Rule Suggestion SCP breaches should have the option of being passive

Rule suggestions will be reviewed by Superadmins, this may take longer than standard content suggestions.

CherryBones

Civil Gamers Expert
Jan 15, 2025
61
25
61
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:
1778117845314.png
1778117940112.png

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.
 
Furthermore I have seen instances of people "passive breaching" but in reality they are just selectively breaching for benefits such as;
- 912 "passive" breaching and not attacking foundation but using his gun on D-Class (FailRP)
- 076 be used as an extra layer of security (FailRP + Teaming)
- 682 being a receptionist (This one is just FailRP and makes no sense)

I don't think people failRPing should be considered when discussing this because people will always be goofy. That's going to keep happening. The only difference is if they're in violation of failRP rule or in violation of passive breaching rules. Either way staff will get called.

The thing I disagree with is them using their breach to "passive" then expecitng everyone to go along with it, they are breached, unauthorised from containment, if they want to walk around the site, then they should work with the staff and people on site to be allowed to roam around, ive already made a ticket for leaving the queue for this

The rule that I made for reference says that foundation actually don't have to respect it. Foundation can say 'fuck you get back in the box'.

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.

Most breaches won't change, but it allows the few people who can and will RP to use the unique scenario of 'huh, a containment failure, at this hour?' and waltz site without being rule-bound to be aggressive. Sure, it needs to be workshopped, but allowing passive breaches to happen without needing staff has led to amazing RP in the past.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Emilia Foddg