When we played our 5e campaign I certainly referred to these elements of my character and said things like "Oh, my character has the ambition to rule his own kingdom. So I will vote to strike off in the direction of the castle in the hopes of finding a place I can establish my own stronghold." Things like that, but there wasn't any MEAT to it.
Why do you need a mechanic for that sort of thing? Were that my 5e PC, I would make the stronghold happen. I would save the prodigious amounts of coin I get adventuring. When I am speaking with(and I would arrange to be able to speak with) nobles and kings as part of adventuring, I would ask for land grants and permission to build a stronghold. When being asked for a reward, I would ask for titles and commissions. I would build my way towards that stronghold and rule my land one way or another. Many settings have wild areas not ruled. The kingdoms next to those areas would be prime areas for me to go to for this sort of thing. I could set up my own kingdom, after proving my worth and promising trade exclusives, mutual protections and such.
5e does as much interesting stuff as you have it do. I'm sure mechanical aids would make it easier, but those aids aren't necessary to accomplish goals.
Every ask you make here is to the GM. You, as a player, have zero authority to "make it happen."
This is wrong. I have absolute authority over what my PC does. The DM is socially obligated not to be an asshat, so he's not going to be smashing what I do with a bunch of crap. I don't have to worry about him being a bad DM, because those are rare as hell, and if I did manage to find one, I would have left long before I really made a push for those goals. It may take work, but I can get there if I have the drive.
What [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] says is true, but is orthogonal to the point I want to make about this. I think my point is related to what [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION] said.
Here's an example of MEAT: Suppose a player has, as a goal/Belief/whatever for his/her PC,
I will free my brother from his possession by a balrog - and will not leave this town without something to help me do this! The first event in the campaign is
the PC being at a bazaar, where a peddler claims to have an angel feather for sale.
Here's why it counts as MEAT: the first thing the player has to think about in playing the game is
Will this angel feather help me free my brother? Which leads to other questions like
Who is this peddler? Can I trust him? Am I sorcerer enough to harness the power of an angel feather?
Whether this is good or pedestrian story/drama is a matter of taste; but it's clear that, from the get-go, the action of play raises dramatic questions that tie directly to the theme/dramatic arc of this PC.
Here's an example of NON-MEAT: the same PC; and the first event in the campaign is
You find yourself at the town gates - what do you do? This does not give rise to any dramatic questions. It does not force the player to confront questions about his/her PC, nor about any other character, institution or similar focus of human value and concern.
Yes, the player could declare actions which involve seeking out angel feathers.
Yes, if the GM is a Maxperson-style non-asshat the GM may provide opportunities to find them. But those things don't make MEAT.
In some fairly typical approaches to playing D&D, the second approach to the game actively pushes against MEAT, because the player is encouraged to mnimise risk and stakes at every point - instead of dealing with a peddler whose trustworthiness is unknown but in play, the player is encouraged to use divination magic, and spies, and sages, and the like to establish in advance that the peddler is trustworthy, that the power of the angel feather is something his/her PC can harness, etc.
The reason I have distinguished what I'm saying in this post from what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] said is that
none of what I have said turns on who has authority over framing situations. Or even over establshing what's at stake in the overall arc of play. It's about whether or not the GM
frames situations in accordance with a certain set of principles, and how the stakes of
those situations are established.
Ovinomancer and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] addressed this (coming in from a different angle, I'll admit) in their earlier remarks about how players influence the fiction of Dungeon World even though formal authority lies with the GM. The best discussion I know of, though, about these sorts of GM framing techniques, is in the Burning Wheel books (the core rules and the Adventure Burner).
An addendum: once the GM starts framing scenes having regard to PC goals/beliefs/themes, and with the goal of forcing the players to make hard/dramatic choices around those things,
then the next natural step is to want action resolution mechanics that will let the players choice shape outcomes, whether for better (the player succeeds on the check) or worse (the player fails the check). So I think there's a non-coincidental connection between an approach to establishing situation in RPGing, and an approach to resolving it. And I think I've got the order of logical explanation (situation first, mechanics in response to that) right.
An edit: what would count as good situation to engage
I will rule my own kingdom will depend (obviously) on all the details and nuance of the particular table and its players inclinations. But just to kick things of, and thinking of two examples from fantasy literature - Aragorn and Conan - it might well make sense to start with a kingdom whose rulership is under some sort of pressure or doubt. And present that pressure or doubt in a way that makes things hard for the player.
Eg Aragorn:
How can I take over the kingdom while honouring my obligations to family, ancestry and the stewards who have faithfully ruled in my stead?[/I
Conan: Can I, a barbarian, gain acceptance as the ruler of the most civilised kingdom around?
And in relation to these, or similar, possibilities, a game that starts with Keep on the Borderlands in its standard version would be NON-MEAT, even though the player might try and have his/her PC made Castellan of the Keep; and might even connive to that end (eg by helping the existing Castallen meet an unhappy end at the hands of the evil priest).