[Jessie]

So what I'm asking is why they are playing an RPG if they cannot accept consequences? That isn't a reason to make essential or protected NPC at all, that's more of a reason why Bethesda needs to step up their game when developing the game instead of taking the lazy way out.

Others have posted far more appealing alternatives such as factions, AI behavior, pathing and replacement NPC for traveling merchants.

I'm confused here: Are you suggesting that even we cannot kill these crucial NPC either directly or indirectly? If so then I heartily disagree. I think having NPCs, especially those crucial to quests, dying (or even refusing to talk to the PC) should be a basic consequence of direct and indirect actions. I like what others suggested with the way Morrowind handled it.

[Rachael]

Why do the vast majority of RPGs ever made not allow you to attack friendly NPCs in the first place?

[Nick Tyler]

No idea, all I can reason that it's either done to hold the players hand or tell them what they can and cannot do. Two things that shouldn't be done in RPGs, especially a game for advlts. The way I see it is that advlts shouldn't need their hands held when they cross the street like children do.

[m Gardner]

Its fairly simple really, despite what people preach about how RPGs should let you do anything, its simply not feasible to program all the possible logical consequences for the death of many major NPCs.

What happens if you kill one of the Jarls of Skyrim? Who replaces him or her? Who replaces THEM should you kill them? How about who replaces THAT person should they die? How can one spend the time and money needed to make an infinite number of replacement Jarls for every Jarl, each who would have their own personality, facial appearance, etc. etc.? How does one explain where all these new Jarls come from? If they come from the normal NPC civilian population, what happens when you run out of normal NPCs? How much programming would it take to show the hold collapsing as it should once all the possible Jarls are dead? How do you explain the hold continuing to exist even after the Jarl is dead, should you forgo replacement jarls, despite years possibly going by in-game with no new Jarl appearing?

The only way to make an NPC killable is to make their existence not matter, such as how the existence of Caesar, House, and Crocker, the main quest givers for each major faction, don't mean anything in NV, as their deaths change absolutely nothing in the game itself. The life of the man who literally founded the Legion, and subdued the countless tribals in four states four states, is literally worth nothing. And when their lives mean nothing, what exactly is the value gained from killing them?

Essential NPCs have, and will continue to, exist in most RPGs for the sheer fact its not physically possible to make every single logical repercussion for the death of every NPC. That is a technical limitation that will likely exist forever, or until we develop some sort of sentient AI that can constantly add new content to a game as you play it to respond to everything you do. Dev are forced to make NPCs live to make the world's continuance believable, and when the game gives you no reason to just outright attack them, devs understand that MOST people won't care, since that NPC being essential will never come up for them.

That's not even getting into the fact that RPGs are not meant for you to do whatever you want, they are for you to play out as the DM directs. This is true regardless of the age range the game is meant for, and as been true since D&D was first released into the world. Which is a topic unto itself.

It has nothing to do with hand holding, or telling the players what they can or cannot do, those are just excuses made up to not have to actually accept the feasibility of it.

[Amanda Leis]

Or.. It actually does because people will cry about failing because an important NPC was killed. If the player chooses to wipe out the Greybeards and there is no one to replace them, why is this the developers problem? Why is it an issue of the game?

The fact of the matter is that it isn't. It's nothing more than a consequence of the player's actions if they did not pay attention to dialogue or to the game. The game does a well enough job of presenting the Greybeard's or Jarls as important characters. Whether or not the player decides to kill them is their choice and if they're unable to complete the game because of that choice then it's something that they have to live with.

The only repercussion necessary for killing an "essential" NPC is a "failure" notice. Again we're talking about a game for advlts and they should not need their hands held by the developers. The problem is that so many people cry if their hands aren't held because it will "break their game", but it doesn't break the game at all. In Fallout 3 they have 100 save slots (IIRC) to reload because of a bad decision. That's more than enough hand holding as it is.

Let the players fail the game because of their actions. Hell in Fallout 1 you can fail and the game even "quits you" if you don't bother to pay attention or ignore the entire point of your journey despite giving us an incredibly huge amount of time and ample warnings. Every single choice we make has a consequence and something like killing an important NPC in an RPG is no exception.

[Jonathan Egan]

Is fallout even considered a pure RPG anymore? It comes across as more of an action/adventure title with RPG elements thrown into the mix. I think it's bull to sit there patronize the devs and label them as "taking the easy way out," when we don't consider that perhaps the devs are approaching the series with another concept or idea in mind.

These alternatives that are listed don't address the difficulty in coding an AI to actively evaluate their immediate surrounding. To them it's just as easy as a snap of the finger - and that desire is a pipe dream not grounded in reality - yet. The other issue of replacing NPCs is that caravans in FNV are just that, nameless caravans or nameless soldiers that mutter the same dialogue over and over. Their purpose is to fill the world and allow it to appear and feel like the NPCs are interacting with the world and that is a good thing. If they die, nobody really gives a [censored] which is ok, too. But, contrast this to named NPCs with some level of personality and their deaths to the game world are more noticeable. Is this good? Maybe. But truth be told it inherently reduces the existing population and removes that bit of life from the surrounding area or town. I would rather enter a Whiterun and hear Nazeem measure dikes with Carlotta or see Jon Battleborn chilling at his usual post. It creates a sense of familiarity that's far superior to some generic NPC that does the same task with no personality or background.

Because Skyrim has a narrative about a man or woman, realizing his or her purpose, and rising to the challenge to stop the end of the known world. That's the core narrative and what the developer's want player's to experience. When they say go into Skyrim and become anybody or do anything, they don't mean that literally. They say to become (warrior, thief, mage, hybrid) or do anything (ignore MQ, join guilds, or explore) within the boundaries of the main narrative. Skyrim was never sold as a farmer or bandit simulator.

It IS the developer's problem because killing the Greybeard's corrupts the core narrative that the developer's intended. Not only that, the absolute main reason is that random Dragon attacks occur at High Hrothgar, and the Greybeard's frequent the backyard of the temple. If they die and the player didn't want them to die, the narrative is ruined and the game cannot be continued without a reload. That's not a player decision, that's really bad gameplay that soil's the experience.

Do you honestly believe it's hand holding when the devs place safe-guards to ensure that the player can, to some extent, complete the main quest and not have to reload a save (or restart from scratch). Yes-man being essential was to make sure the player could at least witness and complete TBFHD.

A better example hand-holding is being guided to your destination by a map marker like it's some kind of home beacon.

[Richard]

Because its their game, and they have a responsibility to actually make the things you do mean something, and have logical consequences, and not let the world fall into too many illogical situations such as holds operating without Jarls for years. Yet, as explained previously, this simply isn't feasible in many situations.

For all the talk of choices and consequences, what you are advocating for really amounts to nothing but consequence-less choices, the ability to kill whoever, simply for the sake of it, regardless of if the game can respond to your actions or not.

What you propose is less of an RPG, and more of a life simulator.

[Theodore Walling]

That's how Bethesda advertises their games and that's how they're labeled. So yes, they are or at least should be RPGs. If they had no intention on making an RPG after purchasing the IP for an RPG what's the point? They purchased the setting, factions, mechanics and ethos. Why waste the money at all if what you're saying is true?

So.. giving the world immortal characters and preventing a player from killing someone is the solution? If that's the case then it would be done just as well by allowing the player to kill those essentials. They would fail the narrative that was presented to them. It does absolutely nothing to ruin that narrative because it's still there to be experienced. With either a reload of a previous save or with a different character and personality**

I'd have to suggest reading through this and the previous thread then. There was in fact a couple people that were upset over traveling merchants dying.

As other members have pointed out: Putting that NPC into a faction and then also giving a run on sight command would easily solve this problem.

Yes I absolutely believe it's hand holding because the player can 1.) Reload an old save 2.) Continue while facing the consequence of their actions. People reload their saves all the time because of a dialogue choice they didn't like so I don't see the issue at all. It's a far better alternative than sitting their slashing at an essential NPC only to find they're immortal.

And yet you're proposing the opposite. I'm have no idea how you don't see the contradiction in this.

Yeah because failing the game isn't a consequence. Being unable to complete the story isn't a consequence. The game would respond exceptionally well by NOT allowing the player to complete the quest.

lol if that's what you say. Removing choices or consequences of actions makes it an RPG. God I wish I thought of that!

[Lisha Boo]

Because its not contradictory. RPGs are not designed to let you do everything, and suffer the consequences of every possible action, only simulaton games are meant to do that. RPGs are designed to allow you C&C within what the DM, or in a video game's case, the developer, allows you to do.

Consequences mean nothing if they game cant respond simply beyond making you lose out on a quest. Being able to do everything means nothing if no one really notices, and a game where you can't do everything, but which allows the gameworld to operate more logically, creates greater believability in what actions you can do.

The removal of some actions that the devs cant account for doesnt mean that plenty others that they can account for don't exist. C&C in RPGs is not an all or nothing deal like you are making it out to be.

[willow]

Then I suppose an incredibly large part of Bethesda's games should be abandoned because it's just that. A lot of what the PC does in their games has no noticeable consequence or impact at all.

The rest I won't bother responded to. It's only going to be going around and around.

[Mashystar]

How Bethesda advertises their game is one thing, how a game actually functions is another. At it's core, Fallout 3 is an action adventure game with RPG elements, same as Skyrim and Oblivion. What makes an RPG an RPG is subjective. For example, The Witcher is an action/adventure series with rpg elements that tells the story of Geralt.

BG purchased the IP because they saw something with a established base from which they could develop on. Instead of developing their own wasteland dystopia they took an already established one and brought it into a new dimension. It's the same reason Disney bought the Star Wars IP. Fans want to see the story develop and grow. They want to see Star Wars, not a cheap knock off.

The narrative is ruined primarily when the player has no input into preventing it from being ruined. Greybeards or Delphine dying to a dragon attack or some random encounter is bad gameplay. The game's narrative does not revolve around the consequences of what happens when a very important NPC, crucial to the narrative, suddenly dies by some uncontrolled event. When a random encounter occurs at point B, the player has to move from point A to point B. [censored] happens in the time it takes for them to reach their destination and stop the big baddy.

People want to play video games without the dire consequences of real-life.

The solution of reloading a save is tedious and a very poor, borderline idiotic solution to a problem that can be easily solved by protected NPCs, a solution that doesn't require extensive and wasted development time to create a what-if scenario for every possible thing that can happen. If you want to kill that protected NPC for whatever reason, go for it.

[sas]

By mentioning the dragon attack, you keep forgetting the "protected" status many users were talking about.

Also, if a quest giver dies by your hands, it doesn't mean that you are cut off a part of the story. You aren't there to follow a scripted story but to make your own story according to your choice. That npc dying is not a failure, but an event of that story you created. The quests you didn't do with him aren't part of your current story and don't exist in this reality. If you choose to spare him and do its quest in another playthrough, this alternate reality or new story would feature that character with an extended role, improving the replayability of the game. This isn't a failure as your story keep moving. And even if you killed all main-plot related characters, you should be able to reach another ending, even if the outcomes might be less optimistic. For instance, if you betrayed the Legion, House, NCR and Yes Man, you should still be able to finish the game by blowing up the Hoover Dam and other crucial location, so the main armies lose interest in the areas. You would need no NPC for that, just a fistfull of dynamite.

[quinnnn]

New Vegas proved that Essential NPC's aren't needed.

Dawnguard proved that you do need Essential NPC's if said NPC's aren't programed to run away or have low health because a lot of people didn't like Oblivion's Level scaling.

Personally I would want No Essential NPC's and if said NPC died there should be a note on their corpse telling you want to do with a certain quest. I can see the argument for essential characters for some, especially someone like Neloth who would fall from the tower occasionally. However that can be dealt with by not putting NPC's in places where they will easily die.

[Lexy Dick]

Two problems here, one is player killing an critical npc without knowing he will be important later.

its not always obvious who is important, Dalphine in Skyrim does not looks like an critical character, second is important characters getting killed by enemies.

Yes an Morrowind style warning could be used for the first, protected for the second, note that you can still ruin other quest chains than the main quest like this.

I have no issues with this, might even be fun as an trap, you find some annoying NPC with good items so you kill him, wander on and you get an quest to retrieve an artifact.

Quest point back to the annoying character, you search house as the quest giver recommend but no clue to location so quest giver conclude the location is lost.

[Robert Jr]

New Vegas only had no essential NPcs because House was stuck in one place, Crocker and Caesar illogically never moved like a Morrowind NPC, and Yes Man was functionally immortal as he could reincarnate in a new body forever.

[Madeleine Rose Walsh]

Where should Caesar have moved to? Walking around the camp (is that such a big deal)? Going on random patrols in the Mojave (insane already as a thought)? I had hoped that there'd been certain timetables when he was available to the player outside of which he'd just be "attending to other matters" (all the player needs to know), but I really don't see the problem in Caesar lingering in his main camp even if it just means he sits in his tent when the player decides to show up.

[Soku Nyorah]

Because it makes the whole game feel like Morrowiond, were NPCs were less like people, and more like static, unmoving, info desks for the player to use.

No one stays sitting in a chair for YEARS unless they are dead. Its an obvious cop out to not actually have to admit the fact its likely he would DIE due to SOMETHING other then you had they allowed him to walk around.

Also makes one wonder why the NCR didn't just use a vertibird against the defenseless Fort and take out all of the Legion's leadership in one blow given that none of them seem to do anything but sit in that tent all day.

[Arrogant SId]

Does it now? These couple of NPC's?

On normal circumstances, making these new games feel more like Morrowind is something I'd consider a good thing, but that's not really what I experienced with 'em, for better nor worse.

[vicki kitterman]

Yes, NV suffered a lot from this.

Too many NPCs who just stand in one place forever, only moving maybe to reach their beds. It felt like I feel into a time warp back to the past.... all the bad parts of it.

I think even the Jarls of Skyrim, who stupidly never leave their castles and longhouses, moved around more then most NV NPCs.

[louise fortin]

I think what New Vegas suffered most of all was the insistence on the seamless and miniaturized open world map that puts these sorts of expectations ("every NPC should be a world traveler") and limitations (static/semi-static/immortal NPC's) in place to begin with. Same will be the case with Fallout 4, no doubt.

[Charles Weber]

I would have that problem even if the world was hub based like Fo1 and 2.

Why does no one walk around the town and do stuff ever? Why do they just stand in their shops all day and night, waiting for the player as if the whole world revolved around then?

Is not a problem only with seamless open world games, and no one is anyone expected the NPCs to be world travelers. Just that they do things within the town they should logically do.

[Brian LeHury]

It certainly seems to me that people want the NPC's running wild. Otherwise this whole essential NPC thing (because monsters and bandits and balconies and cliffs kill them, if they don't happen to start killing each other) wouldn't be an issue at all. If they stayed within the surroundings of their "homes".

Hub based map offers the benefit of abstraction where you don't need to witness these NPC's traveling on the map on other than by a random chance in a controlled environment where only you can hurt them; you can't follow them to see where they are headed (and then witness their immortality or untimely death by random circumstance).

If all this is "just" about NPC's walking around their "home-bases" raking the pavement and what all it is they do, why all the fuss about essentials? Would New Vegas have felt any different if Caesar walked around that small camp of his?

[Sasha Brown]

It certainly would have done a lot to make the NPCs actually feel like people, instead of static info boxes akin to Morrowind.

[Jhenna lee Lizama]

Can't argue with that. I just don't see the magnitude of the problem here.

[Theodore Walling]

I just think that since its been over a decade since Morrowind came out, not to mention how long RPGs even before THAT have been doing this, that we should start making RPGs to reflect the advancement of technology since then.