The Pocket Game

Summary:

Set of pants that dispense items chosen by other people wearing the other pants.

SCP Draft: The Pocket Game

Jacky720 25 Feb 2020 14:18

This is my first SCP. I have two greenlights on this Ideas Critique thread, and need review and a few questions answered.

Sandbox: http://scp-sandbox-3.wikidot.com/jacky720

Summary: Five pairs of pants exist that dispense items in a cyclical pattern. For instance, if Alice wears SCP-XXXX-1, and Bob wears SCP-XXXX-2, and Alice reaches into her pocket, then Bob will name an item, and it will be in her pocket. If Bob checks his pocket, Alice names an item. If Carol wears SCP-XXXX-3, then it's a cyclical pattern, as long as nobody wears SCP-XXXX-4. It's complicated to explain but I think rather simple once you understand it.

The Foundation contains 4 of the 5 pairs after some teens use them for a robbery, and while subsequently experimenting with them, -4 and -1 start acting up because somebody is wearing -5. After some more testing, they manage to find the owner of -5. I want to evoke a little confusion on this point before the resolution.

Questions:

• How is my clinical tone?
  • Is the arrest record written poorly? Would I be better without it?
• Would the testing be on D-classes, or researchers, given that the pants are apparently harmless? Maybe switch from the former to the latter around Experiment 3?
• How are the character voices? I feel like I struggled with them.
• Name/time redactions. I can remove them, or not. I hear we're into removing them now.
• More such questions (generally more minor ones or repeats) are shown as (EDITING NOTES) on the draft.

Thank you!

Last edited on 28 Feb 2020 14:15 by Jacky720 Show more

Re: The Pocket Game

Zyn 01 Mar 2020 18:09

Took a quick look at this since it fell to page 3 with no replies after 5 days.

+ show block

First off, a few nitpicks here and there:

• you don't really need to blackbox the site name. It's kind of a borderline case, but typically censoring in the containment procedures should be very limited (if present at all) since these are the basic instructions for everyone keeping the item locked up.
• The line "Preventable deviation from this agenda is to result in a reprimand." seems unnecessary.
• Level-2 person > I would state "individual" or "personnel member", but I'm also wondering why it's not a D-Class doing this.
• This property only manifests when multiple instances of the item are worn simultaneously > this kind of reads like one person needs to wear multiple pairs of jeans. Maybe tweak so it's clear that multiple people are wearing instances of SCP-XXXX?
• The method of selection appears to be entirely mental, > phrasing is weird here. Might make more sense to state that the affected individuals are mentally prompted to make a selection or the like
• and subjects making the selection report feeling a greatly-extended timeframe and immediate knowledge of several "rules" regarding the objects> timeframe for what? Also, how does one "feel" a timeframe?

The rest of the draft could use similar touch-ups for straightforward wording. I admit that I personally felt like the interview was unnecessary—not only does it seem unusually convenient that the people who got the magic pants just happened to be people who would use them so flamboyantly so as to be easily noticed and detained by the Foundation, it seems kind of like spoonfed exposition to have the person being interrogated just straight-up tell the audience how the pants work.

I admittedly lost interest in the read after the first two experiment logs. The notes from Researcher ███████ are pretty blatant "this is what you're supposed to learn from the test" cues, and pretty much the entirety of the logs could just be condensed into a paragraph of description rather than dragging everything out so much.

Sorry, but I didn't really enjoy the read much. There's just too much material to keep track of that as a reader I don't feel like I know how to distinguish information that's meant to lead to a reveal/revelation about why the item exists the way it does from extraneous filler info that I don't need to remember too closely to understand the premise. Personally I recommend doing some trimming so it's more digestible for the audience—however, definitely reach out to your greenlighters for reviews first since they know the concept best and how to make it work.

Last edited on 01 Mar 2020 19:52 by Zyn Show more

Re: The Pocket Game

Jacky720 02 Mar 2020 14:20

Thanks for checking me out. I'll try to address the "few nitpicks", but I'm not sure how I could avoid the other issues.

+ show block

Level-2 person > I would state "individual" or "personnel member", but I'm also wondering why it's not a D-Class doing this.

The current way I'm envisioning it, only you know when you make a selection. So that would require some additional safeguard against lying… or they could use someone who has it in their best interest to mention when there's another pair. Would you rather I:

1. Change the part about how only you know?
2. Have a daily polygraph test?
3. Keep it as-is and clarify the first part?

I admit that I personally felt like the interview was unnecessary—not only does it seem unusually convenient that the people who got the magic pants just happened to be people who would use them so flamboyantly so as to be easily noticed and detained by the Foundation,

You're right, it is. I would try something less destructive and less obvious, but I'll need to think about what exactly.

it seems kind of like spoonfed exposition to have the person being interrogated just straight-up tell the audience how the pants work.

Oh. I could try to make him more reluctant, but since we already know how they work, I might cut that part entirely. And possibly cut the first part about "why did ya do it" too, based on changing the incident.

The notes from Researcher ███████ are pretty blatant "this is what you're supposed to learn from the test" cues,

Oh. I can cut those, but I still feel like keeping track of four Class-D's and four SCP-XXXX's is hard. I'll see if there's a better way.

and pretty much the entirety of the logs could just be condensed into a paragraph of description rather than dragging everything out so much.

I was trying to get some buildup in it. I could probably cut one or two of the logs anyway.

There's just too much material to keep track of that as a reader I don't feel like I know how to distinguish information that's meant to lead to a reveal/revelation about why the item exists the way it does from extraneous filler info that I don't need to remember too closely to understand the premise.

Huh. I didn't think there was much filler, it's just that I dragged out the important bits. So I'll work on that. I've already cut side-things about how they function with defining "wearing" and how much time you experience when making your decision since those didn't go anywhere.

So, I'll definitely cut back on the logs and interviews, and I'll keep thinking about how to rework the first containment. Thanks again!

Re: The Pocket Game

Zyn 03 Mar 2020 05:49

The current way I'm envisioning it, only you know when you make a selection. So that would require some additional safeguard against lying…

Assign a D-Class/group of D-Class with longstanding loyalty. Maybe some older dudes who can be moved to a cushy retirement setting or the like. Have these amenities be contingent on them following guidelines regarding how to use the pants. At least, that's how I would approach this.

So, I'll definitely cut back on the logs and interviews, and I'll keep thinking about how to rework the first containment. Thanks again!

Again, remember to check with your greenlighters to confirm if my suggested changes are necesssary. Best of luck!

Re: The Pocket Game

Dr Savaso 02 Mar 2020 17:24

I took a look at it, I know I'm not a reviewer but I would say that it is looking good, I just think the logs should be a little bit more expanded.

Sorry for bothering you.

- Savaso

Moderator Post - Info - Open

Leveritas 02 Mar 2020 18:24

Dr Savaso, if you have no meaningful feedback to add, don't post at all. It's less of an issue on this thread, since an experienced reviewer already replied, but doing this on posts without replies will hurt the visibility of that thread.

Forum Crit Staff prioritize reviewing drafts that have no responses. By making posts like these, you lower other's odds of receiving in depth crit. Do not do so again.

Re: The Pocket Game

cybersqyd 10 Mar 2020 08:58

Oh hey! It's sometime tomorrow!

[+] Overall

This feels…kinda bland at the moment? Like there's definitely room for you to do something weird/interesting here but you just kinda…don't?

Description/ConProcs

These both feel…fine? I've highlighted a few places where they're weaker in the LBL.

My big concern is the Update in the ConProcs: I kinda get what you mean by it but like,,,cos the loop is cyclical and there's some uncertainty about how many there are, surely the Foundation would want all of them worn for the greatest change of being part of the loop and hence the greatest chance of finding a pair?

Recovery log

Yeah, I read both of these. I don't think either is…particularly interesting? It just kinda,,,feels very much like a generic 'cop interviewing suspect who won't reveal anything' thing and like…there's not enough narrative meat or interesting character to the interviews to justify their length; and it really feels like a short paragraph or two of prose would convey the important details more concisely.

If you really want to keep the interviews, you're gonna have to really figure out the characters motivations more: at the moment, Johnathan doesn't want to talk in general and then talks but there's no clear reason for the switch or like, any feeling of him having a purpose beyond just…dragging the interview out?

Experiment Logs

These feel…dry? I get that you're trying to setup the whole mystery angle here but they just kinda…too openly state it? There's also not any real feeling of stakes here? The mystery needs…some kinda reason for a reader to get invested in it beyond just 'it's a mystery': some consequences for the Foundation not solving it, or the implication that the D-Class are possibly using it to do something they shouldn't or something.

I'd really consider how you can prompt a reader to think about the things you're directing them to with the research notes here or like, give the researcher more character or something so the logs feel less flat?

Interrogation Log

As an ending to the piece, this feels…very bland? Like the experiment logs introduce the idea that someone else has a pair of trousers and this just…kinda covers how pulling something out works from the perspective of being the person choosing the thing? So it doesn't really feel like a climactic end to a story so much as just…a bunch of exposition going through the motions?

[+] Line By Line

Gonna note that I can miss stuff; flag things which are right as being wrong and indeed flag things which are deliberately wrong.
I'll likely use strikethrough to indicate stuff to remove and blue text to indicate stuff to add.

Experimentation involving SCP-XXXX must be approved by two Level-4 personnel according to a strict agenda.

"according to a strict agenda" is ambiguous here: do you mean there has to be a strict agenda for the experimentation or there has to be a strict agenda for the approval? Honestly, it can probably be cut completely since like…you just need to say it needs approval?

Experimentation is to take place in a secured room monitored by closed-circuit video.

This feels…perhaps a little too obvious? Like, it's very much the kinda thing we can assume they do?

UPDATE ██/██/2001:

What's the purpose of redacting the date here? It doesn't feel like the specific date in 2001 on which this happened is the kinda thing that being hidden adds anything for a reader, or like, obscures something important for a foundation researcher? So this feels like it doesn't work either in or out of universe?

To monitor for additional instances of SCP-XXXX, one instance is to be worn by a trusted individual

My concern here is the footnote indicating the 'trusted individual' should be a D-Class: i.e, someone who is both untrusted and disposable. I think just saying they're to be worn by a D-Class would read better here.

SCP-XXXX is the collective designation for several pairs of "Levi's"-brand blue jeans, which have the anomalous property of dispensing small objects from their pockets.

"several" is a bad choice of words here: either specify how many pairs it is, or say e.g, "at least four" and note that it's unknown how many exist.

These objects are "selected" by humans wearing instances of SCP-XXXX when a human reaches into another instance's pockets.

This feels a little confusingly worded, and also perhaps overly vague: I'd suggest opening with like, the action to give something like "When a human wearing an SCP-XXXX instance reaches into one of the pockets, they pull out an object that someone else wearing a different SCP-XXXX instance is thinking of."

This property only manifests when multiple individuals wear multiple instances of the item simultaneously and follows a cyclical pattern.

The phrasing here implies you have to wear two pairs of pants for the effect to activate; and the 'cyclical pattern' at the end feels kinda…awkward and unclear?

The method of selection appears to be a mental prompt to name an item, which is then found in the other instance's pocket.

This should probably be right after the sentence about selection.

Johnathan T██████: Are you the good guys?

Dr. ██████: Sure.

Johnathan T██████: I've got them all at my place. Anything else?

So, first off: don't redact these folks names. The black boxes make it super awkward to read. If you really want to keep Johnathan's surname secret, just…don't include it at the start of the line.

The flip here is…fuckin' wild tho like, Johnathan is determined not to say anything, gets a super half hearted answer about how Dr. Blackbox is the good guys and then immediately spilled everything?

Four D-class personnel (D-XXXX-1, D-XXXX-2, D-XXXX-3, and D-XXXX-4) are equipped with SCP-XXXX-2, SCP-XXXX-3, SCP-XXXX-4, and SCP-XXXX-1

You never establish the -1 through -4 notation for the SCP, and really you probably should.

This also feels…really heavy on identities? I'd suggest using e.g, "SCP-XXXX-1 through 4" in place of writing out "SCP-XXXX-1" etc.

Also the standard D-class numbering doesn't tie them to the SCP and I think that might help this be a tad less ambiguous?

SCP-XXXX-2 produces a green stress ball, for which D-XXXX-2 claims credit.

I would suggest using a phrasing more like "D-XXXX-2 pulls a green stress ball out of their pocket, for which D-XXXX-3 claims credit": like, really focussing on the human doing something over a loose…skip doing something thing?

If you don't want to make that change, I'd at least change it so e.g, D-XXXX-1 is wearing SCP-XXXX-1 etc

Last edited on 11 Mar 2020 17:12 by cybersqyd Show more