Hmm. Point. I'll think of another current form.
EDIT: Actually, I dunno. I think the doll still works. It needs to be something harmless, but still able to talk. A doll is the only common toy that fits that criteria. But the castle can go, agreed, and we can find a better picture.
But can they speak?
Besides, brings on shades of Billy Goats Gruff…
As well, I'd rather avoid mentioning any specific toy brands.
Every single time I go to this page, it has a different picture! Blah!
I don't see why it needs to be able to talk unless you are testing it. Surely it would be cheaper and safer for the foundation to give it a toy that is easier to contain. The yo-yo example on the experiment log would be perfect as you could just lock it away. This would also mean you could change the classification type to Safe instead of Euclid. Just my two cents though. No vote for now.
What happens if we give this thing some Lego?
"Be a brick."
That is a pretty good idea, but how would you talk with it?
What if you were to create a toy for this item to inhabit? If I were to give a girl a doll that I claimed was the smartest person in the world and it got possessed, would it know everything, including what it is? I'd like to see some experiment logs. What counts as a toy to this thing? Would it possess my pots and pans? Would it take over the coffee grinder? Would it take over a child's least favorite toy, the toy they never play with?
The "smartest in the world" thing would only work if a child perceived the toy that way. Maybe design a doll in a lab coat and "smart glasses".
Some good ideas. I'll make up an experiment log.
So what would happen if it came in contact with Steely Dan, SCP-297?
…297 is not Steely Dan, and the image of 137 inhabiting it is horrifying.
…ahn, SCP-297 is Steely Dan, Photo.
And as much as I hate to ask this, Sohler's question did make me curious; would sex toys be a viable possession target for 137?
I'm gonna say, 137 works only for children's toys, not sex toys.
Admin, SCP Wiki
I do like this, but I feel like the tone could use an update. And the experiment log reads like bad slapstick…
This seems like it should have a connection to Dr Wondertainment somehow. What say you, Mann?
(Although how we would find out, since the SCP doesn't seem to have any fixed physical form, is another issue entirely - there's no place it could have a label or a collar or etc. So this might have to be a bit of out-story knowledge.)
Personally, I'd prefer this not be retconned into a Wondertainment thingy. It's a toy, yes; but if we add it to DrW it'll lose a bit of its mystery.
But that's just me. I like this to stand out on its own.
It's an entity, not a created thing. Let's leave out any connections for no reason.
Admin, SCP Wiki
Yes, as Bright said Wondertainment produces toys. I like to think of this as some lonely entity that possesses toys for shits and giggles.
There is no description of the entity when it is not possessing a child's toy, other than an observed range that it can operate in.
…. the picture looks disturbingly identical to my aunt's sister.
Dear god in heaven… I saw your post on the "Recent forum post" column, and I swear I thought this was in response to SCP-173.
This (2.5 year old comment, I know) reminded me that we need to get back to writing that pilot for a SCP-themed sitcom. In it, 173 is the wacky aunt that comically commits mass murder and about whom the other main characters have a catchphrase.
