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.