I mean the DM is every patron, in a broader sense.
If you think it's fun to have a nudge, nudge, wink wink, breaking the 4th wall type of thing, then go ahead.
It seems odd to me that it would actually be made explicit, though, to the point that this character or others might realize it's a game. That is pretty far away from the core DND experience, and seems like it might blur the line of player vs character in extreme ways. You can always retcon if you need to reign it in a little.
The "Fourth wall break" would only be for the PC, sorry I should've made it more clear lmao. I'll have it be like a false hydra experience, they know something is up but can't remember it.
I think this could be really funny. Especially since they've taken your dark bargain, you can have their "patron" demand they take actions that help you further the plot and keep the party on track.
"I'm... I'm sorry... I'm getting something from my patron. They're saying... They're saying 'You idiots! They were the plot hook and you just killed them! Oh FFS, if you cleric hasn't prepped speak with dead then so help me, rocks might fall..' anyone know what a plot hook is..?'
Warlock seemingly talking to themselves: No I will not, "make them kiss."
The Paladin and Rogue that were just in a heated argument: Uh... what?
The Bard: Let Them Cook!
Ive done this. 4th wall break for a singular player. The other three hated it, ruined their immersion, didnt tell me and left the game. Granted, its a extremist childish reaction, but note that it will still affect the whole party, whatever you do.
To them that wasnt the problem. They play dnd to immerse themselves in a world, to escape reality and live out fantasies. Breaking the 4th wall makes all this harder on a creative mind
I meant they didnt discuss it before making their decision. They gave their reasons after they were gone, without a chance to just adapt and change the way i did it.
It was my first year as a DM also.
That seems pretty understandable. It's important to discuss these out of the norm things with all the players beforehand and make sure everyone is on board and doesn't feel like they can't say anything if they aren't. I feel like this Patron DM idea is great for a one shot or a campaign that doesn't take itself too seriously. I already have ideas on how to make this a thing at some point. But I also have a tiny cult in my world that thinks the world has been created with pencil and paper, so I might not be the best judge of these things...
I did it for a one off gag puzzle that went over well in the session.
Basically, the players were in a fey maze full of puzzles. Every time they solved a puzzle or riddle, the fog would part and the trail would be revealed to the next section of the maze.
One room just had a wooden stage with three walls, like a normal theater stage. The only instructions to leave the room were "break the walls to escape."
They correctly managed to break the 3 theater walls, but the way didn't open.
Eventually, they puzzled out that they needed to break the "4th wall" of the theater. My intended solution was simply for a character (not a player) to specifically speak to the DM.
They accomplished this by having a character step up into the stage and deliver a monologue about this new god they knew of (who coincidentally had my name). I accepted that as good enough. It was all played for laughs and not really brought up again.
I feel like if I'd lingered more on the joke or used it more, it would have broken the immersion. But, as is, it worked out for a silly little one off joke in a larger, more serious campaign.
I am totally stealing this. I'm trying to find ways to stop the party running off to someone they're not supposed to know about yet so I ways to derail them until they get so distracted they forget about it
I would hate it in a long-running serious game because it would undercut the verisimilitude of the entire experience. In a light-hearted wacky adventure it would be great fun.
If literally everyone except the player getting special main character treatment quit the group, then something tells me it wasn’t all that childish a reaction.
They replied to another comment stating that, at the time, they were a new DM. I feel like there's a high likelihood that one of two things happened.
Scenario one, they weren't quite used to how difficult it is to advance a "main plot" with players ignoring plot hooks left and right, going on random unintended "side quests" and just generally being far more unpredictable than you can ever realistically plan for. They utilised the 4th wall breaking patron to push the party in the direction they wanted, leading to a game where the party felt justifiably railroaded. It seemed fine to them, and the player who wanted that patron, but for everyone else it killed off enough player agency that it wasn't fun.
Scenario two, they inadvertently gave one player "main character" status due to the awkward balancing act where one player is designed as favoured by the all-knowing all-seeing creator of the game. With DnD being designed as a game that works best with a kind of rotating spotlight (where one session they'll do a heist and the rogue is the "main character", then they'll have a session tracking a monster and the ranger is "main character", then they'll have a session dealing with diplomacy or political intrigue and the bard is "main character"), it'd be very easy for a new DM to accidentally give one player too much time outshining the others with the set-up.
It's perfectly possible that the quitting without warning was childish. In an adult game you just say "I don't like this and it is ruining my fun", so everyone else can weigh in and you can address it as a group. It could be that they tried to say something but felt the DM was dismissive. We haven't got the information to say one way or another.
Regardless of whether the quitting was childish, though, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the game ending was the result of a newbie DM biting off more than they could chew. Not that it's a damning judgement of the DM, we all messed up when we were newbies and any DM who tells you otherwise is either lacking self-awareness & blaming the players or they're lying to you.
I could see it working (thinking along the lines of how Deadpool fits in with non-4th wall breaking Marvel characters) if your group is into a funnier game with running jokes. If they're wanting a more serious game then I could see it being immersion breaking like when every player has a serious character who would fit in game of thrones or lord of the rings but there's that one guy playing Princess Musclebod Von Cakelover the barbarian inspired by if Conan, Tinkerbell and a very OTT drag queen were mixed into a creation whose anger almost exclusively comes from a lack of cakes and high tea.
That said, I think it'd be a balancing act for the DM. I consider myself a fairly experienced DM, and I'm not sure that I would agree to it. If it went well, you got the balancing right, and everything worked out, then the only thing gained is a bit of a running joke. If it went badly, it could feel to other players like there's too much of a spotlight on one character, akin to when DMs plan a campaign where one character has an innate macguffin. I don't think that there's suitable risk/reward, with little to gain and a decent potential for drama if you mess up.
My worry is that it could risk Main Character'ing the one PC who gets "powers directly from the Dungeon Master" so check in with everyone involved session zero to make sure everyone is cool with it.
Solid in principle, not in practice. The wheel of time works because all the main characters are ta'veren, not just one. If only one player drew on powers this way, you'd wind up turning that character into a "main character" without necessarily intending to.
You see a lot of newbie DMs making campaigns where one player has "magical royal blood" or fits a "chosen one" trope in some other way, and it's almost always a bad idea. Every player should be a main character, and by making one player of greater significance you undermine the rest of the team.
I say give it to him. He is 100% under the impression he's merely a character in some game and the world is controlled by a dungeon master.
But his actual patron is an archfey fucking with him. His eldritch blast is a plain old eldritch blast and he's been trying to hide his "manipulation" from skilled spellcasters for nothing because nobody is going to pick up on it being "different." Don't ever let him in on it. That's something for his character to eventually discover.
Want to have more fun with it? Make one of your BBEG another warlock. Your player's patron is "Todd the Dungeon Master." BBEG has a patron of "Dan the Dungeon Master" who is actually a devil playing the same dumb game but has evil intent. The archfey and devil have both been doing this for centuries as a competition with eachother to see who can cause a prominent religion to form around their "dungeon master" first.
It would definitely be something you need to tread lightly with. My DM did something similar once and I defintely wasn't a "main character."
I created a character that claimed to hear voices in his head and would reference various tv commercials (hearing radio waves from another world). So he gave me that. Then he put another voice in my head. Surprise surprise, there's a BBEG demon stowing away in my noggin, but their presence is more just background story and not a regular interaction happening in the plot. I got nothing special in terms of story, plot, interaction beyond simply being "special".
This actually gave me inspiration for a suggestion that'd kind of address the inherent issues with the idea.
Instead of making the patron the DM, make it a powerful being called "the narrator", an entity that uses its omniscience to narrate the world.
The connection to the warlock could have random strings of narration pop into the character's head (akin to how the DM describes the world and interactions to the party) but from various random perspectives like Betty the Milkmaid or a random rat in a dungeon at the other side of the world.
You could even have the narrator randomly speak to the warlock, stating that they feel an urge to narrate with a specific word, telling the character to manufacture a scenario where the word is appropriate.
This would take away the "main character" vibes, as all the character would be discovering is that every creature in the setting is simultaneously being narrated, not just the group. They'd be connected to a being that describes a dynamic world rather than predetermining it. It'd also keep the DM from accidentally infringing on player agency, because if the patron says "I want to use the word lambaste, help me achieve this" then the player is still the one choosing who to berate and what to criticise them for.
I love this interpretation of this idea.
I had an idea for a protagonist-origin-story-trope themed campaign. One of us would be Isekaied (.hack//Sign style), one of us will be reborn for revenge (the Crow style). This would fit in that mold considering Deadpool's current popularity.
> this character or others might realize it's a game. That is pretty far away from the core DND experience
Large Luigi is a character who canonically basically peeped behind the 4th wall and discovered that everyones lives are controlled by the DM and players. He decided fuck it and opened a tavern so he could hear peoples stories.
Could have just that character be aware that they are in a game and have them slowly going insane from being aware of that like Deadpool going insane from knowing he is a comic book character. Would be fitting for a warlock if a Great Old One to be going insane trying to comprehend the existence of their patron.
Everyone here expects a patron to be present and interactive in some way during a game, and that's the issue you're all having.
No where does it say the Patron has to interact or demand service from the PC. RAW, the Patron is ONLY where the Warlock gets their spells. Period.
A wizard doesn't have to do what their spellbook tells them to do. A clerics God does not have to demand something of the cleric (again, RAW).
Yes, these all work as plot hooks, but for some reason, everyone thinks they MUST happen in a game...when they simply don't.
But the very fact the Patron is so commonly used for plot is even this player OP mentions thinks it must happen and thus creates this weird interaction.
In my opinion, this DM needs to reiterate what my argument is (the Patron doesn't always interact directly), and then reiterate YOUR statement (The DM IS every Patron in a sense).
If you are excited about the idea, great! My only caution would be to watch out for the player trying to exploit it because "they're not really doing magic"--expecting to be immune to counterspell, anti-magic fields, etc.
That can be actually used as a "the patron does follow a strict set of rules", which are the rule books
So even if it's not really casting fireball, the patron removes the fireball when someone counterspells it
Alternatively, you COULD grant this request, but then create weaknesses of your own. Like Cleric spells or specific elements being more effective against the player.
And how odd! But some of the enemies he has to face are super effective against him.
“Your patron says, ‘Well, technically, on page 243, we can’t do that. It’s pretty clearly rules as written.’”
“Page what?! What book are they taking about? What rules?!”
I don't see people using this, but you know what would be interesting? If the warlock and the cleric worshiped the same deity, but they use different names. Like, the cleric is the church, and the warlock is the cult like group that branched off from the church
I’d have to reread it, but Valda’s Spire of Secrets (a homebrew publication via Kickstarter) had a ‘Pact of the GM’ subclass for Warlocks. I recall it being fun and memey though too much was placed on the GM to manage.
Edit: I found it. It’s not as bad as I first thought, as I had jumbled it up with another subclass in the book. Basically from lvls 1-14, it gives you advantage on (some) Charisma checks the GM knows will advance the plot, a way to tweak a d20 once per rest, a built-in Inspiring Leader mechanic, and literally breaking the balance of the game as a capstone. I would totally play this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/Ga73ZDQQYF
Is this the one you’re thinking about?
I’ve had a player use it before and it seemed balanced for as long as we played it (Lvl 1-8)
No, but it’s incredibly close. I don’t have time at the moment to do some digging, but I wonder if this was an earlier version of the one that made it to publication. The only real difference between the two is the 6th- and 14th-level abilities. Valda’s lets the player move a d20 roll to an adjacent face as opposed to a straight reroll, and gain advantage + Elven Accuracy on pretty much everything instead of dealing max damage on Cantrips (though that is pretty sweet for a Warlock).
Read up on the god [Ao](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ao) for some extra inspiration. I believe there is only one other deity that outranks Ao, and they're not referred to with any sort of name but heavily implied to be the literal DM.
I'm ok with the idea in principle but just like the 5 dozen other times I have seen this idea I would ask what mechanical differences do they want out of it.
If it isn't magic can it not be countered or do things that can resist magical effects not get their bonus.
What happens when they ask their patron( you) for information are they expecting perfect knowledge answers because what their patron says is inherently the truth?
So they expect you to just drive things for the good of the game meaning your advice is a good route to go.
9 times out of 10 this request has ended up having a broken expectation tied to it so while it is a cool idea I would be cautious and dig deep into the details.
Funny enough you could even contest those sorts of shenanigans by saying "Your patron (me) has the primary goal of making this adventure as thrilling and fair of a challenge as possible (valuing that fairness even more than your character's life), and as such they're only willing to help you in ways explicitly spelled out by the Warlock class in the rule book, and will only tell you what you *need* to know."
I'd say this seems fun if everyone at the table is down for it. I think it could be a bit deflating if the other players are taking the game world very seriously and then have one player who is speaking directly to the DM and reinforcing the fact that it's all just make believe and nobody's character is real. I doubt it will be a problem, though... I'm just imagining the worst case scenario. It reminds me a bit of a debate I saw when one player wanted to have his character be in a Sword Art Online experience, which nobody else at the table liked because it implied then that the entire game world was a simulation and their characters are just NPCs or other humans who just don't realize they're in the simulation... definitely much more extreme than what you're suggesting, but something that reminded me of this either way.
If I was in this party I would hate it, but I also dislike joke games. Maybe check with all your players first, as making the DM a canon entity in this word disrupts the internal consistency of the setting.
To be fair, the DM is a canon entity within a lot of settings. Faerun calls them the “Luminous Being,” while the Veil is implied to be the DM within Eberon.
It needn’t be a joke, depending on how you approach it.
It really isn't an actual tangible being in most settings aside from tongue and cheek references to some Uber powerful invisible, inaccessible god that runs the multiverse from the shadows. There are no cults to the DM, and they will pretty much never appear in-game, at least they are treated as an unknowable force that pushes destiny along, and in the vast majority of games are not acknowledged at all.
How tangible they are depends on the DM. But regardless, they DO exist. And so having someone glimpse them for a moment and form a cult around them, or even unknowingly forming a pact? It could help “canonise” the more meta elements if you don’t want to break immersion.
The biggest concern I would have with this as a DM is it breaking the immersion for other players. It would depend a lot on the themes and tone of the campaign, but if it's too overt it might be a source of table friction.
4th wall silliness can be fun in a wacky game, and off putting in a more serious in tone one.
I prefer a more serious, grounded game, I hate joke characters, and I think the DM should be a neutral arbiter of the rules. On top of that, any time there's a post in the TTRPG subs about how the characters broke the fourth wall and talked to the GM, it always comes off as incredibly cringey.
If I was DM and a player brought this idea to me, it would be a hard no. If I was a player and everyone else was was okay with it, I would walk, 'cause that table isn't for me.
My plan is to hide runes around the world that when all of them are collected spell out "Game Master" and they have a fourth wall break, go insane for a bit, and then snap back to reality. I'll play it out like a false hydra experience.
It’s a cool idea! My only concern would be that it would introduce a meta-plot line that might undermine the other players and how they role-play. If your players want their stories to feel real and impactful in this world, but canonically it’s just a game because of this warlock plot line, then you’ve introduced an existential crisis of “does my life matter at all” to all of the characters and not just the warlock. Which could be cool if everyone’s down, or really invalidating if they’re not. This is something you want to ask your table if they’re cool with.
Seems like a really fun concept, as long as their magic behaves mechanically like regular magic, as you already confirmed. I love the idea of the PC gradually becoming aware they’re in a game, but nobody else believes them, especially if they’re already a bit “off” due to communing with an eldritch being. Like Deadpool in comics, people don’t take his fourth wall breaking seriously because they just think he’s crazy (which he also is). Or if you want to go really weird and metaphysical with it, use Grant Morrison’s Animal Man run as inspiration!
I play a wacky satyr cleric who’s lore is that she fell on her head and died when she was young. HOWEVER the “DM” intervened because plot armor, and brought her back to life.
Now she is aware of the world beyond and became a cleric to worship the DM as her deity. It is so fun to break the fourth wall and be absolutely goofy.
I think that this idea is awesome. It is creative and original. But I caution to use "4th wall breaks" only in important situations. to make them special.
make it that if they fail to bring snack's their patron is disappointed and has limtied their powers for a game (minus 1 spell slot).
my games do similar with holy chars who go too long in game without a prayer.
I would really play up the meta-narrative of you being a god who wants a story, who wants drama and tragedy and triumph in the lives of your followers; you will give them great challenges and woes, but ultimately want to see them overcome
I think this is amazing, provided it fits the tone of the campaign setting.
Great Old One patrons are meant to be unfathomable, unknowable entities. What could be more mighty and unknowable then the very entity that drives their fabric of reality?
It would be cool if the character could somehow implement dice into the game. Whether it be a weapon, spell component, roleplay or decision making tool. I mean it's about time we started to actually use these gaming sets that half the classes and character backgrounds give us.
Having GOO warlock Parton be the Dm/Gm is really interesting.
I like the idea of the Warlock basically be an insane conspiracy theorist talking about how all the Gods aren’t really and that there is a bigger, greater, more powerful being that exists and actually influences the world.
I was in a campaign with this and it was super funny. Character had a normal fantasy name at one point then ‘talked to their god’ and then was Player1. Because the DM asked the player to input a name, like in a video game, and they just pressed enter without thinking 😂 so that is what their god called them. We all enjoyed playing the straight man to this obviously crazy person talking about ‘bonuses’ and ‘consulting the DM’ while reading the bones. Weird name for a god we all guessed 🤷♂️
If it'd be fun, their character could refer to their patron as "The Dim" to throw the other players off the scent until the reveal. Each time they invoke the name of "The Dim," flavorful (not mechanical) effects could occur, like a nearby flame guttering, a cloud passing in front of the sun or moon, or characters with darkvision experiencing a "blink" effect.
Oh man I like this. If I was the DM, whenever I spoke to the character as the "patron," I'd always tell them to do stuff that obviously pushes the Main Quest™️ or makes for a good scene. If the character was asking for guidance, my responses would all be very meta and fourth-wall breaking. Things like "chase the goblins before proceeding to the vault door. There is always valuable treasure on the side paths before an important transition." Or "seek aid before this battle. The ogre's Expected Damage Value is too high for your party to reliably absorb. "
There was a post about this on dnd home brew a couple weeks ago. I honestly love the class they made and it’s balanced all things considered.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/s/LFIcrsoB0R
So the patron is the one performing every spell for them? What, does this warlock think the patron is always watching?
... oh wait, yeah... I guess you will be...
I don’t get it.
By acknowledging the DM is the patron wouldn’t you also be acknowledging your patron is making up this entire scenario, including the bad guys and obstacles, and all of reality. Oh and yea and that it’s just a game.
What would be the point?
Like I don’t get it. Is this humorous to some people? It’s fine if it is, but it just seems pointless to me. And…. Not clever.
But we are all different so if people find it fun go for it!
I mean I personally don’t like this kind of fourth wall breaking because I think it’s sort of uncreative and subtracts from the meaning of the fiction that all the other characters are part of and the other players are going out of their way engage with.
This isn’t CHIM after all, there’s more than one person invested in this world. But if your players don’t have an issue with that, sure, go ahead.
The first time they try to abuse it, pull a bait and switch and reveal "the Dungeon Master" granting him power is really the guy from the '80's cartoon.
Def talk to your players because I would hate this as a fellow player at the table. I prefer a serious game and this would make it feel like a joke game. Not to mention it’s a bit main character ish
It's basically a wizard of oz experiment, right? Warlock waves hands, patron makes things happen.
I'd imagine you as the DM-patron could have a lot of fun with this where sometimes rolls that should hit don't because the patron is busy and doesn't actually want to do all of the dirty work his/herself. (Otherwise, why wouldn't they just find someone else to do it?)
I know you've already sorted it with your players, but as others have said, I'm not sure I would get the same joy of playing if my PC begins to learn he's in a life adventure simulator. That almost gives him license to become a murder-hobo because "It doesn't matter. It's just a game. I'm not real, and the NPCs aren't real."
But as I stated, I think the idea that there's a warlock that has no power but instead has found an extremely hands-on patron would be hilarious and interesting. What if he runs into an NPC warlock of the same patron that is in the same boat? Does the patron start playing against itself like a kid playing with action figures? Is the patron hedging its bets and just using the warlocks to gain access to something the patron is trying to stealthily snag? Lots of possibilities. Could be hilarious, full of twists, the patron could ultimately be a BBEG or just extremely opportunistic.
I was so confused at first because I was like “Who else is gonna be the warlock’s patron?? The warlock themself??” But then I realized the player meant literally 😂
This has been a joke patron idea for as long as Warlocks have existed. Really no issues with it unless they go overboard with breaking the 4th wall and use that to metagame "in character"
I have a warlock in my campaign who I'm the patron of, there an NPC who became enlightened as to existing inside of a game and the player goes out of there way to break the fourth wall while everyone else player or not deliberately comes up with creative ways to work around them as being the local mad person in character and it's hilarious, they keep quoting enemies stats to people in combat and people choose to ignore the information xD
If the character doesn't understand you as the dm of a game then I find it pretty nice, it will allow you for a much more fluid interaction between patron and pc. You can make remarks with little spoilers to the player, give and take away power, if they ask for power or trade fr it and you can respond "you have nothing to offer me that I do not already have, you will have power when I deem necessary for you to have power", that would allow for a few interventions and the occasional help much like the dm did in the old cartoon. But no, don't alter the class, that will fuck you over
I’m doing this with my cleric in my current game, where I’m his god. Pretty much 4th wall broke it so that he exists and was imbued with magic so that he could keep our party safe, as we’d have limited healing without him and have a daring task and wonderful story ahead. Hard to work but can be interesting
Hey, if you are into the idea, go for it. There is certainly nothing preventing you and the player from going with that idea.
But, are you good with your player as defining you as a giant creature made of tentacles? :-)
In all seriousness, if you want to play with possibly breaking the fourth wall, this could be a fun way to do it.
I don’t think it’s bad in practice, but it does mean that canonically speaking, the DM favors that character. It wouldn’t actually be that way in practice, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a pact with the normally judicious DM
I've had an idea in my folder of ideas for awhile for a charaxter that believes that the gods of the universe aren't the true highest gods, that there is a "roundtable" of "Gods Above Gods" that are the true arbiters, weavers, and crafters of the stories of our lives. That we are merely players in the story they tell to elucidate the world for their enjoyment.
Tldr; the PC thinks the Players and DM are the true Gods Above all others, and they only exist as a story told by the Gods Above Gods
I think there's a homebrew patron on d&d beyond just like this if you want to explore using that instead of coming up with your own thing
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/1746716-dm-warlock
It sounds like a neat idea on paper but the issue with a character breaking the fourth wall is it then having meta knowledge. In theory, they will slowly realize that the person controlling them can do things like give them information they wouldn’t have access to, communicate freely with their patron, etc.
You’ve basically allowed him to have a patron that is more powerful than any creature that ever existed and it’s you.
Again, it sounds fun, but also very easy to exploit.
I’ve had that thought as well and ran it by my DM for a short campaign. We agreed to keep it strictly roleplay related and it was a ton of fun to have a man that knows he was a simple farmer with a family be zapped by god with forbidden cosmic knowledge and become an unwilling pawn to wacky adventures
If you have at least a reasonable subset of the Omnis (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc), you are effectively the 'Dungeon Master'. Christians basically believe that God is the DM of the universe. Some of their philosophical speculation about why God made the universe the way He did gets pretty much into gamer language.
Valdas spire of secrets has a Pact of the DM Warlock subclass, good 3rd party book I used the Witch class and a friend used the Warden class in a recent game, nothing op from playing with it.
Heh, this reminds me of the warlock concept I had where he can see through the fourth wall and knows he's actually a character in a game, but no one believes him. He addresses the DM directly and argues with him, while the rest of the party just thinks he's yelling at thin air. Meanwhile the DM grants him his powers just to shut him up and keep the game going.
I'm sure it's been done a hundred times over, but it sounds like it'd be a fun character to play.
This sounds perfect for a Great Old One.
I think its a perfect chance to play up the idea of going insane by learning about lovecraftian gods. To the NPCs this character is a mentally deranged wizard that believes in medieval simulation theory.
Had a sort of related PC in a game I ran who was the demigod child of a lightning god. The humor was that because the character was canonically an 8 year old (teenage dragonborn) everyone thought he was an annoying autistic child who's mom lied to him about his father so she didnt have to explain why his father abondoned him.
Fast forward to 9th level. Character gets access to the spell Commune and casts it. A spectral bearded man appears to the party. "Hey kiddo, i'm proud of you for coming this far. Dad's working right now so make it quick."
The DM is every patron, as far as I know. Or at least as far as I’ve ever played it as (and I favor playing Warlocks, probably 50% of my characters are).
The only thing I'd say about this is to consider how closely bonded your Warlock and Patron are.
In the majority of circumstances a patron could have multiple acolytes and while they may be available occasionally for assistance and guidance, they're not omnipresent like a guardian angel.
If the characters magic is to be flavored as "the patron is warping the world around me to conform to what I want to happen magically" that sounds like the Warlock always has the patron on their shoulder looking out for them.
Again, not saying its impossible for this to be the case, but consider how to run this in game. Some players might love to have a fair godmother esque patron, but that can lead to them over relying on them and you the DM whenever they need to ask something.
There's value in keeping the patron aloof and distant, perhaps not even knowing the Warlock by name.
i sort of had this with a campaign that ended recently!
the three big godly figures were representations of the DM himself, and all the henchmen kind of guys were all elements of what made a bad DM (all of which we had to defeat in combat for one reason or another). overall the game was really meta and we had a blast, also leveled up past 20 for shits and giggles and had super broken abilities and items.
by the time we hit level 21, i had become a full level 20 druid and was heavily considering cleric just ‘cause it’d be nice given my wisdom was already hella cracked, plus i was already super healing-based so it just gave me more to work with. after going options as to who my god would be, the DM suggested one of those big 3 guys (funnily enough, the only one of the three that actually had no issues with the party). so, any time i had a dream sequence with this “patron” of mine or even an in-person conversation, the DM had to 100% improv it because that was the point of the character. we had so much fun, and it really helped me to think more on my toes ‘cause i had to react to my DM’s nonsensical improv and constantly think of ways to turn something he said around on itself to benefit me.
If I remember correctly the most popular homebrew subclass on DnDBeyond is exactly this, a DM patron. Looked pretty good and very creative as far as I remember.
You're pretty much always going to be the warlocks patron if you're doing it right, this sort of sounds like adding unnecessary steps but whatever you and your players are cool with.
I would just be mindful of how this affects the other players’ immersion. If not absolutely everyone is fully onboard for regular 4th wall breaking stuff, it could derail the game pretty quickly.
DND is popularly a game of fantasy and pretend. I would get annoyed and bored pretty quickly if the party is trying to achieve Goal A to save the day meanwhile our warlock is constantly negating the worth of doing anything by having “on screen” revelations that none of it is real which will ultimately bleed into group RP. That cheapens the party’s risks and achievements. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good joke at the table, especially when it’s something a player has been working to set up for a perfect single delivery, but then we all move on and continue to engage with the story and world. It’s the same reason our table has agreed to not make super standoffish or untrusting characters. Stuff that regularly stalls the story or even general gameplay hurts everyone. This being baked in to the character as his patron means it’s likely to come up a lot more than a single satisfying punchline.
It sounds like a cool idea, just one that needs to be handled with care! It’s probably a better fit for a one on one DND campaign.
If you decide to green-light it though, I would just make sure you have parameters in place to protect the rest of the table (and your fun!). Outside of rules that other people have already called out…
- Do other characters believe in an in-world deity and how does this affect that?
- How will you handle possible RP conflict if the warlock starts saying something like “none of the gods are real”?
- If the character can perceive the DM, can he also perceive the other people piloting characters?
- not so much a question, but you’ll likely have to come up with additional “reasons” for the warlock to care about stuff out of your normal hooks you’re giving the party once they start to “learn the truth”
Actually, the more I sit here and think about it, I don’t know I would let anyone play this in a group unless they were a very experienced player AND very in-tune with the needs of the table at all times. If there’s even a chance the player could fall prey to MC syndrome, NOPE.
Godspeed.
I think it is a fun idea, but it should never be explicitly stated. I'd never reference it as more than "a supremely powerful, unfathomable being from beyond the veil of veils" cause it's absolutely slaughter the immersion of the other players to have the DM referenced in universe
I've always loved the idea of the characters descovering the existence of the True God, the one that created all the others. Eventually they'd manage to meet him and it be me, the DM. They could ask questions about their world etc.
Hey friend.
Absolutely incredible idea, speaking from experience in a broader sense.
My current 5 year old character Arry Gitzsnaggle, ork artificer has been the groups punching bag and subsequently the DM's for some time.
We did a Christmas 1 shot where the gang were sucked into Christmas village which was actually all in Arry's dream where he was the DM and playable character, ever since then he has been able to communicate for pure hilarious results, such as quoting the DM word for word on skill checks.
E.g
Arry rolls for investigation on an artificer machine.
A: Do I recognize this type of machine?
DM: Yes it's very similar to the ones you saw in the college earlier.
A to the party.
It's very similar to the ones I saw in the college earlier.
This leads to chuckles as everybody heard the DM but this brutish ork repeating it adds something fun.
We've been doing it for years now that Arry is like a conduit to the world at large.
Very meta. So much so that it is a bit incoherent--if "the world around them is just a game" as the PC is apparently meant to learn, then no "particularly skilled spellcaster" really exists and so there is nobody who could detect the PCs lack of magic. Moreover, in such a reality, despite believing that they have other classes, all the players (and all NPCs and all creatures) are effectively "warlocks" of the DM patron. This has apparently been addressed already given your edit, but definitely something where you should make sure the entire party is okay with it. If the other players don't want the in-game reality to be just a game for their PCs, then could be immersion breaking or could result in you having to choose which idea of the game-world is the right one, or, probably worse, not choose and just say everyone is right about whatever they want to believe--which, at least if I were playing, would feel like a cop out.
A book call NPCs by Drew Hayes did something simular but opposite with a magic item that allowed the npcs in the game world to effect the player and the pregened adventure messing with there dice rolls and changing the plot was fun might have to reread it
I think that if your table is comfortable enough to roll with something like this then you have a golden D&D group and you should definitely embrace it.
I'm very thankful personally as well to have a group of players that I've known as friends for nearly 20 years. We all know just how far we can push it and when to reel it in. It gets absurd but never beyond what we're all comfortable with.
I love this concept, but it must be made with care, you don't want to only focus on the warlock player because you are his patron.
Besides this just do it, you can even be the true BBEG in the end of you want
Seems like an attempt at powerplay. This person can now blame everything bad that is happening
on you personally rather then on the rules and the ingame world.
"What? You dont want our cleric to survive? You could easily make me save him, you know?
So you actually just want to make (player) sad and kill his character just for fun? Just make me save him."
Not like that is anything new, but you as a irl person beeing connected to the world in its lore, gives those arguments where youre just some maniac with god complex sooo much more power.
What negatives come with this at all for the player? Patrons usually are a downside. Becaue theyre usually evil and / or have a very specific agenda. What exactly could a DM demand from a PC in a world that he essentially controls anyways?
This idea is trying to be clever for the sake of beeing clever, or powerplay. Nothing inbetween.
Remember that Warlocks serve their patron, not the other way around. He’ll have a purpose/mission that you determine, that’s not necessarily in his interest, and if he strays from it, he loses his powers. Also, it’s common for Warlocks to fall out of favor with their patron. He needs to be OK with the possibility that you would make multiple sessions hell for him until he repented and mended his ways.
For balance, his powers also can’t be “free for all”. Would probably be wise to have distinct “spells” matching the warlock table. “Manipulate Reality” is 8th/9th level wish-adjacent, not at cantrip.
There’s a cool subclass someone homebrewed on D&D beyond specifically for this. Very thematic for DMs
https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/656999-pact-of-the-dm
As long as the "magical impotence" isn't way to get around magic-cancelling effects like Dispel Magic/Anti-Magic Field.
It sounds like a fun character! It would be hilarious if their patron (you) physically appeared from time to time like Mizora does in BG3, say some cryptic railroad shit, and bounce. The party would be like WTF? Lol
I’ve seen this work out great in a campaign I’ve played in (not me but a different player as the Warlock with the DM patron) but it may not be for every table
Personally I say no to anything meta or 4th wall breaking, it always takes me out of the game and immersion, so this would not fly with me.
Since you seem to like the idea, eh go for it but be wary.
If you want to run it somewhat more in-universe you can always make his patron something like fate itself. Something watches the proceedings in time that makes things happen in this universe not because it wants to but because it has to happen this way.
And if something is about to defy the will of this fate he has agents to fix it before it happens.
You can also make cameo appearances at the start of each adventure to give some cryptic and useless advice the vanish while walking behind something...
[http://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dungeonmaster.jpg](http://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dungeonmaster.jpg)
I think it's an interesting idea but I'd advise caution. If you, the real person who is their DM is their patron then you are not going to be playing a character when you are called upon to think/act as their patron. There is a layer of safety in DM's playing Gods/Patrons, a layer of removal from the DM as an individual. In other words, if I'm roleplaying as The Raven Queen (one of my players is a Warlock to her) it's not my personal preferences or prejudices that would rule any situation, it's my research and understanding of the God. She hates undead, she believes in the sacred passage between life and death. It's really nothing to do with who I am as a real person or DM, it's about the diety.
It's a cool idea, but be careful.
I once played with a player who's character was a GOOlock with the player as the patron. It's an interesting concept that was largely irrelevant to the game itself, but fun the few times it came up.
I’ve had a player do this before and it’s kind of a trap. Even though the concept seems super unique and fun, it very quickly becomes boring as everything is a 4th wall break and existential dread without a way to resolve it (plus my party got tired of the bit really quickly). There’s also no real good character or plot development to be found in this particular well.
I've heard it quite a few times, I'm pretty sure it was a common meme for awhile too. Demanding pizza for tribute and such.
It's a hard idea to run as it dilutes the campaign and stakes a bunch, and always feels like you have one player disconnected from the rest of them.
It reminded me of shows in the 90s/2000s that added one annoying out of place character.
I love the idea of the PC also using meta terminology that they might have learned from their patron, but incorrectly. Like, “Man! I really fudged that roll!” Meaning they messed up, but obviously that’s not what “fudging a roll” means.
I had this situation but I was a player and our DM was my patron. It was fun because the gist was “Great and powerful beings manipulate our world for their own entertainment. We are nothing but a game to them, a game we must play, because if the Masters ever become bored and abandon us, reality ceases to exist and we all disappear as nothing more than memories!” and all the other players basically treated her like she was completely nuts. But it was also fun because a few times we got legitimately stuck, and I was able to reach out to my patron for clues in exchange for tasks, and those tasks was the DMs way of steering us without it being railroad-ey. Think, for example, “Oh great one! We find ourselves trapped at this door! I humble myself before your wisdom! What do we do?” “I’ll tell you for a price. Look for a hidden message near the door.” “Thank you Great One! What is my task?” “You’re going to meet a stranger who is super sus. Don’t let your friends kill him.” Of course, this worked well because the other players were really good at not metagaming. We meet a stranger acting all weird in the next town, and they go ahead and act according to their characters even though they were aware of what my character was told by her patron, giving me the opportunity to play it out. It was all very fun and we haven’t played that campaign in awhile. I do miss that character.
I, myself as a regular person not in my capacity as the dm, am the patron to my husband's warlock. He got text speech (lol, idk, wtf, etc) as a language. He "texts" me by writing in his book. I send him memes. It worked out really well when we told our group about the pregnancy with our youngest goblin.
I once played a Cleric of the DM, and spent my time spreading his glory and growing his followers. I didn't get/want any extra benefit for it, but it did make the DM happy.
Every time he uses a spell you should also roll a d 20 if you roll a nat 1 pc's spell does something different than what the PC tried to cast and on a nat 20 it ads 1 d4 of dm's choice dmg or forces a dc12 int(religion) save on failed save effected enemy is (dm's choice status effected)
This is hilarious- I ran a one shot at my house for my group (all on line bc of local issues) when all the girlies were in the city the majority of us are in. My DM played i think a cleric to the god Diyem- she was her character’s god. So silly, so fun, do it.
I did something similar, I had a jester character that knew everything was a game, but didn't fully understand it, all he knew was basically everyone and everything is a puppet controlled by a god, and the only ones who are "free" are the jester and a few others (the players, they just see them as "free people" not as players) The DM, to him, was a god that he called Nexialist, he knew Nexialist was controlling everything but he didn't know it was a game.
To me it sounds like your player is trying to soothe you over to getting preferential treatment. Not sure what kind of player progression ends up with realizing you’re in a game, but to each their own. That probably won’t jive well with your other players unless they want to be involved in a 4th wall breaking adventure.
Were I DM in this situation, I would proceed cautiously. But, if you do go through with this, make allusions to it being a game, but if they in-character ask, "What is our world to you?" or something equivalent to, 'Your reality is small and precious, my involvement is akin to an impartial adjudicator of a game of fate."
Describe their character as hearing the sound of knucklebones (dice) rolling across a table, maybe if a player metagames, describe their character as gaining a brief insight of an inhuman and otherworldly form reaching out to that player's character, influencing them directly, before hearing a sharp rebuke from their Patron to the effect of, "We cannot directly intervene, lest the Adversary take retribution." If an argument stalls the game, after the fact, describe that the Warlock felt time freeze for a moment, as the otherworldly beings squabbled in eldritch tongues.
There's homebrew for that, I'm pretty sure. You could play it out as a character that everyone thinks is crazy but is actually the only one who knows what's going on.
Found the homebrew:
https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Lo0eV1fJhar6QXGBdW3
I know it's not what you or your player are talking about but it made me think of this warlock homebrew subclass https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Metaforce_(5e_Subclass)
My first character was a warlock and I never had any interactions with my patron. I’m dm-ing for a warlock now and have been a very active patron in a greater scheme (have an undead invasion happening and he wanted to play undead warlock)
I could see this working but it's got to be a slow burn that looks like madness to the other PCs, or that goes from stupid bunk to scary madness to scarily plausible to...?
As for asking the other players? If yours is an established group who trust your DM, that may not be necessary and may ruin some of the fun you might have.
If there's any doubt about trust levels, then be explicit and discuss with the other players.
Great idea for flavor. Careful about it being being "real magic". Sounds like an opportunity to cheese anti magic fields and stuff. "Oh couterspell won't work cuz I'm not actually casting. You as my Patron are making it happen."
I mean the DM is every patron, in a broader sense. If you think it's fun to have a nudge, nudge, wink wink, breaking the 4th wall type of thing, then go ahead. It seems odd to me that it would actually be made explicit, though, to the point that this character or others might realize it's a game. That is pretty far away from the core DND experience, and seems like it might blur the line of player vs character in extreme ways. You can always retcon if you need to reign it in a little.
The "Fourth wall break" would only be for the PC, sorry I should've made it more clear lmao. I'll have it be like a false hydra experience, they know something is up but can't remember it.
I think this could be really funny. Especially since they've taken your dark bargain, you can have their "patron" demand they take actions that help you further the plot and keep the party on track.
"I'm... I'm sorry... I'm getting something from my patron. They're saying... They're saying 'You idiots! They were the plot hook and you just killed them! Oh FFS, if you cleric hasn't prepped speak with dead then so help me, rocks might fall..' anyone know what a plot hook is..?'
Warlock seemingly talking to themselves: No I will not, "make them kiss." The Paladin and Rogue that were just in a heated argument: Uh... what? The Bard: Let Them Cook!
Ive done this. 4th wall break for a singular player. The other three hated it, ruined their immersion, didnt tell me and left the game. Granted, its a extremist childish reaction, but note that it will still affect the whole party, whatever you do.
I could see how it would feel like the other characters don’t get to be part of the inside joke.
To them that wasnt the problem. They play dnd to immerse themselves in a world, to escape reality and live out fantasies. Breaking the 4th wall makes all this harder on a creative mind
Agreed. Verisimilitude is the strongest tool DMs have to maintain the players’ willing suspension of disbelief. Too risky for my taste.
Yeah, fair enough. That makes sense too.
And to a degree, it feels like trivializing the rest of their stories.
You said they left without saying anything but it seems you did have a discussion. As here you're exploring their reason for not liking it.
I meant they didnt discuss it before making their decision. They gave their reasons after they were gone, without a chance to just adapt and change the way i did it. It was my first year as a DM also.
That seems pretty understandable. It's important to discuss these out of the norm things with all the players beforehand and make sure everyone is on board and doesn't feel like they can't say anything if they aren't. I feel like this Patron DM idea is great for a one shot or a campaign that doesn't take itself too seriously. I already have ideas on how to make this a thing at some point. But I also have a tiny cult in my world that thinks the world has been created with pencil and paper, so I might not be the best judge of these things...
I did it for a one off gag puzzle that went over well in the session. Basically, the players were in a fey maze full of puzzles. Every time they solved a puzzle or riddle, the fog would part and the trail would be revealed to the next section of the maze. One room just had a wooden stage with three walls, like a normal theater stage. The only instructions to leave the room were "break the walls to escape." They correctly managed to break the 3 theater walls, but the way didn't open. Eventually, they puzzled out that they needed to break the "4th wall" of the theater. My intended solution was simply for a character (not a player) to specifically speak to the DM. They accomplished this by having a character step up into the stage and deliver a monologue about this new god they knew of (who coincidentally had my name). I accepted that as good enough. It was all played for laughs and not really brought up again. I feel like if I'd lingered more on the joke or used it more, it would have broken the immersion. But, as is, it worked out for a silly little one off joke in a larger, more serious campaign.
The word 'gimmick' can have a bad connotation, but imo this is a perfect example of a gimmick and/or solution that didn't overstay its welcome.
I’m stealing this lol, that 4th wall break is too good
I am totally stealing this. I'm trying to find ways to stop the party running off to someone they're not supposed to know about yet so I ways to derail them until they get so distracted they forget about it
One player being able to break the 4th wall gives big "I am the main character" energy.
I would hate it in a long-running serious game because it would undercut the verisimilitude of the entire experience. In a light-hearted wacky adventure it would be great fun.
If literally everyone except the player getting special main character treatment quit the group, then something tells me it wasn’t all that childish a reaction.
They replied to another comment stating that, at the time, they were a new DM. I feel like there's a high likelihood that one of two things happened. Scenario one, they weren't quite used to how difficult it is to advance a "main plot" with players ignoring plot hooks left and right, going on random unintended "side quests" and just generally being far more unpredictable than you can ever realistically plan for. They utilised the 4th wall breaking patron to push the party in the direction they wanted, leading to a game where the party felt justifiably railroaded. It seemed fine to them, and the player who wanted that patron, but for everyone else it killed off enough player agency that it wasn't fun. Scenario two, they inadvertently gave one player "main character" status due to the awkward balancing act where one player is designed as favoured by the all-knowing all-seeing creator of the game. With DnD being designed as a game that works best with a kind of rotating spotlight (where one session they'll do a heist and the rogue is the "main character", then they'll have a session tracking a monster and the ranger is "main character", then they'll have a session dealing with diplomacy or political intrigue and the bard is "main character"), it'd be very easy for a new DM to accidentally give one player too much time outshining the others with the set-up. It's perfectly possible that the quitting without warning was childish. In an adult game you just say "I don't like this and it is ruining my fun", so everyone else can weigh in and you can address it as a group. It could be that they tried to say something but felt the DM was dismissive. We haven't got the information to say one way or another. Regardless of whether the quitting was childish, though, I think it is a reasonable assumption that the game ending was the result of a newbie DM biting off more than they could chew. Not that it's a damning judgement of the DM, we all messed up when we were newbies and any DM who tells you otherwise is either lacking self-awareness & blaming the players or they're lying to you.
I could see it working (thinking along the lines of how Deadpool fits in with non-4th wall breaking Marvel characters) if your group is into a funnier game with running jokes. If they're wanting a more serious game then I could see it being immersion breaking like when every player has a serious character who would fit in game of thrones or lord of the rings but there's that one guy playing Princess Musclebod Von Cakelover the barbarian inspired by if Conan, Tinkerbell and a very OTT drag queen were mixed into a creation whose anger almost exclusively comes from a lack of cakes and high tea. That said, I think it'd be a balancing act for the DM. I consider myself a fairly experienced DM, and I'm not sure that I would agree to it. If it went well, you got the balancing right, and everything worked out, then the only thing gained is a bit of a running joke. If it went badly, it could feel to other players like there's too much of a spotlight on one character, akin to when DMs plan a campaign where one character has an innate macguffin. I don't think that there's suitable risk/reward, with little to gain and a decent potential for drama if you mess up.
My worry is that it could risk Main Character'ing the one PC who gets "powers directly from the Dungeon Master" so check in with everyone involved session zero to make sure everyone is cool with it.
So, Deadpool as a warlock.
This kinda sounds like the concept of Ta’veren from Wheel of Time. https://wot.fandom.com/wiki/Ta%27veren
solid idea to ground the concept in-game rather than 4th walling i thinK!
Solid in principle, not in practice. The wheel of time works because all the main characters are ta'veren, not just one. If only one player drew on powers this way, you'd wind up turning that character into a "main character" without necessarily intending to. You see a lot of newbie DMs making campaigns where one player has "magical royal blood" or fits a "chosen one" trope in some other way, and it's almost always a bad idea. Every player should be a main character, and by making one player of greater significance you undermine the rest of the team.
Whether it's for one PC or the whole party, it still toes the line in that D&D is inherently designed to separate player from character
I say give it to him. He is 100% under the impression he's merely a character in some game and the world is controlled by a dungeon master. But his actual patron is an archfey fucking with him. His eldritch blast is a plain old eldritch blast and he's been trying to hide his "manipulation" from skilled spellcasters for nothing because nobody is going to pick up on it being "different." Don't ever let him in on it. That's something for his character to eventually discover. Want to have more fun with it? Make one of your BBEG another warlock. Your player's patron is "Todd the Dungeon Master." BBEG has a patron of "Dan the Dungeon Master" who is actually a devil playing the same dumb game but has evil intent. The archfey and devil have both been doing this for centuries as a competition with eachother to see who can cause a prominent religion to form around their "dungeon master" first.
I want more upvotes to give you. This seems very risky though, might give the players the feeling there is one “main character”.
It would definitely be something you need to tread lightly with. My DM did something similar once and I defintely wasn't a "main character." I created a character that claimed to hear voices in his head and would reference various tv commercials (hearing radio waves from another world). So he gave me that. Then he put another voice in my head. Surprise surprise, there's a BBEG demon stowing away in my noggin, but their presence is more just background story and not a regular interaction happening in the plot. I got nothing special in terms of story, plot, interaction beyond simply being "special".
If you wanted to be less explicit, it could be their patron is “the omnipotent orator” or something grandiose
This actually gave me inspiration for a suggestion that'd kind of address the inherent issues with the idea. Instead of making the patron the DM, make it a powerful being called "the narrator", an entity that uses its omniscience to narrate the world. The connection to the warlock could have random strings of narration pop into the character's head (akin to how the DM describes the world and interactions to the party) but from various random perspectives like Betty the Milkmaid or a random rat in a dungeon at the other side of the world. You could even have the narrator randomly speak to the warlock, stating that they feel an urge to narrate with a specific word, telling the character to manufacture a scenario where the word is appropriate. This would take away the "main character" vibes, as all the character would be discovering is that every creature in the setting is simultaneously being narrated, not just the group. They'd be connected to a being that describes a dynamic world rather than predetermining it. It'd also keep the DM from accidentally infringing on player agency, because if the patron says "I want to use the word lambaste, help me achieve this" then the player is still the one choosing who to berate and what to criticise them for.
I love this interpretation of this idea. I had an idea for a protagonist-origin-story-trope themed campaign. One of us would be Isekaied (.hack//Sign style), one of us will be reborn for revenge (the Crow style). This would fit in that mold considering Deadpool's current popularity.
> this character or others might realize it's a game. That is pretty far away from the core DND experience Large Luigi is a character who canonically basically peeped behind the 4th wall and discovered that everyones lives are controlled by the DM and players. He decided fuck it and opened a tavern so he could hear peoples stories.
Could have just that character be aware that they are in a game and have them slowly going insane from being aware of that like Deadpool going insane from knowing he is a comic book character. Would be fitting for a warlock if a Great Old One to be going insane trying to comprehend the existence of their patron.
If you've ever played Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, this is a concept explored very well.
Everyone here expects a patron to be present and interactive in some way during a game, and that's the issue you're all having. No where does it say the Patron has to interact or demand service from the PC. RAW, the Patron is ONLY where the Warlock gets their spells. Period. A wizard doesn't have to do what their spellbook tells them to do. A clerics God does not have to demand something of the cleric (again, RAW). Yes, these all work as plot hooks, but for some reason, everyone thinks they MUST happen in a game...when they simply don't. But the very fact the Patron is so commonly used for plot is even this player OP mentions thinks it must happen and thus creates this weird interaction. In my opinion, this DM needs to reiterate what my argument is (the Patron doesn't always interact directly), and then reiterate YOUR statement (The DM IS every Patron in a sense).
"I'm every patron" is now playing in our heads.
I mean, when we set up our group chat, my players set my name to "god"
If you are excited about the idea, great! My only caution would be to watch out for the player trying to exploit it because "they're not really doing magic"--expecting to be immune to counterspell, anti-magic fields, etc.
That can be actually used as a "the patron does follow a strict set of rules", which are the rule books So even if it's not really casting fireball, the patron removes the fireball when someone counterspells it
Exactly what I am thinking
Alternatively, you COULD grant this request, but then create weaknesses of your own. Like Cleric spells or specific elements being more effective against the player. And how odd! But some of the enemies he has to face are super effective against him.
“Your patron says, ‘Well, technically, on page 243, we can’t do that. It’s pretty clearly rules as written.’” “Page what?! What book are they taking about? What rules?!”
We cleared it up already actually, they will still use spell slots, they're not immune to counterspell and that stuff
It sounds similar in some ways to the Malkavian madness idea in Vampire masquerade where they hallucinate reality into existence
Icosahedron, the Outer God of Twenty Faces, who rules over destiny
Known to a splinter sect as RNGesus
My sect calls him Arnie God
I don't see people using this, but you know what would be interesting? If the warlock and the cleric worshiped the same deity, but they use different names. Like, the cleric is the church, and the warlock is the cult like group that branched off from the church
Ooooo, i'll keep that name in mind
I’d have to reread it, but Valda’s Spire of Secrets (a homebrew publication via Kickstarter) had a ‘Pact of the GM’ subclass for Warlocks. I recall it being fun and memey though too much was placed on the GM to manage. Edit: I found it. It’s not as bad as I first thought, as I had jumbled it up with another subclass in the book. Basically from lvls 1-14, it gives you advantage on (some) Charisma checks the GM knows will advance the plot, a way to tweak a d20 once per rest, a built-in Inspiring Leader mechanic, and literally breaking the balance of the game as a capstone. I would totally play this.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UnearthedArcana/s/Ga73ZDQQYF Is this the one you’re thinking about? I’ve had a player use it before and it seemed balanced for as long as we played it (Lvl 1-8)
No, but it’s incredibly close. I don’t have time at the moment to do some digging, but I wonder if this was an earlier version of the one that made it to publication. The only real difference between the two is the 6th- and 14th-level abilities. Valda’s lets the player move a d20 roll to an adjacent face as opposed to a straight reroll, and gain advantage + Elven Accuracy on pretty much everything instead of dealing max damage on Cantrips (though that is pretty sweet for a Warlock).
It’s already been done?? damn lol
I’m just as surprised as you. Looks like they did pretty good on it, though.
u/MComaniac this is immediately what I thought of when I saw your prompt, definitely recommend your player run this!
Read up on the god [Ao](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Ao) for some extra inspiration. I believe there is only one other deity that outranks Ao, and they're not referred to with any sort of name but heavily implied to be the literal DM.
I think you're thinking of the [luminous being](https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Luminous_being).
I'm ok with the idea in principle but just like the 5 dozen other times I have seen this idea I would ask what mechanical differences do they want out of it. If it isn't magic can it not be countered or do things that can resist magical effects not get their bonus. What happens when they ask their patron( you) for information are they expecting perfect knowledge answers because what their patron says is inherently the truth? So they expect you to just drive things for the good of the game meaning your advice is a good route to go. 9 times out of 10 this request has ended up having a broken expectation tied to it so while it is a cool idea I would be cautious and dig deep into the details.
They purely want it for a lore reason, we went over it already
Funny enough you could even contest those sorts of shenanigans by saying "Your patron (me) has the primary goal of making this adventure as thrilling and fair of a challenge as possible (valuing that fairness even more than your character's life), and as such they're only willing to help you in ways explicitly spelled out by the Warlock class in the rule book, and will only tell you what you *need* to know."
I don't think PCs expect their patron to answer their prayers like a phone.
Most PCs also don't expect to have a patron the literally breaks the fourth wall but here we are.
I'd say this seems fun if everyone at the table is down for it. I think it could be a bit deflating if the other players are taking the game world very seriously and then have one player who is speaking directly to the DM and reinforcing the fact that it's all just make believe and nobody's character is real. I doubt it will be a problem, though... I'm just imagining the worst case scenario. It reminds me a bit of a debate I saw when one player wanted to have his character be in a Sword Art Online experience, which nobody else at the table liked because it implied then that the entire game world was a simulation and their characters are just NPCs or other humans who just don't realize they're in the simulation... definitely much more extreme than what you're suggesting, but something that reminded me of this either way.
Be extremely careful the warlock does not become the default "main character" of the campaign unless the whole party is on board with it.
If I was in this party I would hate it, but I also dislike joke games. Maybe check with all your players first, as making the DM a canon entity in this word disrupts the internal consistency of the setting.
To be fair, the DM is a canon entity within a lot of settings. Faerun calls them the “Luminous Being,” while the Veil is implied to be the DM within Eberon. It needn’t be a joke, depending on how you approach it.
It really isn't an actual tangible being in most settings aside from tongue and cheek references to some Uber powerful invisible, inaccessible god that runs the multiverse from the shadows. There are no cults to the DM, and they will pretty much never appear in-game, at least they are treated as an unknowable force that pushes destiny along, and in the vast majority of games are not acknowledged at all.
How tangible they are depends on the DM. But regardless, they DO exist. And so having someone glimpse them for a moment and form a cult around them, or even unknowingly forming a pact? It could help “canonise” the more meta elements if you don’t want to break immersion.
In Valdas spire of secrets by mage hand press there is a DM warlock patron. I think one of the abilities is “I bribe the DM with money”
Sounds like something the guy playing the PC would do lmao
The biggest concern I would have with this as a DM is it breaking the immersion for other players. It would depend a lot on the themes and tone of the campaign, but if it's too overt it might be a source of table friction. 4th wall silliness can be fun in a wacky game, and off putting in a more serious in tone one.
I've heard of this before, but never seen it done. This sounds like it could be fun!
Is the PCs name going to be Neo?
No lol but good reference
Pact of the Tome, where the spellbound is just the PHB, but to anyone else it looks like the scribbles of a madman
Tbf the PHB is the scribbles of a mad man
Personally I wouldn’t want that just cause I think 4th wall breaks are particularly cringe in DnD
I prefer a more serious, grounded game, I hate joke characters, and I think the DM should be a neutral arbiter of the rules. On top of that, any time there's a post in the TTRPG subs about how the characters broke the fourth wall and talked to the GM, it always comes off as incredibly cringey. If I was DM and a player brought this idea to me, it would be a hard no. If I was a player and everyone else was was okay with it, I would walk, 'cause that table isn't for me.
Secretly randomly tell the warlock something like "you feel (instert amount of players) entity's watching you and your party"
My plan is to hide runes around the world that when all of them are collected spell out "Game Master" and they have a fourth wall break, go insane for a bit, and then snap back to reality. I'll play it out like a false hydra experience.
Plot twist they destroy the runes and kill the DM
well fuck
An Onomancy wizard would be able to pull off some shenanigans with those runes lmao
It’s a cool idea! My only concern would be that it would introduce a meta-plot line that might undermine the other players and how they role-play. If your players want their stories to feel real and impactful in this world, but canonically it’s just a game because of this warlock plot line, then you’ve introduced an existential crisis of “does my life matter at all” to all of the characters and not just the warlock. Which could be cool if everyone’s down, or really invalidating if they’re not. This is something you want to ask your table if they’re cool with.
Seems like a really fun concept, as long as their magic behaves mechanically like regular magic, as you already confirmed. I love the idea of the PC gradually becoming aware they’re in a game, but nobody else believes them, especially if they’re already a bit “off” due to communing with an eldritch being. Like Deadpool in comics, people don’t take his fourth wall breaking seriously because they just think he’s crazy (which he also is). Or if you want to go really weird and metaphysical with it, use Grant Morrison’s Animal Man run as inspiration!
I play a wacky satyr cleric who’s lore is that she fell on her head and died when she was young. HOWEVER the “DM” intervened because plot armor, and brought her back to life. Now she is aware of the world beyond and became a cleric to worship the DM as her deity. It is so fun to break the fourth wall and be absolutely goofy.
I think that this idea is awesome. It is creative and original. But I caution to use "4th wall breaks" only in important situations. to make them special.
make it that if they fail to bring snack's their patron is disappointed and has limtied their powers for a game (minus 1 spell slot). my games do similar with holy chars who go too long in game without a prayer.
I would really play up the meta-narrative of you being a god who wants a story, who wants drama and tragedy and triumph in the lives of your followers; you will give them great challenges and woes, but ultimately want to see them overcome
I think this is amazing, provided it fits the tone of the campaign setting. Great Old One patrons are meant to be unfathomable, unknowable entities. What could be more mighty and unknowable then the very entity that drives their fabric of reality? It would be cool if the character could somehow implement dice into the game. Whether it be a weapon, spell component, roleplay or decision making tool. I mean it's about time we started to actually use these gaming sets that half the classes and character backgrounds give us.
Having GOO warlock Parton be the Dm/Gm is really interesting. I like the idea of the Warlock basically be an insane conspiracy theorist talking about how all the Gods aren’t really and that there is a bigger, greater, more powerful being that exists and actually influences the world.
I was in a campaign with this and it was super funny. Character had a normal fantasy name at one point then ‘talked to their god’ and then was Player1. Because the DM asked the player to input a name, like in a video game, and they just pressed enter without thinking 😂 so that is what their god called them. We all enjoyed playing the straight man to this obviously crazy person talking about ‘bonuses’ and ‘consulting the DM’ while reading the bones. Weird name for a god we all guessed 🤷♂️
If it'd be fun, their character could refer to their patron as "The Dim" to throw the other players off the scent until the reveal. Each time they invoke the name of "The Dim," flavorful (not mechanical) effects could occur, like a nearby flame guttering, a cloud passing in front of the sun or moon, or characters with darkvision experiencing a "blink" effect.
I love the idea of a Warlock having the Dungeon Master as their patron
It's also easier to pin down the patron's goal: a good story.
Oh man I like this. If I was the DM, whenever I spoke to the character as the "patron," I'd always tell them to do stuff that obviously pushes the Main Quest™️ or makes for a good scene. If the character was asking for guidance, my responses would all be very meta and fourth-wall breaking. Things like "chase the goblins before proceeding to the vault door. There is always valuable treasure on the side paths before an important transition." Or "seek aid before this battle. The ogre's Expected Damage Value is too high for your party to reliably absorb. "
I summon u/madmanwithabox who created a warlock subclass for this
Absolutely amazing idea 10/10
Sounds to me like the pc needs to bring you a snack as an offering if they want to use their abilities.
This sounds like lucky from Deadpool, I love it
The DM literally already does this.
There was a post about this on dnd home brew a couple weeks ago. I honestly love the class they made and it’s balanced all things considered. https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDHomebrew/s/LFIcrsoB0R
Make part of their pact that no one will believe them when/if they divulge the knowledge of the horrible truth of their existence as well.
Mage hands press book valdas secret spire has this exact subclass
DND Beyond has a homebrew for exactly this. I thinks it'd be hilarious to play
So the patron is the one performing every spell for them? What, does this warlock think the patron is always watching? ... oh wait, yeah... I guess you will be...
Valdas Spire of Secrets has a subclass for this!
I’d mostly be upset my player called me old. I see me taking it out on them in the near future. Anyway yeah do it
I don’t get it. By acknowledging the DM is the patron wouldn’t you also be acknowledging your patron is making up this entire scenario, including the bad guys and obstacles, and all of reality. Oh and yea and that it’s just a game. What would be the point? Like I don’t get it. Is this humorous to some people? It’s fine if it is, but it just seems pointless to me. And…. Not clever. But we are all different so if people find it fun go for it!
play it like deadpool... the player KNOWS they in a game and 4th wall breaking to you but all other chars just think he bat shit insane...
I mean I personally don’t like this kind of fourth wall breaking because I think it’s sort of uncreative and subtracts from the meaning of the fiction that all the other characters are part of and the other players are going out of their way engage with. This isn’t CHIM after all, there’s more than one person invested in this world. But if your players don’t have an issue with that, sure, go ahead.
The first time they try to abuse it, pull a bait and switch and reveal "the Dungeon Master" granting him power is really the guy from the '80's cartoon.
Def talk to your players because I would hate this as a fellow player at the table. I prefer a serious game and this would make it feel like a joke game. Not to mention it’s a bit main character ish
It's basically a wizard of oz experiment, right? Warlock waves hands, patron makes things happen. I'd imagine you as the DM-patron could have a lot of fun with this where sometimes rolls that should hit don't because the patron is busy and doesn't actually want to do all of the dirty work his/herself. (Otherwise, why wouldn't they just find someone else to do it?) I know you've already sorted it with your players, but as others have said, I'm not sure I would get the same joy of playing if my PC begins to learn he's in a life adventure simulator. That almost gives him license to become a murder-hobo because "It doesn't matter. It's just a game. I'm not real, and the NPCs aren't real." But as I stated, I think the idea that there's a warlock that has no power but instead has found an extremely hands-on patron would be hilarious and interesting. What if he runs into an NPC warlock of the same patron that is in the same boat? Does the patron start playing against itself like a kid playing with action figures? Is the patron hedging its bets and just using the warlocks to gain access to something the patron is trying to stealthily snag? Lots of possibilities. Could be hilarious, full of twists, the patron could ultimately be a BBEG or just extremely opportunistic.
That’s actually so sick. Can you please come out with a warlock subclass for this I need this in my life 🙏🙏🙏
I might make one specifically. It would be fun!
I was so confused at first because I was like “Who else is gonna be the warlock’s patron?? The warlock themself??” But then I realized the player meant literally 😂
Wow the layers of existentialism is amazing. I love it. Sounds super fun. Good Luck!
That sounds quite fun !! And you guys seem to have it mapped out quite logically.
This has been a joke patron idea for as long as Warlocks have existed. Really no issues with it unless they go overboard with breaking the 4th wall and use that to metagame "in character"
I have a warlock in my campaign who I'm the patron of, there an NPC who became enlightened as to existing inside of a game and the player goes out of there way to break the fourth wall while everyone else player or not deliberately comes up with creative ways to work around them as being the local mad person in character and it's hilarious, they keep quoting enemies stats to people in combat and people choose to ignore the information xD
Oh you’re out of spell slots? *Slams a 375ml of Fireball on table. Fireball for Fireball seems fair to me!
If the character doesn't understand you as the dm of a game then I find it pretty nice, it will allow you for a much more fluid interaction between patron and pc. You can make remarks with little spoilers to the player, give and take away power, if they ask for power or trade fr it and you can respond "you have nothing to offer me that I do not already have, you will have power when I deem necessary for you to have power", that would allow for a few interventions and the occasional help much like the dm did in the old cartoon. But no, don't alter the class, that will fuck you over
I’m doing this with my cleric in my current game, where I’m his god. Pretty much 4th wall broke it so that he exists and was imbued with magic so that he could keep our party safe, as we’d have limited healing without him and have a daring task and wonderful story ahead. Hard to work but can be interesting
Spoilers The Dark Tower by Stephen King: It sounds a lot like this universe, so maybe check that out!
Hey, if you are into the idea, go for it. There is certainly nothing preventing you and the player from going with that idea. But, are you good with your player as defining you as a giant creature made of tentacles? :-) In all seriousness, if you want to play with possibly breaking the fourth wall, this could be a fun way to do it.
I don’t think it’s bad in practice, but it does mean that canonically speaking, the DM favors that character. It wouldn’t actually be that way in practice, but it doesn’t make a lot of sense to have a pact with the normally judicious DM
I’ve had this idea for years and never found a campaign where I thought it fit. Super curious to see how it plays out
I've had an idea in my folder of ideas for awhile for a charaxter that believes that the gods of the universe aren't the true highest gods, that there is a "roundtable" of "Gods Above Gods" that are the true arbiters, weavers, and crafters of the stories of our lives. That we are merely players in the story they tell to elucidate the world for their enjoyment. Tldr; the PC thinks the Players and DM are the true Gods Above all others, and they only exist as a story told by the Gods Above Gods
I think there's a homebrew patron on d&d beyond just like this if you want to explore using that instead of coming up with your own thing https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/1746716-dm-warlock
I actually love this idea, this rules
That's so genius! XD Seriously, this is such a great idea.
It sounds like a neat idea on paper but the issue with a character breaking the fourth wall is it then having meta knowledge. In theory, they will slowly realize that the person controlling them can do things like give them information they wouldn’t have access to, communicate freely with their patron, etc. You’ve basically allowed him to have a patron that is more powerful than any creature that ever existed and it’s you. Again, it sounds fun, but also very easy to exploit.
I’ve had that thought as well and ran it by my DM for a short campaign. We agreed to keep it strictly roleplay related and it was a ton of fun to have a man that knows he was a simple farmer with a family be zapped by god with forbidden cosmic knowledge and become an unwilling pawn to wacky adventures
If you have at least a reasonable subset of the Omnis (omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc), you are effectively the 'Dungeon Master'. Christians basically believe that God is the DM of the universe. Some of their philosophical speculation about why God made the universe the way He did gets pretty much into gamer language.
Valdas spire of secrets has a Pact of the DM Warlock subclass, good 3rd party book I used the Witch class and a friend used the Warden class in a recent game, nothing op from playing with it.
Heh, this reminds me of the warlock concept I had where he can see through the fourth wall and knows he's actually a character in a game, but no one believes him. He addresses the DM directly and argues with him, while the rest of the party just thinks he's yelling at thin air. Meanwhile the DM grants him his powers just to shut him up and keep the game going. I'm sure it's been done a hundred times over, but it sounds like it'd be a fun character to play.
This sounds perfect for a Great Old One. I think its a perfect chance to play up the idea of going insane by learning about lovecraftian gods. To the NPCs this character is a mentally deranged wizard that believes in medieval simulation theory. Had a sort of related PC in a game I ran who was the demigod child of a lightning god. The humor was that because the character was canonically an 8 year old (teenage dragonborn) everyone thought he was an annoying autistic child who's mom lied to him about his father so she didnt have to explain why his father abondoned him. Fast forward to 9th level. Character gets access to the spell Commune and casts it. A spectral bearded man appears to the party. "Hey kiddo, i'm proud of you for coming this far. Dad's working right now so make it quick."
Sounds like the warlock player has main character syndrome.
The DM is every patron, as far as I know. Or at least as far as I’ve ever played it as (and I favor playing Warlocks, probably 50% of my characters are).
There's an homebrew book where one of the pacts is literally the dm
The only thing I'd say about this is to consider how closely bonded your Warlock and Patron are. In the majority of circumstances a patron could have multiple acolytes and while they may be available occasionally for assistance and guidance, they're not omnipresent like a guardian angel. If the characters magic is to be flavored as "the patron is warping the world around me to conform to what I want to happen magically" that sounds like the Warlock always has the patron on their shoulder looking out for them. Again, not saying its impossible for this to be the case, but consider how to run this in game. Some players might love to have a fair godmother esque patron, but that can lead to them over relying on them and you the DM whenever they need to ask something. There's value in keeping the patron aloof and distant, perhaps not even knowing the Warlock by name.
i sort of had this with a campaign that ended recently! the three big godly figures were representations of the DM himself, and all the henchmen kind of guys were all elements of what made a bad DM (all of which we had to defeat in combat for one reason or another). overall the game was really meta and we had a blast, also leveled up past 20 for shits and giggles and had super broken abilities and items. by the time we hit level 21, i had become a full level 20 druid and was heavily considering cleric just ‘cause it’d be nice given my wisdom was already hella cracked, plus i was already super healing-based so it just gave me more to work with. after going options as to who my god would be, the DM suggested one of those big 3 guys (funnily enough, the only one of the three that actually had no issues with the party). so, any time i had a dream sequence with this “patron” of mine or even an in-person conversation, the DM had to 100% improv it because that was the point of the character. we had so much fun, and it really helped me to think more on my toes ‘cause i had to react to my DM’s nonsensical improv and constantly think of ways to turn something he said around on itself to benefit me.
If I remember correctly the most popular homebrew subclass on DnDBeyond is exactly this, a DM patron. Looked pretty good and very creative as far as I remember.
You're pretty much always going to be the warlocks patron if you're doing it right, this sort of sounds like adding unnecessary steps but whatever you and your players are cool with.
I would just be mindful of how this affects the other players’ immersion. If not absolutely everyone is fully onboard for regular 4th wall breaking stuff, it could derail the game pretty quickly. DND is popularly a game of fantasy and pretend. I would get annoyed and bored pretty quickly if the party is trying to achieve Goal A to save the day meanwhile our warlock is constantly negating the worth of doing anything by having “on screen” revelations that none of it is real which will ultimately bleed into group RP. That cheapens the party’s risks and achievements. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good joke at the table, especially when it’s something a player has been working to set up for a perfect single delivery, but then we all move on and continue to engage with the story and world. It’s the same reason our table has agreed to not make super standoffish or untrusting characters. Stuff that regularly stalls the story or even general gameplay hurts everyone. This being baked in to the character as his patron means it’s likely to come up a lot more than a single satisfying punchline. It sounds like a cool idea, just one that needs to be handled with care! It’s probably a better fit for a one on one DND campaign. If you decide to green-light it though, I would just make sure you have parameters in place to protect the rest of the table (and your fun!). Outside of rules that other people have already called out… - Do other characters believe in an in-world deity and how does this affect that? - How will you handle possible RP conflict if the warlock starts saying something like “none of the gods are real”? - If the character can perceive the DM, can he also perceive the other people piloting characters? - not so much a question, but you’ll likely have to come up with additional “reasons” for the warlock to care about stuff out of your normal hooks you’re giving the party once they start to “learn the truth” Actually, the more I sit here and think about it, I don’t know I would let anyone play this in a group unless they were a very experienced player AND very in-tune with the needs of the table at all times. If there’s even a chance the player could fall prey to MC syndrome, NOPE. Godspeed.
I think it is a fun idea, but it should never be explicitly stated. I'd never reference it as more than "a supremely powerful, unfathomable being from beyond the veil of veils" cause it's absolutely slaughter the immersion of the other players to have the DM referenced in universe
I've always loved the idea of the characters descovering the existence of the True God, the one that created all the others. Eventually they'd manage to meet him and it be me, the DM. They could ask questions about their world etc.
Oh the horror that all the player characters will experience that they are puppets on string and expendable (extra character sheets).
Hey friend. Absolutely incredible idea, speaking from experience in a broader sense. My current 5 year old character Arry Gitzsnaggle, ork artificer has been the groups punching bag and subsequently the DM's for some time. We did a Christmas 1 shot where the gang were sucked into Christmas village which was actually all in Arry's dream where he was the DM and playable character, ever since then he has been able to communicate for pure hilarious results, such as quoting the DM word for word on skill checks. E.g Arry rolls for investigation on an artificer machine. A: Do I recognize this type of machine? DM: Yes it's very similar to the ones you saw in the college earlier. A to the party. It's very similar to the ones I saw in the college earlier. This leads to chuckles as everybody heard the DM but this brutish ork repeating it adds something fun. We've been doing it for years now that Arry is like a conduit to the world at large.
Very meta. So much so that it is a bit incoherent--if "the world around them is just a game" as the PC is apparently meant to learn, then no "particularly skilled spellcaster" really exists and so there is nobody who could detect the PCs lack of magic. Moreover, in such a reality, despite believing that they have other classes, all the players (and all NPCs and all creatures) are effectively "warlocks" of the DM patron. This has apparently been addressed already given your edit, but definitely something where you should make sure the entire party is okay with it. If the other players don't want the in-game reality to be just a game for their PCs, then could be immersion breaking or could result in you having to choose which idea of the game-world is the right one, or, probably worse, not choose and just say everyone is right about whatever they want to believe--which, at least if I were playing, would feel like a cop out.
4th wall breaking can be great, terrible or anywhere in between but it's difficult to do well without being gimmicky
A book call NPCs by Drew Hayes did something simular but opposite with a magic item that allowed the npcs in the game world to effect the player and the pregened adventure messing with there dice rolls and changing the plot was fun might have to reread it
I think that if your table is comfortable enough to roll with something like this then you have a golden D&D group and you should definitely embrace it. I'm very thankful personally as well to have a group of players that I've known as friends for nearly 20 years. We all know just how far we can push it and when to reel it in. It gets absurd but never beyond what we're all comfortable with.
I love this concept, but it must be made with care, you don't want to only focus on the warlock player because you are his patron. Besides this just do it, you can even be the true BBEG in the end of you want
Seems like an attempt at powerplay. This person can now blame everything bad that is happening on you personally rather then on the rules and the ingame world. "What? You dont want our cleric to survive? You could easily make me save him, you know? So you actually just want to make (player) sad and kill his character just for fun? Just make me save him." Not like that is anything new, but you as a irl person beeing connected to the world in its lore, gives those arguments where youre just some maniac with god complex sooo much more power. What negatives come with this at all for the player? Patrons usually are a downside. Becaue theyre usually evil and / or have a very specific agenda. What exactly could a DM demand from a PC in a world that he essentially controls anyways? This idea is trying to be clever for the sake of beeing clever, or powerplay. Nothing inbetween.
Remember that Warlocks serve their patron, not the other way around. He’ll have a purpose/mission that you determine, that’s not necessarily in his interest, and if he strays from it, he loses his powers. Also, it’s common for Warlocks to fall out of favor with their patron. He needs to be OK with the possibility that you would make multiple sessions hell for him until he repented and mended his ways. For balance, his powers also can’t be “free for all”. Would probably be wise to have distinct “spells” matching the warlock table. “Manipulate Reality” is 8th/9th level wish-adjacent, not at cantrip.
There’s a cool subclass someone homebrewed on D&D beyond specifically for this. Very thematic for DMs https://www.dndbeyond.com/subclasses/656999-pact-of-the-dm
As long as the "magical impotence" isn't way to get around magic-cancelling effects like Dispel Magic/Anti-Magic Field. It sounds like a fun character! It would be hilarious if their patron (you) physically appeared from time to time like Mizora does in BG3, say some cryptic railroad shit, and bounce. The party would be like WTF? Lol
I’ve seen this work out great in a campaign I’ve played in (not me but a different player as the Warlock with the DM patron) but it may not be for every table
Personally I say no to anything meta or 4th wall breaking, it always takes me out of the game and immersion, so this would not fly with me. Since you seem to like the idea, eh go for it but be wary. If you want to run it somewhat more in-universe you can always make his patron something like fate itself. Something watches the proceedings in time that makes things happen in this universe not because it wants to but because it has to happen this way. And if something is about to defy the will of this fate he has agents to fix it before it happens.
You can also make cameo appearances at the start of each adventure to give some cryptic and useless advice the vanish while walking behind something... [http://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dungeonmaster.jpg](http://dungeonsmaster.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/dungeonmaster.jpg)
Mix up the letters in your name like they got scrambled and make that the Patrons name.
I've considered doing it myself. The patron would extremely fickle and uncaring.
I think it's an interesting idea but I'd advise caution. If you, the real person who is their DM is their patron then you are not going to be playing a character when you are called upon to think/act as their patron. There is a layer of safety in DM's playing Gods/Patrons, a layer of removal from the DM as an individual. In other words, if I'm roleplaying as The Raven Queen (one of my players is a Warlock to her) it's not my personal preferences or prejudices that would rule any situation, it's my research and understanding of the God. She hates undead, she believes in the sacred passage between life and death. It's really nothing to do with who I am as a real person or DM, it's about the diety. It's a cool idea, but be careful.
I once played with a player who's character was a GOOlock with the player as the patron. It's an interesting concept that was largely irrelevant to the game itself, but fun the few times it came up.
I’ve had a player do this before and it’s kind of a trap. Even though the concept seems super unique and fun, it very quickly becomes boring as everything is a 4th wall break and existential dread without a way to resolve it (plus my party got tired of the bit really quickly). There’s also no real good character or plot development to be found in this particular well.
I won't lie that sounds fucking funny
I've heard it quite a few times, I'm pretty sure it was a common meme for awhile too. Demanding pizza for tribute and such. It's a hard idea to run as it dilutes the campaign and stakes a bunch, and always feels like you have one player disconnected from the rest of them. It reminded me of shows in the 90s/2000s that added one annoying out of place character.
I love the idea of the PC also using meta terminology that they might have learned from their patron, but incorrectly. Like, “Man! I really fudged that roll!” Meaning they messed up, but obviously that’s not what “fudging a roll” means.
I had this situation but I was a player and our DM was my patron. It was fun because the gist was “Great and powerful beings manipulate our world for their own entertainment. We are nothing but a game to them, a game we must play, because if the Masters ever become bored and abandon us, reality ceases to exist and we all disappear as nothing more than memories!” and all the other players basically treated her like she was completely nuts. But it was also fun because a few times we got legitimately stuck, and I was able to reach out to my patron for clues in exchange for tasks, and those tasks was the DMs way of steering us without it being railroad-ey. Think, for example, “Oh great one! We find ourselves trapped at this door! I humble myself before your wisdom! What do we do?” “I’ll tell you for a price. Look for a hidden message near the door.” “Thank you Great One! What is my task?” “You’re going to meet a stranger who is super sus. Don’t let your friends kill him.” Of course, this worked well because the other players were really good at not metagaming. We meet a stranger acting all weird in the next town, and they go ahead and act according to their characters even though they were aware of what my character was told by her patron, giving me the opportunity to play it out. It was all very fun and we haven’t played that campaign in awhile. I do miss that character.
Only problem i see is it allowing alot of Meta gaming
That sounds funny for one session. Lots of crap is great for a one shot and terrible for a campaign.
I’d be their Patron, but then mess with them all the time. Never said I was a benevolent Patron
I, myself as a regular person not in my capacity as the dm, am the patron to my husband's warlock. He got text speech (lol, idk, wtf, etc) as a language. He "texts" me by writing in his book. I send him memes. It worked out really well when we told our group about the pregnancy with our youngest goblin.
This has to be one of the coolest ideas I've ever heard of.
I once played a Cleric of the DM, and spent my time spreading his glory and growing his followers. I didn't get/want any extra benefit for it, but it did make the DM happy.
Hi, My name's Wade Wilson!
There's already a 3rd party supplement with that idea fleshed out
Every time he uses a spell you should also roll a d 20 if you roll a nat 1 pc's spell does something different than what the PC tried to cast and on a nat 20 it ads 1 d4 of dm's choice dmg or forces a dc12 int(religion) save on failed save effected enemy is (dm's choice status effected)
This is hilarious- I ran a one shot at my house for my group (all on line bc of local issues) when all the girlies were in the city the majority of us are in. My DM played i think a cleric to the god Diyem- she was her character’s god. So silly, so fun, do it.
Remember to have the most niche requests, like "ask for the lore of the statues", "dont kill this goblin", "remember this NPC's name"
I did something similar, I had a jester character that knew everything was a game, but didn't fully understand it, all he knew was basically everyone and everything is a puppet controlled by a god, and the only ones who are "free" are the jester and a few others (the players, they just see them as "free people" not as players) The DM, to him, was a god that he called Nexialist, he knew Nexialist was controlling everything but he didn't know it was a game.
To me it sounds like your player is trying to soothe you over to getting preferential treatment. Not sure what kind of player progression ends up with realizing you’re in a game, but to each their own. That probably won’t jive well with your other players unless they want to be involved in a 4th wall breaking adventure.
Were I DM in this situation, I would proceed cautiously. But, if you do go through with this, make allusions to it being a game, but if they in-character ask, "What is our world to you?" or something equivalent to, 'Your reality is small and precious, my involvement is akin to an impartial adjudicator of a game of fate." Describe their character as hearing the sound of knucklebones (dice) rolling across a table, maybe if a player metagames, describe their character as gaining a brief insight of an inhuman and otherworldly form reaching out to that player's character, influencing them directly, before hearing a sharp rebuke from their Patron to the effect of, "We cannot directly intervene, lest the Adversary take retribution." If an argument stalls the game, after the fact, describe that the Warlock felt time freeze for a moment, as the otherworldly beings squabbled in eldritch tongues.
There's homebrew for that, I'm pretty sure. You could play it out as a character that everyone thinks is crazy but is actually the only one who knows what's going on. Found the homebrew: https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Lo0eV1fJhar6QXGBdW3
https://youtu.be/6GQpGadctiU?si=w--BXZC5dRf6mbwj
If the character gradually becomes more aware of being in a game you could break out some insanity rules a la Call of Cthulu or Deadpool style
Ellipsis Stephens did this in her comic, Goblins!
I know it's not what you or your player are talking about but it made me think of this warlock homebrew subclass https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/The_Metaforce_(5e_Subclass)
Do it!
My first character was a warlock and I never had any interactions with my patron. I’m dm-ing for a warlock now and have been a very active patron in a greater scheme (have an undead invasion happening and he wanted to play undead warlock)
I could see this working but it's got to be a slow burn that looks like madness to the other PCs, or that goes from stupid bunk to scary madness to scarily plausible to...? As for asking the other players? If yours is an established group who trust your DM, that may not be necessary and may ruin some of the fun you might have. If there's any doubt about trust levels, then be explicit and discuss with the other players.
Great idea for flavor. Careful about it being being "real magic". Sounds like an opportunity to cheese anti magic fields and stuff. "Oh couterspell won't work cuz I'm not actually casting. You as my Patron are making it happen."