Rule Suggestion SCP breaches should have the option of being passive

[CherryBones]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

I think the rule should be changed to allow SCPs to be passive to foundation personnel. It would provide more interesting scenarios if breached SCPs could choose to be passive without direct GM intervention. Examples such as 912 (who might still want to listen to GSD) or 049 (the old man just wants to go for a walk) could lead to fun RP.

This change would effect the following rules:



Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:

I didn't see a similar suggestion but I could be blind.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):

1. Natural RP. It kind of just happens. With the choice of being passive to foundation personnel it allows players to make split second decisions on who to trust or interact with. It would waive the specification of instantaneous deals and instead include long lasting deals that could evolve into RP.

2. The ability to pretend to be passive could make it so that smart SCPs can just lie. It still falls under the idea of 'natural RP' but allows a different avenue of trying to break out. Manipulation is possible for certain SCPs but isn't often used on the server. Granted, that may be because most people wouldn't trust an SCP, but SCPs also lack any way of doing this other than going back on their instantaneous deals.

3. Someone who's more focused on RP doesn't have to suddenly start killing people if they'd rather not. 912 is a decent example where they're on 912 for a few hours and having fun with interactions. Then suddenly they're breached. What are they supposed to do? Turn on the foundation and ruin the interaction? The ability to be passive gives them the option to do their own thing, possibly trying to hide/lie about the facts they have guns.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:

1. Elongates the breach queue.

2. Getting a GM and E11 auth isn't "that hard".

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:

The first negative is the only thing I worry about. I know changes are being made to SCP game loops and breach queue itself has gone through some changes. I'll be fully transparent that I don't think SCPs should be peaceful to GOC or CI. One wants to kill them, the other wants to use them to kill. I feel like E11 would enjoy the interactions of trying to persuade an SCP into being re-contained rather than having to run at them and die. RsD would benefit from more passive SCPs outside their cell as it makes certain tests easier. Dimensional testing comes to mind because dimensions can't be opened in most SCP's cells.

I personally think the second negative is just to get around the first one. Doing it via GM is the only way not to elongate the queue, but I still think it would be so much better if it just kinda happened. What if 7722 decided not to rampage the foundation today because a test concluded ten minutes before breach and said test ensured him that the entire foundation is holy or something? Possible peak.

 

[Emilia Foddg]

This change would effect the following rules:

"We want more RP over combat" also completely removes the opportunity for an SCP to make their natural breach passive. I would expect something like this to accompany the addition of a passive breach queue. This is massively counter-intuitive.

I can only see these changes as just a straight rugpull on the part of SSL+. I understand the intent of not wanting to disrupt the queue/gameplay for other SCPs, but the only expectations for someone else's breach that another player should have, is if they hack them out/breach tool them out. That I can understand, because if you go passive after being hacked/tooled out, that wastes the other player's breach tool/hacking effort. But forcing all breaches to be hostile because of other players forcing their expectations on other players, because they happened to share the same space in the queue is absolutely insane and downright unacceptable.

Firmly downthumbered.
+Overwhelming Support
You want my genuine, actual, real solution to all of this, in lieu of an actual passive breach queue implementation? Wild west it. Let any SCP attempt to have a passive breach, and leave the final decision of whether that passive breach is approved, up to other players ICly (i.e. Site Admin, etc.). Have rules around F using SCPs to curveball other SCP breaches or potentially CI raids (i.e. 079 passive breaches, F then weaponise 079 against the other breaches/GOIs under threat of deauthing the passive breach - Ruleplay that to be disallowed, but make allowances for SCPs to be able to defend themselves against being captured by GOIs)

That is how things should be. You cannot possibly convince me otherwise. Make it make sense.

EDIT: I did attempt to passive breach the "recommended" way by creating a GM ticket and arranging for a passive breach to occur, admittedly with the malicious intent of acquiring a damning screenshot of "you can't passive breach as 096" and throwing a tantrum about that, but to my surprise, I had a pretty good back and forth about it and in the end, the passive breach as 096 could actually have occurred and generated some interesting RP - But it didn't, due to no-one being able to fulfil the request at the time; Which raises the point of GM availability. While GMs should definitely be able to assist with and enhance passive breach gameplay, and it should be encouraged that players reach out to them to do so via the F6 menu and/or the GM requests thread on Discord, it's unreasonable to make GMs a strict dependency for all passive breaches. This further encourages combative breach gameplay and has drastic negative implications for server health.

By the way, if you're confused about how certain passive breaches should work and would like me to draft up passive breach procedure for every SCP, I am very happy to do so. You could absolutely feasibly maintain a grip on a passive 079 breach.

 

[Avery Snow]

+Support
Passive Breaches are interesting situations, and are something that should be maintained.

 

[SamPaval]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:

I think the rule should be changed to allow SCPs to be passive to foundation personnel. It would provide more interesting scenarios if breached SCPs could choose to be passive without direct GM intervention. Examples such as 912 (who might still want to listen to GSD) or 049 (the old man just wants to go for a walk) could lead to fun RP.

This change would effect the following rules:
View attachment 27782

ive looked everywhere and i cannot find this shit anywhere. where exactly is this

 

['Bear']

We've already justified why this is a bad idea. I'll speak more on this in a bit

 

['Bear']

I understand the intent behind this suggestion, and I do agree that passive SCP roleplay can create some cool situations, when handled correctly. However, I do not think allowing SCPs to freely choose passive breaches without GM or proper auth is the right way to handle it.

The main issue is that a breach is not just one player’s RP affected. It directly affects E-11, GSD, Research, Medical, CI, GOC, other SCPs, and the overall breach queue. If an SCP breaches and then decides to be passive for an extended period, that can stall the queue, kinda confuse containment expectations, and create situations where many combatives are left unsure whether they are supposed to engage, negotiate, ignore, or wait for staff clarification.

Passive breaches can work, but they need structure. Without any real oversight, they can very easily become inconsistent, be ruleplayed, or even abused. One SCP might claim they are “passive” while still roaming freely, yet blocking areas, assisting Foundation personnel, avoiding recontainment, or waiting for the perfect moment to turn hostile. At that point, it becomes difficult to distinguish genuine passive RP from simply using that as protection from normal breach consequences.

There is also a balance concern. SCPs are already extremely disruptive by design. Breaches are meant to create a containment emergency. If SCPs are allowed to self declare passive status whenever they want, it risks turning breaches into free roaming RP sessions rather than actual containment events. That may be fun for the SCP and those who want to passively RP with them, but it can be frustrating for everyone else who now has to work around an unclear situation. There is also a point to be said here that SCPs can request a passive status at any time however an SCP cant ask to be breached at any time. Why not leave the queue to those players who want the aggressive breach?

I also do not think “GM availability” is a strong enough reason to remove GM involvement entirely. Staff also have the ability to make these passive braches happen. If anything, that suggests passive breach systems should be improved, not made completely player controlled. Passive breaches remain possible, but they should still go through staff, GM, or a clearly defined authorization process so everyone involved understands what is happening and what the limits are.

If staff and GMs are simply refusing to assist in this type of RP, that is another problem entirely. It is very simple to TP an SCP out of their containment cell, set their health, and let players conduct the RP while being able to do their own things and still periodically check on the passive RP situation.

Perhaps a better compromise maybe would be like:

- Keep it the same. Passive breaches remain allowed, but only with GM/staff approval or under very specific written SCP specific conditions.

- Certain SCPs like 912 or 049 could have more flexible passive breach guidelines, but they should still have restrictions.

- Passive breaches should definitely have time limit or clear objective.

- Passive SCPs should not be usable as Foundation assets against CI, GOC, or other breaches.

- If the SCP refuses reasonable recontainment, becomes disruptive, or starts assisting one side mechanically, the passive status should end.

Overall, I DO support more RP focused SCP interactions, but I do not support removing the structure around breaches. Passive breaches can be great RP, but without oversight they create confusion, queue issues, balance problems, and potential abuse. The current system may not be perfect, thats for sure, but completely self authorized passive breaches would likely cause more problems than they solve.

As an addition, I will say I have spoken to SA, Medical, E11, and RSD members and CL4s, from both servers, and they have simply stated that they don't often do any type of RP with SCPs outside of major tests and breaches. So, it may be worth trying to give these groups more of a push to do natural RP, as in speak to the SCPs, conduct evals, ask questions about their lore, etc., rather than restructure the system.

 

['Bear']

I did see someone say they wanted to passive breach 096 and I keep thinking that would be an extremely funny and fun thing to do, but it could go bad very quickly

 

[SamPaval]

I did see someone say they wanted to passive breach 096 and I keep thinking that would be an extremely funny and fun thing to do, but it could go bad very quickly

ive been meaning to do a passive breach 079 for months now lmfao

 

[Tiffany Lilly]

I feel like certain SCPs like 7722, 049, 457, Spaceman, Type-Greens, and maybe 035.
But not 076, 079, 682, 106, etc.

 

['Bear']

I feel like certain SCPs like 7722, 049, 457, Spaceman, Type-Greens, and maybe 035.
But not 076, 079, 682, 106, etc.

I mean, you could do these, but the RP setup would have to be extraordinary and it'd have to be watched lol

 

[Emilia Foddg]

The main issue is that a breach is not just one player’s RP affected. It directly affects E-11, GSD, Research, Medical, CI, GOC, other SCPs, and the overall breach queue. If an SCP breaches and then decides to be passive for an extended period, that can stall the queue, kinda confuse containment expectations, and create situations where many combatives are left unsure whether they are supposed to engage, negotiate, ignore, or wait for staff clarification.

Passive breaches can work, but they need structure. Without any real oversight, they can very easily become inconsistent, be ruleplayed, or even abused. One SCP might claim they are “passive” while still roaming freely, yet blocking areas, assisting Foundation personnel, avoiding recontainment, or waiting for the perfect moment to turn hostile. At that point, it becomes difficult to distinguish genuine passive RP from simply using that as protection from normal breach consequences.

I agree. Thank you for putting it so saliently.

There is also a balance concern. SCPs are already extremely disruptive by design. Breaches are meant to create a containment emergency. If SCPs are allowed to self declare passive status whenever they want, it risks turning breaches into free roaming RP sessions rather than actual containment events. That may be fun for the SCP and those who want to passively RP with them, but it can be frustrating for everyone else who now has to work around an unclear situation. There is also a point to be said here that SCPs can request a passive status at any time however an SCP cant ask to be breached at any time. Why not leave the queue to those players who want the aggressive breach?

There is no option to "leave the queue." If you flag on an SCP that is able to breach, the only ways to leave the queue are to be breached, or to flag off the SCP entirely. IMO this is a Content problem that would easily be solved by passive breach implementations. I vaguely recall existing plans for some form of Passive Breach queue. If it was scrapped for a lot of the reasons you outline here, I could understand that.

Even if in the interim to a more sophisticated system, something like a 'Go to back of queue' functionality would help with this greatly, both as something that players could use as a button, and as a command available to Staff to better facilitate passive breach gameplay and ensuring it remains an RP-focused thing that doesn't turn into just another hostile breach.

I also do not think “GM availability” is a strong enough reason to remove GM involvement entirely. Staff also have the ability to make these passive braches happen. If anything, that suggests passive breach systems should be improved, not made completely player controlled. Passive breaches remain possible, but they should still go through staff, GM, or a clearly defined authorization process so everyone involved understands what is happening and what the limits are.

Perhaps a better compromise maybe would be like:

- Keep it the same. Passive breaches remain allowed, but only with GM/staff approval or under very specific written SCP specific conditions.

- Certain SCPs like 912 or 049 could have more flexible passive breach guidelines, but they should still have restrictions.

- Passive breaches should definitely have time limit or clear objective.

- Passive SCPs should not be usable as Foundation assets against CI, GOC, or other breaches.

- If the SCP refuses reasonable recontainment, becomes disruptive, or starts assisting one side mechanically, the passive status should end.

Overall, I DO support more RP focused SCP interactions, but I do not support removing the structure around breaches. Passive breaches can be great RP, but without oversight they create confusion, queue issues, balance problems, and potential abuse. The current system may not be perfect, thats for sure, but completely self authorized passive breaches would likely cause more problems than they solve.

As an addition, I will say I have spoken to SA, Medical, E11, and RSD members and CL4s, from both servers, and they have simply stated that they don't often do any type of RP with SCPs outside of major tests and breaches. So, it may be worth trying to give these groups more of a push to do natural RP, as in speak to the SCPs, conduct evals, ask questions about their lore, etc., rather than restructure the system.

Yes, absolutely. Fair enough.

I did see someone say they wanted to passive breach 096 and I keep thinking that would be an extremely funny and fun thing to do, but it could go bad very quickly

It's absolutely doable if you take the necessary steps to prevent 096's mechanics interfering. Here's the full list of what needs to be taken into account as things are with 096 right now:

1. To my understanding, even if not hacked, breach tooled or breach queued, a picture can randomly spawn at any time. I initially thought you could prespawn the pic and hide it, but then I remembered the bucket removes the pic. Ultimately, you would have to just chance a pic spawning. Which leads me to
   
   
2. The condition for bucket auto-removal is not on return of 096. It is if 096 is in the CC and bucketed at all. Which means you would need to move 096 somewhere out of the CC to pre-bucket it.

Only then could 096 be passively breached, albeit with the caveat of it just randomly turning hostile via a pic spawn - Which to be honest, kinda fits 096's animalistic nature, but is obviously not great for balance. I would say it wouldn't be great for server health either, but more often than not, 096 will breach with something else and the other breaches will play around 096 using it to their benefit -So it's really a matter of weighing some aspects against others, against the general net benefit of RP.

But not 076, 079, 682, 106, etc.

A lot of these... Make sense, but also don't, IMO.

076 is an interesting choice in particular because for a very long time, 076 could passive breach and I remember seeing a lot of fun RP from it.

079... I can see why from a sense perspective? Actually facilitating it would just be a pain for E-11, but IMO very very possible. I think an 079 passive breach could generate some interesting RP. It'd be very weird and involve a lot of suspension of disbelief. You could also give 079 a keycard, ICly contextualised as "giving it authorised clearance-level access to systems" and say that any unauthorised hacking counts as hostility. Although you'd need a way to determine if 079 is hacking something - I think this would need to specifically be part of any passive breach implementation for it.

I always feel like 682 is the odd one out when brought up in this concept. Yes, 682 is generally inimical to all human life and at no point would be 'friendly'. This does not account for other feasible scenarios and just blanket says "682 can't passive breach." I've personally never been a fan of "X SCP can't passive breach." I say if you can reasonably justify it in RP, do it.

106 I also get, if anything, ya boy Radical Larry is absolutely more generally hostile than even 682 and ICly requires more annoying containment, but the above also still applies.

However, to everyone that genuinely believes "X SCP can't passive breach" how exactly do you square that with the sampling rationale of "Hey X SCP, may we have some samples?" Because this happens with 106 all the time, to obtain my favourite recreational beverage on the server.

 

['Bear']

There is no option to "leave the queue." If you flag on an SCP that is able to breach, the only ways to leave the queue are to be breached, or to flag off the SCP entirely. IMO this is a Content problem that would easily be solved by passive breach implementations. I vaguely recall existing plans for some form of Passive Breach queue. If it was scrapped for a lot of the reasons you outline here, I could understand that.

Even if in the interim to a more sophisticated system, something like a 'Go to back of queue' functionality would help with this greatly, both as something that players could use as a button, and as a command available to Staff to better facilitate passive breach gameplay and ensuring it remains an RP-focused thing that doesn't turn into just another hostile breach.

Well, honestly, my main point here is that a passive breach can happen anytime, literally 24/7, as long as there is a gm/staff and the appropriate steps happen IC. You don't need the breach queue to dictate that.

We don't need to add an entire system for passive breaching. This is mostly a player controlled mechanic, beside the act of actually taking the SCP out and setting their HP.

I also think you shouldn't have to sit in the queue for 2+ hours just to get passive breach RP. But that requires more coordination from players than it does mechanics.

If a GM or staff member is refusing to enable a passive breach, barring extenuating circumstances of course i.e. 2 GMs or staff members on with like 10 tickets or theyre deep in their own RP, that is also an issue. Its takes two commands to facilitate. Unless the request is actually something ridiculous, naturally, which happens more often than you would think unfortunately.

 

['Bear']

A lot of these... Make sense, but also don't, IMO.

076 is an interesting choice in particular because for a very long time, 076 could passive breach and I remember seeing a lot of fun RP from it.

079... I can see why from a sense perspective? Actually facilitating it would just be a pain for E-11, but IMO very very possible. I think an 079 passive breach could generate some interesting RP. It'd be very weird and involve a lot of suspension of disbelief. You could also give 079 a keycard, ICly contextualised as "giving it authorised clearance-level access to systems" and say that any unauthorised hacking counts as hostility. Although you'd need a way to determine if 079 is hacking something - I think this would need to specifically be part of any passive breach implementation for it.

I always feel like 682 is the odd one out when brought up in this concept. Yes, 682 is generally inimical to all human life and at no point would be 'friendly'. This does not account for other feasible scenarios and just blanket says "682 can't passive breach." I've personally never been a fan of "X SCP can't passive breach." I say if you can reasonably justify it in RP, do it.

106 I also get, if anything, ya boy Radical Larry is absolutely more generally hostile than even 682 and ICly requires more annoying containment, but the above also still applies.

However, to everyone that genuinely believes "X SCP can't passive breach" exactly do you square that with the sampling rationale of "Hey X SCP, may we have some samples?" Because this happens with 106 all the time, to obtain my favourite recreational beverage on the server.

In my honest opinion, with the right circumstances and setting, I do believe any sentient SCP could earn themselves a passive breach.

 

[CherryBones]

ive looked everywhere and i cannot find this shit anywhere. where exactly is this

If you're referring to the discord message it was sent in E11 announcements. It being talked about in messhall was the thing I screenshotted and is part of the reason I made the post. To clarify rules and talk about them.

ive been meaning to do a passive breach 079 for months now lmfao

Ideally we can get this figured out. Maybe we need passive rules outlined for each SCP? Yes, I know that's annoying and requires a lot of considerations of what should/shouldn't be allowed but it would enable passive breaches for (most) SCPs.

106 I also get, if anything, ya boy Radical Larry is absolutely more generally hostile than even 682 and ICly requires more annoying containment, but the above also still applies.

However, to everyone that genuinely believes "X SCP can't passive breach" exactly do you square that with the sampling rationale of "Hey X SCP, may we have some samples?" Because this happens with 106 all the time, to obtain my favourite recreational beverage on the server.

I think Larry just likes getting stabbed sometimes and when it's his only option he's down for it. However, if given the ability to hurt rather than be the hurt-ee he wants to hurt.

The main issue is that a breach is not just one player’s RP affected. It directly affects E-11, GSD, Research, Medical, CI, GOC, other SCPs, and the overall breach queue. If an SCP breaches and then decides to be passive for an extended period, that can stall the queue, kinda confuse containment expectations, and create situations where many combatives are left unsure whether they are supposed to engage, negotiate, ignore, or wait for staff clarification.

This is one of my favorite parts of passive breaches though (when I could get them authed). Fighting off E-11, arguing with SA, trying to barter with the SCP, ect. I think the confusion itself and the strife it creates can be suuuuuuuch good RP as long as no one takes it OOCly. It's also part of the reason why I think passive breaches being allowed won't actually change much. The combatants are probably just gunna shoot it anyway which is going to make the SCP probably wig out. Then there are interactions to have like 'who was in the wrong'? E11 for shooting it? The RsD for trying it in the first place? The SA that allowed it?'

Passive breaches can work, but they need structure. Without any real oversight, they can very easily become inconsistent, be ruleplayed, or even abused. One SCP might claim they are “passive” while still roaming freely, yet blocking areas, assisting Foundation personnel, avoiding recontainment, or waiting for the perfect moment to turn hostile. At that point, it becomes difficult to distinguish genuine passive RP from simply using that as protection from normal breach consequences.

If the SCP is obstructive that sounds like great moment for E11 to do their job and put them back in the box. Like I said I don't think this will effect most breaches because if the SCPs a dick they gotta deal with the foundation that owns them revoking any temporary rights they were granted. Most SCP breaches are likely to be hostile because that's how you level up as SCP and a lot of players do enjoy being a big, scary monster that eats people.

Well, honestly, my main point here is that a passive breach can happen anytime, literally 24/7, as long as there is a gm/staff and the appropriate steps happen IC. You don't need the breach queue to dictate that.

We don't need to add an entire system for passive breaching. This is mostly a player controlled mechanic, beside the act of actually taking the SCP out and setting their HP.

I miss having to argue about 'lowering body mass'. The few passive breaches I got we had to barter with the SCP about 'lowering their body mass', or if I WAS the SCP I tried to argue why my health shouldn't be lowered. Granted this is open to the will of the E11. In my humble opinion it should be fully up to E11 as they have to deal with it in the end. No staff involvement needed just the SCP breaches and tries to communicate and RsD or whoever has to go:

E11, can we walk the old man (049) around site? Y/N?

Then E11 can do whatever they want as they're in charge of containment. The only ones above them being SA/F3. Massacring the SCP trying to be passive wouldn't be any form of abuse or RDM it would just be E11 doing what they think is right. It also gives E11 the responsibility of taking care of the passive breach. As a rule it would go as something akin to:

6.02(b) Some SCPs are allowed to claim they are passive when they breach, and are not obligated to harm foundation personnel. SCPs are only to be passive to foundation personnel, and cannot team with GOC or CI unless there is a joint initiative between these factions and the foundation. Passive breaches do not need to be respected by site, as it is up to the discretion of the foundation (E11, SA, ect.) on if they want the SCP to have any freedoms.

Needs workshopping of course, and then we'd need to outline which SCPs can and what the guidelines are.