The Big List Of Overdone SCP Cliches / Discussion

This is the discussion related to the wiki page The Big List Of Overdone SCP Cliches.

page 1 of 8123...78next »

Dave Rapp 09 Jan 2009 19:57

I object to this. I see nothing inherently wrong with something that may just so happen to allow a user to "fight good" so long as it's original. Same goes for things which may just so happen to be able to "fight good," as long as they're not just another SCP trying to top Able. I think the same can be said for most of these things.

I don't dispute that totally unoriginal SCPs are crap. I dispute the idea that a SCP's good properties are rendered moot just because they posess a property used before in a different SCP.

(for the record, I'm not just saying this in an attempt to defend 472. I acknowlege that 472 is crappy in its present state and I hope to fix it in the future.)

Re:

AdminBright 09 Jan 2009 20:00

But these are the kind that end up being the shittiest. Beginners should in no way shape or form try one of these SCPs, but they also tend to be the ones a newbie wants to do right off the bat, to show how 'cool' they are.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re:

DrClef 09 Jan 2009 20:05

Rapp, the issue isn't that it can be done well. It's that these things are all people seem to want to do nowadays.

Thread

Dave Rapp 09 Jan 2009 22:38

Edit: Nevermind.

Last edited on 09 Jan 2009 23:03 by Dave Rapp Show more

DrInferno 30 Jun 2010 20:24

how about paranormal univerzez1!1!1

Wonderful Lizard 09 Jan 2009 20:07

I do think, though, that it should be tone-modified to be a bit less rude. Also, I think it would be best to but waht Dr. Right said in- you can pull some of these off if you're experienced enough, but normally it just comes off really shitty.

Re:

AdminBright 09 Jan 2009 20:13

But we don't want Newbs trying them, so we just cancel all of them. The old hands know if they have a good one, they can try it out.

Also, there's nothing wrong with rude. it works.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re:

Dave Rapp 09 Jan 2009 22:42

I agree that rude is fine. But the way it was presented was past rude and into the realm of idiotic. Seriously, "an hero and save us from your fail?" What is this, Encyclopedia Dramatica?

Re:

tunedtoadeadchannel 08 Apr 2009 05:30

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Difference is, I thought it was funny.

Moose Fisher 10 Jan 2009 20:48

I agree, there's been way to many SCPs that ruin the overall tone of the Foundation.

We are not collecting the next generation of X-Men, we're containing dangerous and strange objects!

M_Faust 24 Mar 2009 00:33

I motion that we add blind guards to the list.

ClockworkIndustries 08 Apr 2009 08:18

This list mentions "things that make SCPs or improve current items."

turn head, *cough*

Re:

A Fat Ghost 08 Apr 2009 11:37

That one was established because of the 914-alikes and 038 clones (no pun intended) created after those articles had been posted.

Most of them were pretty crap, and were deleted within a few days of their creation. Hence the cliche.

Re:

ClockworkIndustries 08 Apr 2009 14:49

Ah, clearer on that. Thanks.

Re:

DrClef 08 Apr 2009 13:47

What Ghost said. It's the list of Overdone SCPs, not the list of NO SCPS LIEK THIS EVAR!!!! It's not a bad idea, just… we have too damn many of them.

Re:

Dr Voss 09 Apr 2009 23:14

Feel free to try your hand at doing an overdone SCPs. Nobody can stop you, and if it rocks, it won't get torn down just for being a cliche. Just know that if it fails, it'll get torn down all the harder for it. And it'll probably fail. But should you succeed, you've succeeded at taking a cliche and making it interesting. High stakes play. Your choice.

Last edited on 09 Apr 2009 23:15 by Dr Voss Show more

Agent Circeus 09 Apr 2009 22:39

WOuld it be reasonable to note for #8 that putting existing SCPs in contact during an experiment is okay?

Re:

Dr Voss 21 Apr 2009 01:40

Depends on how it's done. See SCP-809-D for an example that got smacked down HARD for violating rule #8.

Re:

Agent Circeus 21 Apr 2009 02:35

Last I looked it was decommissioned for being self-inserty and almost entirely reliant on SCP-808, which is certainly not the same as "excessively refering to other SCPs." (AFAIAC a single SCP certainly does not qualify!)

Re:

Dr Voss 21 Apr 2009 13:38

I beg to differ. "Excessively referring to other SCPs" doesn't necessarily mean lots of different SCPs, it also includes excessive references to a single other SCP.

name 05 May 2009 22:49

Some I have noticed

Spheres of Doom: This often happens when the writer has a cool effect, (often times something to do with physics) but can't think of an object that fits thematically with that power, so they kind of just take the easy way out and attach it/tack it on to a "glowing mysterious orb". Like its been said before, there's nothing essentially wrong with this, but they're overdone, and most of the time boring- and it seems lazy.

The weirdness can also be added onto random spaces or patches of air, creating anomalous danger zones. Its basically the same concept- a free floating power with no real dramatic connection to an object.

Exploration: There is nothing special about this SCP except that it serves as a gateway into another world- that right away is a potential problem when the focus isn't on the item but on this magical creepy land. And then we all know what happens next:

D class head in

Don't come back

Send them in with ropes around their waists

Ropes pulled back ripped, with blood on the end (gasp!)

Send in drones.

Robot's camera feed dies!

The first couple were good, but now its so formulaic and predictable.

Last edited on 06 May 2009 00:42 by name Show more

Re:

MrUnimport 05 May 2009 23:02

Solution: lampshade the formula. I say we add "…per standard procedures" to some of these, or say "standard interdimensional exploratory robot" instead of "a drone was outfitted…"

That way, we can have a Foundation that's so used to this sort of thing that they have protocol on hand to deal with dark gateways to other dimensions.

Re:

Dr Grangan 06 May 2009 00:26

My "sphere of doom" that was deleted was a sphere for a reason, but everyone attacked it regardless and it got deleted before a respectable member could comment on it.

Re:

AdminBright 06 May 2009 05:46

Because it was bad. Remember Grangan, you are encouraged and free to send me any of your SCPs before putting them up.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re:

Agent Circeus 06 May 2009 07:12

I have to agree most often attaching something that is currently attached to something otherwise boring (.e. a cube or sphere of unknown composition) to a completely random object (of the appropriate shape where necessary) such as a nail clipper or a lamp bulb could be quite interesting.

Vangelis 09 Sep 2011 08:04

It always bugs me when they send in the D-Class before the drones or lowered cameras or whatever. Good thing these dimensions always just contain a monster that eats D-Class personnel rather than, say, a button that makes the first person who presses it turn into a living God or something.

thedeadlymoose 19 Sep 2011 00:00

It always bugs me when they send in the D-Class before the drones or lowered cameras or whatever. Good thing these dimensions always just contain a monster that eats D-Class personnel rather than, say, a button that makes the first person who presses it turn into a living God or something.

This… is actually a pretty good point

Bland 19 Sep 2011 15:00

Isn't there an SCP computer "game" about the 1920s where this bit them in the ass. A D-class that worked a way into it?

PureQuestion 19 Sep 2011 15:15

You're thinking of SCP-687, NOIR

MrUnimport 05 May 2009 23:03

I demand that "Statues What Come To Life And Do Bad Stuff" be added to this list.

Clear as mud

Dr Rhaomi 08 Jun 2009 03:59

I strongly suggest this list be rewritten in more straightforward language. Yes, it's pretty funny now, but guidelines aren't meant to be inside-jokey laffs for insiders. They're meant to be crystal-clear distillations of policy. If this is supposed to be a collection of must-read advice for newcomers, why cloak it in a 4chan-esque argot that distracts from its message? Why give people unfamiliar or unamused by that style an excuse for not heeding it?

For instance, for item 1, why not write:

Supernaturally effective weapons, warriors, etc. - Taking your basic pistol, sword, or suit of armor and making them indestructible, sentient, and/or vastly more destructive might sound cool, but it's been done to death here. Avoid this unless you have a strikingly original idea or angle that hasn't been tried.

Re: Clear as mud

AdminBright 08 Jun 2009 04:24

Because these work fine the way they are?

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Clear as mud

The Main Man 08 Jun 2009 04:35

Speaking as a brand new member (so I'll just be dodging the regulars for a while), I completely understood them.

When an SCP can be used for good, that's playing against the whole "you should not want SCP's" guideline; it deflates the horror.

"Super Cool Purpose": OK sometimes!

ISNorden 07 Jan 2021 06:53

If skips were never desirable. there wouldn't be so many PoIs and GoIs trying to collect them (Church of the Broken God, Scarlet King cultists, etc.) Even the grimdark artifacts tend to give some advantage that people want; and the not-so-grimdark artifacts can indeed be beneficial. (Healer skips like #500 and #2295 qualify; but so do object creators like #38 and #294, even if the latter are easier to abuse.)

As long as human beings are fallible enough to want an advantage that Those Other Guys can't duplicate — even the best-intentioned people will look for beneficial skips. As long as non-Foundation groups have enough brains to guard The Special Good Thing with every resource they can spare — those groups will Secure, Contain, and Protect whatever-it-is on their own terms.

The Foundationverse is a big place, with room for multiple genres and tones side by side. People who like gritty horror, wacky comedy, or some other kind of creative fiction can all find skips and canons they enjoy. Grimdark fans might not include anything benevolent, harmless, or likable in their headcanon. Comedy fans might not include indestructible horrors or hopeless apocalyptic scenarios in their headcanon. As long as the Foundation still takes center stage, still relies on science and research, and still cares about keeping "WTF is that?" phenomena away from average people…any well-done creation has a right to exist on this wiki. Yes, some tropes are difficult to reuse creatively after the first time; but "difficult" doesn't mean "impossible".

---

"Anomalous" just means "unusual"; not all surreal strangeness HAS to be evil, deadly, or even scary.

Re: Clear as mud

AdminBright 08 Jun 2009 04:57

Thanks main man. Be sure to join us in the chat room.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

Re: Clear as mud

Dr Rhaomi 08 Jun 2009 05:16

Well, not that they don't work — I understood them okay, as did others posting here. I just think they could work better if they were clearer. As it is, the list sounds pretty unserious and unprofessional. Not that it needs to look like a EULA or anything, but if you're setting down policies and guidelines it helps to be as clear and unambiguous as possible. There could be people out there who don't understand or take seriously this kind of language, so maybe we should keep that in mind.

I hope I'm not imposing here — it's just the one part of the introductory materials that really stuck out for me as problematic. Maybe it's because I frequent another site (metafilter.com) that, while jokey in site-related discussions, strives to be as clear-cut as possible when it comes to official rulesetting, to eliminate any potential misunderstandings (or excuses for misunderstanding).

EDIT: Sorry I can't join the chat tonight — this was my last message before hitting the sack. I'll try joining tomorrow, though.

Last edited on 08 Jun 2009 05:17 by Dr Rhaomi Show more

Re: Clear as mud

DrClef 08 Jun 2009 16:31

And that's where you misunderstand: these are NOT rules. These are a list of things that we've seen over and over again and we really don't want to see more of unless they're done really well. Think of them less as rules or guidelines and more a rant.

Re: Clear as mud

MisterBibs 31 Jul 2011 04:13

If its less of a rule/guideline, thus allegedly fine to write in gibberish, why is it the first honking link on the How To Write an SCP page? If it's not written seriously, I'm not taking it seriously.

Re: Clear as mud

DrEverettMann 31 Jul 2011 04:55

Just because it's not a rule doesn't mean it's not something we want people aware of.

We want people to know that we've seen a lot of these. Tread carefully, the terrain is treacherous and littered with the remains of your predecessors. Enter at your own risk. People should know these are the sort of concepts that need to work harder to stand out. It is not meant to suggest that people cannot try these. They are not forbidden. That's part of the reason they're written the way they are. We don't want them taken too seriously. We just want people to know that they need to be careful.

Re: Clear as mud

thedeadlymoose 01 Aug 2011 17:27

This list would be so much less entertaining if it wasn't written the way it is. Which means less people would read it, because let's be honest, we're (mostly) all here to be entertained.

It works excellently because of the way it's written (funny!) not in spite of the way it's written.

Re: Clear as mud

Dexanote 01 Aug 2011 17:38

Being a parody, it has a unique flavour, sticking in the minds of readers. Humour sticks in your mind.

Dr Grangan 08 Jun 2009 05:20

12. Things which are ancient and evil, so vast that humankind cannot comprehend it.
Okay, now it's just getting too fucking broad. I would say about over half of the SCP database fits this description.

Re:

AdminBright 08 Jun 2009 05:49

Grangan, this is not a list fo things not to do, these are the list of things that have been done a lot, so if you DO do them, they need to be done well.

---

Admin, SCP Wiki

page 1 of 8123...78next »