[Sasha Brown]

Essential NPCs: Non player characters that are incapable of dying, but instead when health gets to low usually faint for a few seconds and then return to consciousness with slightly recovered health.

There were some NPCs in FO3 that really irrated me when they died, like the caravan traders that appeared infront of settlements. They actually would spawn in active world cells near you with out you noticing them and get killed by raiders. which was very annoying as i wanted to dump my crap on them for caps. but other than that there are few NPCs that I want to be immortal.

[Blackdrak]

I'll just keep saying no for reasons mentioned before. Reactivity, responsibility and far greater possibilities for interesting narrative turns and quest design.

[Dan Stevens]

This thread needs a giant

NO.

[suniti]

Essential NPCs should be killable by the player only. NPCs getting killed by enemies is annoying and sometimes game-breaking. But, if the player would want to kill someone, he should be able to do it. That's unquestionable.

[Dagan Wilkin]

I would like to see essential NPCs being able to be killed ONLY by the player, as to prevent accidental death from somebody else who was trying to kill you. In addition, I would also like to see that after an essential NPC has died, there is at least one other NPC in the world who you can continue the quest from. However, if you decide to kill the second NPC, the quest line will effectively end, preventing you from ever continuing it again. This includes the main quest!

It was both funny and annoying how I cleared entire towns out by shooting everybody only to have somebody arise after everybody else is dead because they are not able to be killed.

[Big Homie]

I think in addition to being able to kill any and all NPCs there should be unforeseen consequences for choices at points in the story. By this I mean that certain choices in the game during quests or dialogue might lead to NPCs dying and thus losing opportunities for quests, trading and dialogue.

Although this is slightly off-topic I want to add to what I said above by saying that actions in the game should cut off access to factions, quests and dialogue. Perhaps being a known member of a faction or known actions can lead to inability to open dialogue with people. It would not only increase replayability as different types of characters would find different quests and dialogue, but it would also give some actual consequences to a genre of game that SHOULD have them to begin with.

[Bambi]

I like it.

[Bedford White]

Caravans being killed in fallout 3 was annoying. Like what happen to them? Haven't seen them in days. Essential unless the player picks a fight with them

[Big Homie]

If you want them alive, reverse-pickpocket them with better weapons.

[maria Dwyer]

No essential NPC's, player character's got the New Plague.

Better yet, we should just be able to 'give' stuff to any NPC in the game.

Cuts away the reverse pickpocketing method.

[Matthew Aaron Evans]

So you'd prefer a game where it's possible to go back to a town you were a few moments ago and find multiple NPCs dead? Killed by other NPCs? And I'd have to give them stuff to keep them alive?? Like... Give them all expensive armor?? Why would my character give every NPC in game an expensive set of gear? Why would those people accept my gifts?? This way would hurt my immersion, A LOT.

Essentials killable by the player only offers smoother gameplay, and hurts the immersion a lot less. Besides, people that aren't fighters should take cover anyway. (take an example from "When vampires attack" and "Run for your lives" mod from Skyrim) But the essential status should serve as an extra safeguard. Unless of course... My character wants to kill a quest giving cannibal.

[Jordan Moreno]

Yeah I am always annoyed too when the followers don't play the whole game for me. Why I should even bother... simply annoying.

[Aaron Clark]

Followers are a different case. I agree that followers should be killable by enemies. Even escorts. But Essential (so unique and quest givers) NPCs in cities and other settlements(!) shouldn't be killable by enemies. I wouldn't care if that common guard died. I would if a unique character died.

EDIT: (!)

[Dj Matty P]

I still would prefer essential until not needed personally or an option to turn it off if i want to kill them for any reason.

[CORY]

No essential NPC's in Fallout 4 please Bethesda Game Studios and Todd Howard. Let NPC's be able to kill other NPC's and let me kill all NPC's if I want to.

[Manuel rivera]

No essential NPCs. Bethesda would've have had the problem with dead essential characters in Skyrim if they hadn't set it for the "safe zones" to get attacked every five minutes.

[Emzy Baby!]

I don't expect Bethesda to write new story branch to account for the deaths of NPCs that have roles in a story were killed by either myself or another NPC. And yes, I don't want NPCs to be "essential" either.

[Anthony Diaz]

Last might be so but far from always. If you kill NPC this will have consequences like breaking quest chains.

I on the other hand would also have the option to give stuff to NPC to increase their survival chance,

[sunny lovett]

Fallout 3 was more dangerous than Skyrim if you was not behind an load door, Skyrim had dragons who might hit towns and the idiot vampire attacks who I got patched out fast.

Remember that it will probably be far less load doors in Fallout 4, this is an old demand and its doable now because we have 12x more memory.

Now fewer load doors and lots of long range weapons.

[A Lo RIkIton'ton]

As mentioned in the previous thread the caravan traders and faction patrols should be :

- Generic replacable guys. Yes, they should be able to die, the roads are risky. But the roads always been risky and they always been traders/patrols. Someone replace them.

- Trader/Patrol should follow the road to reach the next city or surround the perimeter of their HQ/Outpost and not get lost in a deathclaws nest/Ocean/Endless pitt. (even if they do, see first point)

- Should have more guard to defend them. (for caravan traders)

- Should face opponements related to the areas, not related to the level of the player character.

- Not essential

Patrol & caravan are npcs that are supposed to die, or at least risk their life. It would make no sense to babysit them.

[BaNK.RoLL]

To summarize my previous comments:
Only quest related and unique characters should be essential.
Being essential means: Not able to be killed by something that is out of the player's control. (Like enemies and falling off a cliff.)
Followers should be killable by anything.
Escorts (escort quests) should be non essential to enemies and traps. (should still be unkillable by falling.)

The essential status is to safeguard unique characters and quest related characters. Even though most of them are in settlements and would flee to the nearest interior in case of an enemy attack, it could go wrong and the player wouldn't be able to do a certain quest anymore,(which is ridiculous because the player couldn't prevent the it). Still escorts need to be non essential to anything but falling to death. Would be pain to have your escort fall to death after you've defended the NPC against many tough enemies for 20 minutes.
Followers should be non essential.
And the player should have the option to kill anyone in the game.

[Inol Wakhid]

It was called "protected" rather than "essential" by other players to avoid misunderstanding between the current thing and the wanted thing, but i think it is well summed up.

It is also nice to think about escort mission. It would be frustrating to have the escort die from glitch or ground shape, but it would make no sense to escort an immortal NPC. If he is immortal, there is no need to escort him...

[Vickey Martinez]

You didn't got my cynism I assume. The caravans in FO3 are deliberate vulnerable.

If something is convinient doesn't mean it makes a game.

[anna ley]

It's called consequence. It makes for a more interesting and diverse game when you have to accept loss. The world is meant to be dangerous, not a series of indestructable convieniences for the player.

[Rachel Tyson]

If you think NPCs interacting with their surrounding and creating a more believable experience is meaningless, then I don't know what to tell you. Meaningless in the sense that their actions don't affect the game world drastically (if at all)? Yes. But, not meaningless to the player who sees these interactions and reinforces a level of depth and adds life to what would otherwise be a sterile game world.

It also makes for frustrating gameplay; something that would majorly piss off the majority. Remember all those threads about vampire attacks cleaning out unprotected/non-essential shopkeepers and blacksmiths from towns? The game wasn't equipped to replace every single shop keeper that died.

A more fluid and well functioning 'protected' system is the key/solution here. Make NPCs completely immune to damage they take while down but not out and make it so only the player can deliver the killing blow. There, everyone can have their cake and eat it too.

If the NPC isn't crucial to any main quest it doesn't matter. The NPC dying on the escort mission is fine by me.