn (the "official"
Anuirean church) then you could still give him the
leeway to build his church unopposed by your High
Priest of Haelyn (which I think every Emporer should
have!). Rogues could easily see the benefit of being
the "Emperors Personal Guild Master" and etc...
Just because the peasants don`t want more than one
ruler, doesn`t mean that the other players can`t have
very significant power of their own.
If worse turns to worse, it IS a BIRTHRIGHT
campaign...and I have seen several parties turn to
bitter enemies when there just wasn`t enough room for
them all to hold power...
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
04-07-2007, 06:35 PM #9
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
Thank you all for your responses. I definitely read some good material here and I agree so much with much of what has been said. Up front, the game was never stated to be any type of game (for example, one having more power/the king, etc.) The GM does not tend to get involved with things like this, he wants the players to work it out themseles, preferably through role-playing.
After talking to some of the players, one on one, I've learned that half of the group (three of the other 6) think that a joint ruling of Anuire is a terrible idea and that we would spend our sessions arguing over stupid things, which we tend to do anyway in all variety of situations. The other three are being demanding. The bard will claim that one moment he is not interested in ruling anything yet he is the biggest voice for a council. The wizard is in line to inherit the high position of the College of Sorcery. The third pretty much goes along with what the other two want no matter what.
ALL of the group members are blooded. My plan was definitely to include them in close ruling positions, whether they own guilds, temples, sources or so forth. I was excited to see our characters have the opportunity to rule different holdings and come together to really kick some butt. But for some reason, this is just not enough. I've told them I'd love if they sat on an advisory council, but that the "head" figure in the end would make the final decisions as a descendent of Roele. To this, half the group called me a dictator.
Imagine going before a great king from another nation (i.e. a Pasha or Sultan from the Khinasi lands) and having to explain that my lineage of Roele means nothing, that I am bound to the will of a council and that I have no say in the end. I daresay they would take this as a sign of weakness. This is not a democratic game. It's a feudal setting. Even Lord of the Rings (which has one of the strongest Fellowships you can find in any fiction) maintains this idea. One of the biggest concepts of the entire trilogy is that of service. Sam serves Frodo to the end. Merry serves Dernhelm/Eowyn. Pippin offers service to Denethor. Even in Rome, with a senate, there was the idea of a First Citizen or a Caesar who made the final decision. And even as I write this, I cringe, thinking "this must sound so selfish of me."
Allow me to quickly comment on another group that I play in. This group (different people playing) is also set in Birthright. The story is parallel in that a female member of the party is the lost heir of the Iron Throne. Yet, in this group (again, it was not decided beforehand that this would be a Kingly game,) they all work together to support her. They do not demand a council, they are excited that they are in a group with the future Empress and we work very hard to make her look her best in public and to have many victories. It is a delight! Me, as a follower (I play a wizard who is trying to get sources) I am excited just to help the future empress. I feel like Merlin to Arthur!
As for the other group, the few simply will not let it go. We even sat down and thought out how a council would rule. The GM said that a council could rule, but that it would be less effective power-wise when the council itself would only have three domain turns (whereas an alliance would have a head figure with 3 turns, a guilder with 3 turns, a wizard with 3 turns and a temple with 3 turns.) This took up an entire session, arguing about how the mechanics would work. It was just one thing after another.
Anyway, I didn't mean to bog this post down with more details. I have talked to the GM and he agrees with me, but he really won't go out on a limb and take charge of the game. Chances are, I will simply work some things out on my own with the GM on the side while they continue to bicker. To me, it's a nightmare to imagine trying to do a single domain action with this group when they cannot decide anything. I just can't make them understand at THIS point, but maybe by providing them with some of the material you all have give me, I can open the discussion up and speak with them more candidly and with a good sense of what to say. So much here really helped put things in perspective for me and I think I will use some of your exact lines if you don't mind!
Thank you very much.
04-07-2007, 09:19 PM #10
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Chelmsford, Essex, England
It's worth separating what you will do, and what your character will do in this scenario.
If what really bugs the players is the idea that they, personally, will have no say in what goes on in the game, then by all means if necessary agree that the players collectively will agree broad strategy, with each then directing their player as they see fit within the strategy. So before you invade Khinasi or declare holy war, you as players will all agree on doing so.
That is a very different position to the characters having a similar conversation and agreement - the high king must as you say appear to have authority and if his closest allies scorn him why should others follow him. If your fellow gamers cannot accept the concept of feudal culture, the divine right of kings, etc, and roleplay their characters accordingly then perhaps you need to accept that the players will not be able to accept a high king scenario.
In which case they can run rival dukes and the like. If the DM is cool with expanding the game a little it shouldn't be a problem for the players characters to get a realm each although if the characters are likely to be bitter rivals of the high king grouping you'd need some mechanic to explain the groups continuing to adventure together - for example "only those present when the demon from the shadow world was released can banish it from the world" while heavy handed gives a reason why the characters wouldn't physically backstab each other, etc - at least until they find the various talismans and secrets and banish the fiend.
The players then get the run a throne and have the power they crave. Of course they may find the crown a heavier burden than they thought - you get the glory, but you also get the blame, and if they can't handle challenges to their authority without throwing a tantrum, they will swiftly find rebellion in their lands...
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)