D&D General Wizard vs Fighter - the math

[James Gasik]

Does that mean that a single instance of, say, a player using a loaded die to guarantee a 20 is not cheating, because a single instance cannot be "constantly"?

I find this requirement that it be a long, sustained, pervasive pattern unwarranted. Even a single instance of deception or misrepresentation can qualify as "cheating." And yes, it is a loaded term. That's kind of the point. It's highlighting how there is a shell game being played here, that things are being presented as though they were something that they aren't.


But that's not what the random monster rolls do. The random monster rolls replace encounters that had to be built by hand. It isn't the GM choosing to insert monsters that weren't there; it is them correctly using the encounter design and creation tools. That's like saying that rolling damage is cheating; it cannot be, that is how non-fixed-damage things work.

Inserting extra monsters that weren't there or rewriting the stats of monsters that are there, simply because you feel like they should be, not because you're using the rules, however, would not be using the rules as designed. Like...pretty much literally not that.


Then they have, as I said, done the work to explain that this is possible. Have they also done the work to explain why these allegedly infinite monsters don't just destroy the players instantaneously? Because that's kind of the double-edged sword here. How can there ever be safety enough for even fifteen minutes' rest, let alone eight hours?


But do you not see exactly why this isn't done? Beyond the above problem of "okay so...how is it that the opposition doesn't just win everything forever?" you get the problem of negated stakes. An enemy with infinite, always-accessible, always-refillable reserves cannot lose anything. Infinity minus one is still infinity. No amount of (finite) subtraction or division can turn the concept of infinity into any finite number, let alone zero. In using such a nuclear flyswatter, you have created a dramatically worse problem in its place.


So a player secretly bringing loaded dice is not bad or good, it comes down to how those loaded dice are employed?

Ok, first of all, where does it say Wandering Monsters replace preset encounters? I'll wait.

Second of all, "loaded dice" =/= "adding an extra monster to an encounter". If Wandering Monsters do exist that are in addition to preset encounters, then by rights, adding a Wandering Monster to an encounter is something a DM could do, if they feel the need.

Thirdly, the main reason I didn't call this sort of thing cheating is because a lot of people feel strongly about it, and I didn't want to end up fighting random posters for the next page or two jumping on me for saying so.

In my posts, I said this feels like cheating to me. Outside of politics and religion, feelings =/= facts. I don't feel comfortable presenting the various tricks the DM has in their arsenal to keep their game going as cheating, because even though I dislike using them, I do see merits in these tactics, as long as they are used sparingly and without malice. Oofta said he's totally fine with boosting encounters if things are going too easily for the players, because he claims this is what his players want. If he's making adjustments to the game to keep his players happy, then I don't see it as cheating.

DM's are humans, not gods. We make mistakes, and all we can do is try to correct those mistakes. If someone attempts to correct a mistake by fudging a die roll or adding a monster, or saying the bad guy is wearing full plate instead of half-plate, or has a rapier instead of a short sword in order to correct a mistake (ie, making the game too easy in a way that makes it less fun for the players), who is being cheated?

Conversely, let's say an encounter beats up the party more than anticipated. Is it now cheating to say an enemy in the next battle isn't present because they had to go to the bathroom? Or that a spellcaster actually did use up some of his spells earlier in the day? Who is being cheated, exactly?

In a perfect world, every DM would get encounter design right, all die rolls would be average, and there'd never be a reason to make adjustments. As the world isn't perfect, we sometimes need to use tools behind the scenes to keep the game running smoothly. Can this be abused or used improperly? Of course! But if it's not being abused or used improperly, I can't call it cheating.

D&D is a game, but it's not like Monopoly. If the banker gives themselves "interest-free loans", that's cheating. The DM, however, is not competing against or the opponent of the players (at least, not supposed to be, irregardless of some of Gary Gygax's more hyperbolic statements about those "dirty, dirty player characters"). You are a game developer, trying to make sure the game keeps running in real time.

In computer games, if there's a bug, exploit, or badly balanced encounter, the developer issues a patch, changing the parameters of the game Is this cheating?

During the Lich King boss fight in World of Warcraft, developers who wanted the encounter to be suitably epic were lurking invisibly when the first raid groups knocked down the door to his inner sanctum, making adjustments to the battle in real time, to ensure that their promise of a legendary battle was kept. Was this cheating?

The DM is tasked with creating an enjoyable game for their players. If doing so requires them to use somewhat shady methods to keep that game enjoyable for the players, I may not like it, but out and out calling it analogous to a player using a loaded die? Yeah, I don't agree.

Consider the lowly goblin archer. He's given a bow. His stat block does not say he has arrows. Is it cheating to give him arrows? Is it cheating to say he has 10, 20, or 60 arrows? Is it cheating to say the goblin has enough arrows to last the encounter? Is it cheating to say "oh, the goblin ran out of arrows, he's dropping his bow now"?

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not the one who used the word "infinite." The person I replied to did. It was not presented as hyperbole. If I was supposed to understand it as an exaggeration, that was very poorly communicated.

Infinite in "as much as is required", generally. I'm not advocating "keep adding monsters until the party is deceased" lol.

In the case of Undermountain, as presented, the place isn't going to run out of monsters. You can certainly clear out large areas of the dungeon for a little while, but it's not going to stay that way, nor can you expect it to.

Some years ago, I was running a hexcrawl. The players were exploring parts of the map, clearing out monsters as they went. After a few weeks of this, they went back to an area that they had previously explored and had an encounter. One of my players cried foul "but we killed everything there!".

"No, you killed the thing you encountered there at that time. Do you honestly think there's only one dangerous creature in this area? Or that everything that's dangerous here is going to be present when you happen by? Or that new predators can't move in after awhile?"

"But that means killing all these monsters is pointless if they can just come back!"

"If your goal is to keep an area monster free, then you're going to have to do more work. You can't just enter a hex and kill everything you find, you need to consider what's in the surrounding hexes as well. Simply put, it's going to take a lot more work to keep an area threat free forever."

"So you'll just keep restocking these areas with infinitely respawning monsters any time we come back."

"It depends on how long you've been away. Come back here tomorrow, chances are good nothing is going to attack you. Come back here in a week or two? Chances aren't as good."

What I knew, and they didn't know, was that some hexes had alternate encounters, and there was a general "wandering predator" check I made any time the players would enter an empty hex. Was I going to endlessly populate the forest? Of course not. But I thought, at the time, that the risk of a potential threat anywhere they went made more sense than not.

That player didn't think so. They felt that if they killed a few stirges, they should never encounter another stirge. Whereas I had a much higher necessary kill count in my head, as well as finding things like where the stirges nested, destroying their eggs, and so on.

But upon reflection, I considered that I hadn't made this clear to the players, I'd simply assumed that what was logical to me would have naturally occurred to them as well. This became more apparent as they encountered threats they weren't able to handle just yet- my intent had been to make them realize the threat, prepare for it, and go back later.

They instead opted to explore new areas rather than ever return, lol. Realizing that this was frustrating them, I made some changes and brought the adventure more in line with their expectations.

Because that's what a good DM does, as far as I'm concerned. It's not that my initial plan was a bad idea, it just wasn't a good fit for my play group.

 

[Minigiant]

Infinite in "as much as is required", generally. I'm not advocating "keep adding monsters until the party is deceased" lol.

In the case of Undermountain, as presented, the place isn't going to run out of monsters. You can certainly clear out large areas of the dungeon for a little while, but it's not going to stay that way, nor can you expect it to.

Some years ago, I was running a hexcrawl. The players were exploring parts of the map, clearing out monsters as they went. After a few weeks of this, they went back to an area that they had previously explored and had an encounter. One of my players cried foul "but we killed everything there!".

"No, you killed the thing you encountered there at that time. Do you honestly think there's only one dangerous creature in this area? Or that everything that's dangerous here is going to be present when you happen by? Or that new predators can't move in after awhile?"

"But that means killing all these monsters is pointless if they can just come back!"

"If your goal is to keep an area monster free, then you're going to have to do more work. You can't just enter a hex and kill everything you find, you need to consider what's in the surrounding hexes as well. Simply put, it's going to take a lot more work to keep an area threat free forever."

"So you'll just keep restocking these areas with infinitely respawning monsters any time we come back."

"It depends on how long you've been away. Come back here tomorrow, chances are good nothing is going to attack you. Come back here in a week or two? Chances aren't as good."

What I knew, and they didn't know, was that some hexes had alternate encounters, and there was a general "wandering predator" check I made any time the players would enter an empty hex. Was I going to endlessly populate the forest? Of course not. But I thought, at the time, that the risk of a potential threat anywhere they went made more sense than not.

That player didn't think so. They felt that if they killed a few stirges, they should never encounter another stirge. Whereas I had a much higher necessary kill count in my head, as well as finding things like where the stirges nested, destroying their eggs, and so on.

But upon reflection, I considered that I hadn't made this clear to the players, I'd simply assumed that what was logical to me would have naturally occurred to them as well. This became more apparent as they encountered threats they weren't able to handle just yet- my intent had been to make them realize the threat, prepare for it, and go back later.

They instead opted to explore new areas rather than ever return, lol. Realizing that this was frustrating them, I made some changes and brought the adventure more in line with their expectations.

Because that's what a good DM does, as far as I'm concerned. It's not that my initial plan was a bad idea, it just wasn't a good fit for my play group.

This is basically what I mean.

People assume the players understand the players have the same knowledge about how the world works.

But they literally cannot unless the DM tells or shows it o rcome from the same worldbuilding base.

 

[Minigiant]

I've certainly seen wandering monsters promoted as means to enforce pace of play. But I've seen it as a random wandering monster roll every x amount of time (resting or not). Never as a, you rest too often you get a monster (but never as long as you rest "just right.")

I have experienced it. Granted in 3e.

But I've heard of people using it to discourage constant resting.

Reading this just reinforces my idea that some people need DMs that will do the prep work. I have never, in my 30 years, seen this from a DM with experience. It has, and is always, based on the story. I haven't seen this promoted by any DM on this thread either. What I have seen is: "You rest in the middle of a temple, and the cognizant antagonist knows you're there - things change. You do get attacked - because they know how magic works too."

Like I've said early in the thread "things changes" is not saying.

What actually changed can vary from DM to DM. And different DM have different ideas what different monsters or antagonists can do.

That typically is the conflict. DM not explaining or displaying how their world works because their world is different from another. And players not asking until it bothers them.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ok, first of all, where does it say Wandering Monsters replace preset encounters? I'll wait.

It...doesn't have to? If it is in fact actually random, that is the function it serves. You don't decide that wandering monsters will happen. They might not. That's all

Second of all, "loaded dice" =/= "adding an extra monster to an encounter". If Wandering Monsters do exist that are in addition to preset encounters, then by rights, adding a Wandering Monster to an encounter is something a DM could do, if they feel the need.

Why not? Doing something randomly because it is actually random vs doing something because you've decided it's what should be is the only meaningful difference between the two. A fair die is random (or, at least, as close as we can get). A loaded die is not random. Wandering monsters are random (or, at least, as close as we can get). Deciding to insert additional monsters is not random.

The symmetry remains.

Thirdly, the main reason I didn't call this sort of thing cheating is because a lot of people feel strongly about it, and I didn't want to end up fighting random posters for the next page or two jumping on me for saying so.

I mean, fair, but from my perspective, one should call a spade a spade.

In my posts, I said this feels like cheating to me. Outside of politics and religion, feelings =/= facts. I don't feel comfortable presenting the various tricks the DM has in their arsenal to keep their game going as cheating, because even though I dislike using them, I do see merits in these tactics, as long as they are used sparingly and without malice.

I just do not know of any merits which cannot be replicated in full by methods that don't require such controversy. That's my key problem here. Anything you can do with this, you can do without it--and no, you don't always need prep to make it happen.

Just because someone acts without malice does not mean that their choices are correct. It simply means that they are not trying to do harm. But it is quite easy--common, even--for someone to do harm while wanting to to good, believing they do good, convinced of the righteousness of their cause.

DM's are humans, not gods. We make mistakes, and all we can do is try to correct those mistakes. If someone attempts to correct a mistake by fudging a die roll or adding a monster, or saying the bad guy is wearing full plate instead of half-plate, or has a rapier instead of a short sword in order to correct a mistake (ie, making the game too easy in a way that makes it less fun for the players), who is being cheated?

The players, and in a more abstract sense, the DM. The players are being cheated out of actually playing a game that has rules; they are instead being treated merely as an audience that will witness the events the DM has prefigured. If events drift away, the DM will secretly push them back to where they're supposed to be. That is fundamentally what happens with "tricks" like this--it is, as that word implies, trickery. It is not simply a fiction, it is presenting a fictional world as though the choices and risks taken matter, when they don't. The DM can, and will, step in whenever and wherever they feel like.

In the more abstract sense, the DM has cheated herself out of the chance to actually learn from the mistake--and to face the fact that she is human, that she cannot put up a front of perfection before her players. This power to secretly, and invisibly, correct any and all mistakes, which will thus be hidden from the players whenever it is used (because calling attention to it would, as all parties generally agree, be a bad move), is quite specifically the power to pretend that you never make mistakes.

Conversely, let's say an encounter beats up the party more than anticipated. Is it now cheating to say an enemy in the next battle isn't present because they had to go to the bathroom? Or that a spellcaster actually did use up some of his spells earlier in the day? Who is being cheated, exactly?

Simply for that reason and no other? Yes, I would say so. Because it means the party is being denied the connection between their actions and the consequences thereof. The DM is rewriting the world, dynamically, to blunt bad consequences and good consequences alike. The players are thus not actually choosing anything; if they had chosen well, the consequences they earned would be just as blunted as if they had chosen poorly. That's the whole thing here. The DM is actually writing both the world AND the consequences of the players' actions. When the DM writes the input AND the output...what, exactly, are the players doing? Witnessing. As stated.

D&D is a game, but it's not like Monopoly. If the banker gives themselves "interest-free loans", that's cheating. The DM, however, is not competing against or the opponent of the players (at least, not supposed to be, irregardless of some of Gary Gygax's more hyperbolic statements about those "dirty, dirty player characters"). You are a game developer, trying to make sure the game keeps running in real time.

I don't know of any gaming community that would tolerate the developers actively meddling with their playthrough of the game in real time. Especially if they did so to make things easier for groups that were struggling and harder for groups that were stomping. The howls of unfairness, of coddling the unskilled and punishing the skillful, would almost be loud enough to hear from space.

In computer games, if there's a bug, exploit, or badly balanced encounter, the developer issues a patch, changing the parameters of the game Is this cheating?

No, because it cannot happen while the player is actually in the fight itself. And, in general, because players (quite rightly) demand that developers list patch notes which at least explain in high-concept terms what things have been changed and how.

If you've done any online gaming at all, you should already know that people get royally pisssed about "stealth" changes that don't get mentioned in patch notes but DO actually affect what their players can do or achieve. Players deeply hate that sort of thing, and yes, it is essentially treated as "cheating," albeit usually not referred to by that word. It is seen as a betrayal of trust between player and developer, which is the part of "cheating" that matters in this context. Consider, for instance, how Amazon Games put up a public test realm, a place meant to test and preview upcoming major gameplay changes...and then put in a bunch of unannounced, undocumented changes in the next major patch, "completely defeating the purpose of having a public test realm," as Josh "Strife" Hayes put it.

During the Lich King boss fight in World of Warcraft, developers who wanted the encounter to be suitably epic were lurking invisibly when the first raid groups knocked down the door to his inner sanctum, making adjustments to the battle in real time, to ensure that their promise of a legendary battle was kept. Was this cheating?

Personally, I would say yes, absolutely. I'm honestly shocked to hear that they did this. Most players would be pissed to know that they didn't actually get the fight as designed, they instead got a fight much, much harder than designed purely for the theater of it. Do you have evidence for this claim? Because I've gone looking and can't find it myself, but perhaps I simply don't know the right phrases to put in Google. I would be genuinely, deeply shocked if this were actually a thing. Hardcore raiding players, in general, do not want such things. They want a win they feel they earned fair and square, and a fight which gets harder solely because they are doing well would ruin that.

The DM is tasked with creating an enjoyable game for their players. If doing so requires them to use somewhat shady methods to keep that game enjoyable for the players, I may not like it, but out and out calling it analogous to a player using a loaded die? Yeah, I don't agree.

I mean, you're willing to call it shady. Why do shady things? That's literally what I'm asking. There are tools you can use which are not shady. None of the things you can achieve with such "shady methods" are only achievable that way. And, as I said, such open-book methods are not predicated on the idea of being absolutely perfect and never making a mistake. Some are less overt about recognizing the issue than others, but all of them play with their cards up, so to speak.

Consider the lowly goblin archer. He's given a bow. His stat block does not say he has arrows. Is it cheating to give him arrows? Is it cheating to say he has 10, 20, or 60 arrows? Is it cheating to say the goblin has enough arrows to last the encounter? Is it cheating to say "oh, the goblin ran out of arrows, he's dropping his bow now"?

I refuse to answer questions that are obviously facetious.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But upon reflection, I considered that I hadn't made this clear to the players, I'd simply assumed that what was logical to me would have naturally occurred to them as well. This became more apparent as they encountered threats they weren't able to handle just yet- my intent had been to make them realize the threat, prepare for it, and go back later.

They instead opted to explore new areas rather than ever return, lol. Realizing that this was frustrating them, I made some changes and brought the adventure more in line with their expectations.

Because that's what a good DM does, as far as I'm concerned. It's not that my initial plan was a bad idea, it just wasn't a good fit for my play group.

Alternatively, as I have been saying, you didn't do the work to justify the action.

This fits perfectly with my "beyond the horizon" description. From the players' perspective, they had no reason to believe that they hadn't faced off against whatever was meaningfully dangerous in the area. Nothing informed them of what was going to happen. Hence, they felt frustrated--felt their trust had been betrayed--when they learned only after the fact that areas they believed "cleared" could actually be swarming with dangers.

You saw it as, "Well, sure, they killed SOME stuff there, but just because they've walked through doesn't mean they've picked it clean with a fine-toothed comb." In other words, you saw their "horizon" as being effectively just whatever teeny-tiny paths they had walked through that territory. The vast bulk of it remained unseen, and thus untouched, and thus (potentially) full of creatures.

They didn't. They saw it as "alright, that hex is now no longer beyond the horizon. We know what is there. We've seen it and dealt with it."

It is, in fact, your responsibility to inform the players of the things they should know, including what their characters should know, and yes, sometimes, even including things which seem so brain-meltingly, bone-deep obvious that even a sleep-deprived five-year-old with a bad fever should know it at first glance. You are their one and only information source. What you don't tell them, they can't know.

Hence: You have to do the work to justify this stuff.

Something diegetic is of course preferable, e.g. a grizzled old vet telling them the lay of the land, and saying, "Jus' remember, kiddos, where ye find five stirges, ye find five hunnerd. Unless ye plan t'clear erry last nook an' cranny, bes' be prepped t'fight goin' out and comin' back, erry time." With that one bit of dialogue, you'd be telling them "don't believe you're safe just because you went through somewhere once." Now, you can also just say that non-diegetically, but I find most players really get in the mood more when you use diegetic methods instead.

Using "shady" methods to dodge around this essential part of DM skill is a crutch. And the more you use a crutch you don't actually need, the harder it is to walk without it.

 

[James Gasik]

The "shadiness" is my opinion. Given my druthers, I'd rather do things another way, but sometimes circumstances don't allow for it. I find myself needing to make adjustments right here and now, not course correct in the future. I cannot, however, agree that the players are cheated when given the experience they wish to have instead of the one they would have gotten otherwise.

We live in a world with many kinds of diversions. People will gravitate towards the diversions they prefer. If they're not getting what they want from a D&D game, they'll go do something else.

When I screw up, I tell my players I did so. I don't necessarily tell them what I'm going to do about it (since I might not know myself in the moment), but I do let them know what I'm trying to do.

D&D is a game. It's all fake. If you scrutinize any part of it closely, you're going to see it's held together with abstractions and fiat the way my car is held together with baling wire and duct tape. The DM is the stage director, moving actors and sets around behind the curtain, the players are the audience. That my preference is to do this as little as possible because I don't like it doesn't mean I'm going to insult people who have a different opinion by calling them "cheaters".

Nor do I think of it that way. It's a method of running the game that has been enshrined by years of DM advice, a lot given by actual people who make the game. As much as I love the ideal of the DM and the players being on a level field, all being forced to follow the same rules, with as little fiat as possible, the reality is, the rules must serve the game. If following the rules makes the game harder to run, harder to play, and less fun for the people playing it, the rules must be changed or discarded.

And the primary power of the DM is "you decide what the rules are"*. However, the corollary to this, and something every DM must be mindful of is, "there is no game without the players". If they don't like the way the game is being run, they'll go do something else.

*I'd rather this be "the group decides what the rules are", but often times when I've talked to my players and said "so I'm thinking about this rule, and changing it, what do you think?", I rarely get useful input, lol.

 

[pemerton]

Some people like largely GM-driven play. Some like Caves of Chaos-ish exploration, "how far can we push ourselves?" play. Some (perhaps fewer) like scene-framed play.

It seems silly to call one of these approaches "cheating" or otherwise "wrong" by applying a different approach as a normative standard.

As far as the players working out which approach is being used by a given GM, telling them seems the most straightforward solution to this.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

@EzekielRaiden simple answer to why the GM doing this is not cheating, is that the game is designed so they are allowed to do this. GM can change any rule, any part of the fiction if they so choose. It is not cheating. However, there are a lot of ways to do this which will lead to dysfunctional and unsatisfying game, but being a bad GM is not cheating.

And we can talk about good and bad GMing practices, but generally I feel people tend to have a reason to do things the way they do. It might not be the way I'd do it, or the way I'd like as a player, but I'm not at their table, and it might be what that works for that group. Now of course some things might genuinely just sound like bad ideas, and one might question them, but accusing people of cheating when they de jure are not is not helpful to conversation.

And when it comes to GMing practices, I have found it is better to treat them as the pirate code, general guidelines and not hard and fast rules. It might be generally good idea to do things in certain ways, but it is possible, even likely, that some unlikely situations will crop up where it will be better to abandon the guideline.

Like I agree with you that the GM should not alter the encounter parameters after the encounter has started. Yet I have done so. Super rarely, but I have. Why? Because I overlooked something and made a mistake when designing the encounter. For example I often use reskinned monsters with slightly altered statblocks to represent something they originally weren't meant for. But sometimes during the encounter I have realised that in my hurry I had forgot to take account some aspect of the original monster mechanics (such as immunity or resistance or lack of such) that did not make sense for the reskin. So I change that there and then.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

@EzekielRaiden simple answer to why the GM doing this is not cheating, is that the game is designed so they are allowed to do this. GM can change any rule, any part of the fiction if they so choose. It is not cheating. However, there are a lot of ways to do this which will lead to dysfunctional and unsatisfying game, but being a bad GM is not cheating.

No game I know of has any design which prevents the use of weighted dice. Hence, weighted dice are not cheating.

It would seem there are unstated premises before we can reach the conclusion you desire.

And we can talk about good and bad GMing practices, but generally I feel people tend to have a reason to do things the way they do. It might not be the way I'd do it, or the way I'd like as a player, but I'm not at their table, and it might be what that works for that group. Now of course some things might genuinely just sound like bad ideas, and one might question them, but accusing people of cheating when they de jure are not is not helpful to conversation.

Having a reason does not make it a good reason. As I said, plenty of people want to be helpful, but cause harm believing that what they are doing is helpful.

As I said above, I see this as a matter of calling a spade a spade. Perhaps that is indelicate. When I speak of things with the kind of precision and specificity I prefer, I find folks tend to ignore the details. When I speak plainly, unadorned, I am accused of missing the details, being unhelpful, etc. How can one tackle the question, then?

A game is, of its nature, an agreement between parties. Changing the details of an agreement between parties, not only secretly, but actively doing so in a way that you never, ever want the other parties to find out, is an abrogation of the very idea of making an agreement between parties.

And when it cones to GMing practices, I have found it is better to treat them as the pirate code, general guidelines and not hard and fast rules. It might be generally good idea to do things in certain ways, but it is possible, even likely, that some unlikely situations will crop up where it will be better to abandon the guideline.

Perhaps. But even with a "pirate code" and "guidelines," there are choices which always have negative consequences and choices that don't have those negative consequences. If you can achieve absolutely everything that the former set of choices could achieve, by doing the latter, what is the point of doing the former?

Like I agree with you that the GM should not alter the encounter parameters after the encounter has started. Yet I have done so. Super rarely, but I have. Why? Because I overlooked something and made a mistake when designing the encounter. For example I often use reskinned monsters with slightly altered statblocks to represent something they originally weren't meant for. But sometimes during the encounter I have realised that in my hurry I had forgot to take account some aspect of the original monster mechanics (such as immunity or resistance or lack of such) that did not make sense for the reskin. So I change that there and then.

But there are ways to address that mistake--even after the fact--that don't require the "shady" elements. That are completely above-board, straight-shooting. Why choose to deceive, when you could achieve all the same things without deception?