Unfortunately missed this stream, but you know I'm verbose. Regarding the "instrusive thoughts" discussion, I have a current process that isn't perfect, but is working for me. I just talk to the player rather than keeping it in-world. "Most people, even most adventurers would be frightened at the sight of..." sort of deal. Or "a cultured person would realize that..."
On why skills a tributes are not more flexible by base. I honestly think it is largely because it makes the math more annoying, as you would need to look at two numbers every time. You couldn't just have your total skill modifier on you sheet, because you wouldn't know which attribute to use. And if you did have a place to list the total with the most common attribute (which is how it works currently, if you use the opitional rule), now you need to remember which number to look for when. I think this annoyance for perhaps little gain is what ultimately killed the idea. To give an example of another mechanic that got simplified in a similar way, in 3rd edition AC was more complex and variable. You have your base AC which is how it is now, but you also had flat-foot AC and touch AC. Flat-foot AC was for when you are surprised so you couldn't add your dex mofier, as you had no time to actively dodge, meaning only your passive AC counted. Touch AC was for (usually magical) attacks where just touching you was enough, so armor was useless. These categories are intuitive so it is generally easy enough to know which one applies for each attack, but having to subtract dex or armor from your base AC every time was annoying. So, 3.5 they added a new field for both touch and flat footed AC in your sheet. But now you had 3 different AC in your sheet to check, and they can be wildly different, so better not accidently look at the wrong one. It wasn't that hard but, still, kind of an annoyance, so they were ultimately removed.
Re: Garmelie's reaction to the deal. This really depends on how you want to characterize the feywild. The elves definitely have a connection to the fey, but they are not stereotypically fey. Makes sense, they spend most of their time in the prime material plane. Garmelie is their main representative of the feywild, since he can speak, etc. If you make Garmelie get upset at the deal, you are rejecting the stereotype of "fey is about the letter of the law, you need to watch out for tricks that the fey might pull," and tell the players that the fey care about the spirit of the agreement. The way Garmelie reacted says "yes, the letter of the agreement matters more than the spirit." Edit: Hoovy made mostly this same point. Leaving it, because I want to emphasize that it's a DM choice in how you characterize the fey. He COULD have still made Garmelie not match the stereotype, since Garmelie is basically their intro to the sapient fey.
A bit late, but I think part of the problem with 5e's class designs weirdness are historical. In older editions rogue was the "skill class". In 3e they got more skill than everyone and in previous editions they were one of the *only* class that had skills (along with bard). Bard is on a similar boat. They were historically "rogue-light plus some magic and buffs". That is why, I suspect, they receive so much skill support, to allow them to work how they always worked. Thing is, 5e is a lot more flexible. In older editions the main thing was just having access to the skills was notable. Even after 3rd edition when other classes got even basic access to skills, they were still heavily limited in how many they could take and there was a penalty for "non class skills". So other classes couldn't be as good as a rogue in rogue skills, or at least not in all of them. But in 5e the number of skills is more standardized, and any class has access to any skill through background, so to compensate they made it so rogues (and bards) are better at skills to keep the identity. Problem is, because skill choice is flexible, now rogues (and bards) can take expertise in *anything*, which feels odd. To be honest, that is why I am kinda surprised so many people hated Silver Tongue. To my mind it is a much better designed feature than Reliable Talent, or even the blanket expertise both rogues and bards get. At least it is limited to the specific class fantasy. Like, a bard being better at talking than any other class (including the other charisma class) make sense. A rogue being possibly better at, say, history, than any other class (including studious classes) feels like a loophole.
Sorry for the message spam, I promise this one will be the last. But I do want to say I agree with you about the strength of this format. To see you form opinions and then change them as the story progresses. To see theories as they form as are confirmed or fall appart. I love Critical Role Demystified but I love your kind of content even more. Well, to be perfectly honest though, "video reaction" is not my actual favorite format. I prefer what is sometimes called a "liveblog", which is basically the same thing except written (maybe with screenshots for context). To capture the moment to moment reaction without all the dead air in the middle (also, much faster to read. Though much longer to create, which is why the format is not super popular when compared to reaction). Another format I like is episode by episode reviews, keeps part of the moment to moment experience (between episodes that is it) but more concise. Don't take this as a petition for you to change, though, I know you do what you think you do best and/or enjoy more.
Re: NPC vs DMPC It's very similar to the concept of a Mary Sue. A DMPC is problematic because they are so obviously favored by (functionally) God. The world literally bends to favor them. They know everything, they have every skill that is needed, they are The Chosen One. They have plot armor. Etc. Usually all of the above.
Re: Complete confidence until you suddenly change your mind. I've heard you say this before, and I only now thought of a comparison. I wonder if your GMing influences or is influenced by this? Because as GMs we often have to act confident as our plans fall apart, etc. We don't let on to the players how close they are to disaster.
I think my GMing was more influenced by it than did the influencing, but it's debatable. The thing that definitely had the most impact on young me was doing live theater. I did nearly 30 shows before college, and I very nearly went to an art school for a performing arts degree, but went to a closer (in-state) school for financial reasons. Now, I don't think it's any coincidence that theater and D&D get compared so often, there's certainly a connection there, and with this topic in particular there's an almost "show must go on" attitude that could play a role. But honestly, larger than even that, my friend group just liked to argue growing up. I don't know what it was for us, but nights with good arguments where everyone had fun were some of the most enjoyable times in my childhood. Again, I have no idea why this developed or how, but it definitely imprinted on me quite a bit.
Ok, that is not at all relevant but I can't let such a big misinformation stand. Brasília, the capital of Brazil, was not build in the dictatorship days, it was, in fact, build in the democratic period between 2 dictatorships. And, unlike many planned cities by dictatorships, the idea wasn't *that* awful. The purpose was to make a more central capital, which allows for resources to be not so concentrated on the Rio-São Paulo area. It also helped the spread the population more, away from the coast and more into the inner country which was mostly "empty". Also, it is strategically safer (which doesn't matter much considering Brasil rarely ever was in a war but, still). Which is not to say it was really a good thing. Populating the inner country is not an inherently "good" thing, to start with (I am not sure how many indigenous land was left to steal at that point, but likely it didn't help. And less concentrated population is actually worse for the environment also). And, unlike other big cities in the country, Brasília was designed in a very car centric way, which is a terrible way to design cities. Still, it is a mistake to think it is a dictatorship vanity project like the city in Egypt or something. It was, in many ways, a bad idea, but it is not like they weren't trying to accomplish good things with it.
Re: Ability checks being weirdly balanced. It is my opinion that they skewed skills to try and "balance" the abilities. Con has no skills associated because con is important for every class, being tied to HP. Strength has only one, because it is so important to literally every martial by default. The mental stats have so many skills to try and get non-casters to care about them at all. The only real counterpoint is that the (IMO) most important ability for skills (Wisdom) also is the primary ability score for half of the casters. (But I think that's just because 5e really underestimated the power of their casters overall.)
I think that makes sense for some of them, but is a bit weird when considering Dex (or Wis, like you mentioned). The ability scores overall are kind of strange. They affect so much, which is fair, they're the core of the game, but that becomes an odd, sort of tangled, black box if you look at it too long. Makes it hard to even approach an idea of true balance
Unfortunately missed this stream, but you know I'm verbose.
Regarding the "instrusive thoughts" discussion, I have a current process that isn't perfect, but is working for me. I just talk to the player rather than keeping it in-world. "Most people, even most adventurers would be frightened at the sight of..." sort of deal. Or "a cultured person would realize that..."
On why skills a tributes are not more flexible by base. I honestly think it is largely because it makes the math more annoying, as you would need to look at two numbers every time. You couldn't just have your total skill modifier on you sheet, because you wouldn't know which attribute to use. And if you did have a place to list the total with the most common attribute (which is how it works currently, if you use the opitional rule), now you need to remember which number to look for when. I think this annoyance for perhaps little gain is what ultimately killed the idea.
To give an example of another mechanic that got simplified in a similar way, in 3rd edition AC was more complex and variable. You have your base AC which is how it is now, but you also had flat-foot AC and touch AC. Flat-foot AC was for when you are surprised so you couldn't add your dex mofier, as you had no time to actively dodge, meaning only your passive AC counted. Touch AC was for (usually magical) attacks where just touching you was enough, so armor was useless. These categories are intuitive so it is generally easy enough to know which one applies for each attack, but having to subtract dex or armor from your base AC every time was annoying. So, 3.5 they added a new field for both touch and flat footed AC in your sheet. But now you had 3 different AC in your sheet to check, and they can be wildly different, so better not accidently look at the wrong one. It wasn't that hard but, still, kind of an annoyance, so they were ultimately removed.
Re: Garmelie's reaction to the deal.
This really depends on how you want to characterize the feywild. The elves definitely have a connection to the fey, but they are not stereotypically fey. Makes sense, they spend most of their time in the prime material plane. Garmelie is their main representative of the feywild, since he can speak, etc. If you make Garmelie get upset at the deal, you are rejecting the stereotype of "fey is about the letter of the law, you need to watch out for tricks that the fey might pull," and tell the players that the fey care about the spirit of the agreement. The way Garmelie reacted says "yes, the letter of the agreement matters more than the spirit."
Edit: Hoovy made mostly this same point. Leaving it, because I want to emphasize that it's a DM choice in how you characterize the fey. He COULD have still made Garmelie not match the stereotype, since Garmelie is basically their intro to the sapient fey.
A bit late, but I think part of the problem with 5e's class designs weirdness are historical. In older editions rogue was the "skill class". In 3e they got more skill than everyone and in previous editions they were one of the *only* class that had skills (along with bard). Bard is on a similar boat. They were historically "rogue-light plus some magic and buffs". That is why, I suspect, they receive so much skill support, to allow them to work how they always worked.
Thing is, 5e is a lot more flexible. In older editions the main thing was just having access to the skills was notable. Even after 3rd edition when other classes got even basic access to skills, they were still heavily limited in how many they could take and there was a penalty for "non class skills". So other classes couldn't be as good as a rogue in rogue skills, or at least not in all of them. But in 5e the number of skills is more standardized, and any class has access to any skill through background, so to compensate they made it so rogues (and bards) are better at skills to keep the identity. Problem is, because skill choice is flexible, now rogues (and bards) can take expertise in *anything*, which feels odd.
To be honest, that is why I am kinda surprised so many people hated Silver Tongue. To my mind it is a much better designed feature than Reliable Talent, or even the blanket expertise both rogues and bards get. At least it is limited to the specific class fantasy. Like, a bard being better at talking than any other class (including the other charisma class) make sense. A rogue being possibly better at, say, history, than any other class (including studious classes) feels like a loophole.
Sorry for the message spam, I promise this one will be the last. But I do want to say I agree with you about the strength of this format. To see you form opinions and then change them as the story progresses. To see theories as they form as are confirmed or fall appart. I love Critical Role Demystified but I love your kind of content even more.
Well, to be perfectly honest though, "video reaction" is not my actual favorite format. I prefer what is sometimes called a "liveblog", which is basically the same thing except written (maybe with screenshots for context). To capture the moment to moment reaction without all the dead air in the middle (also, much faster to read. Though much longer to create, which is why the format is not super popular when compared to reaction). Another format I like is episode by episode reviews, keeps part of the moment to moment experience (between episodes that is it) but more concise. Don't take this as a petition for you to change, though, I know you do what you think you do best and/or enjoy more.
Re: NPC vs DMPC
It's very similar to the concept of a Mary Sue. A DMPC is problematic because they are so obviously favored by (functionally) God. The world literally bends to favor them. They know everything, they have every skill that is needed, they are The Chosen One. They have plot armor. Etc. Usually all of the above.
Re: Complete confidence until you suddenly change your mind.
I've heard you say this before, and I only now thought of a comparison. I wonder if your GMing influences or is influenced by this? Because as GMs we often have to act confident as our plans fall apart, etc. We don't let on to the players how close they are to disaster.
I think my GMing was more influenced by it than did the influencing, but it's debatable. The thing that definitely had the most impact on young me was doing live theater. I did nearly 30 shows before college, and I very nearly went to an art school for a performing arts degree, but went to a closer (in-state) school for financial reasons.
Now, I don't think it's any coincidence that theater and D&D get compared so often, there's certainly a connection there, and with this topic in particular there's an almost "show must go on" attitude that could play a role.
But honestly, larger than even that, my friend group just liked to argue growing up. I don't know what it was for us, but nights with good arguments where everyone had fun were some of the most enjoyable times in my childhood. Again, I have no idea why this developed or how, but it definitely imprinted on me quite a bit.
Ok, that is not at all relevant but I can't let such a big misinformation stand. Brasília, the capital of Brazil, was not build in the dictatorship days, it was, in fact, build in the democratic period between 2 dictatorships. And, unlike many planned cities by dictatorships, the idea wasn't *that* awful. The purpose was to make a more central capital, which allows for resources to be not so concentrated on the Rio-São Paulo area. It also helped the spread the population more, away from the coast and more into the inner country which was mostly "empty". Also, it is strategically safer (which doesn't matter much considering Brasil rarely ever was in a war but, still).
Which is not to say it was really a good thing. Populating the inner country is not an inherently "good" thing, to start with (I am not sure how many indigenous land was left to steal at that point, but likely it didn't help. And less concentrated population is actually worse for the environment also). And, unlike other big cities in the country, Brasília was designed in a very car centric way, which is a terrible way to design cities. Still, it is a mistake to think it is a dictatorship vanity project like the city in Egypt or something. It was, in many ways, a bad idea, but it is not like they weren't trying to accomplish good things with it.
Re: Ability checks being weirdly balanced.
It is my opinion that they skewed skills to try and "balance" the abilities. Con has no skills associated because con is important for every class, being tied to HP. Strength has only one, because it is so important to literally every martial by default. The mental stats have so many skills to try and get non-casters to care about them at all. The only real counterpoint is that the (IMO) most important ability for skills (Wisdom) also is the primary ability score for half of the casters. (But I think that's just because 5e really underestimated the power of their casters overall.)
I think that makes sense for some of them, but is a bit weird when considering Dex (or Wis, like you mentioned).
The ability scores overall are kind of strange. They affect so much, which is fair, they're the core of the game, but that becomes an odd, sort of tangled, black box if you look at it too long. Makes it hard to even approach an idea of true balance