On the page of the Game Informer magazine with the undead guys (Draugrs?), there is a line that talks about how quests are done.

Paraphrased, it says that if you kill a quest giver, his daughter may give you the quest.

Let's look at that again...

If you kill a quest giver, his daughter may give you the quest.
:celebration: :celebration: :celebration: :celebration:

Anyway, I really like this new way of dealing with it. Finally, something that doesn't screw with immersion and still lets you do the quests!

And what if you kill his daugher? ^^

You won't be able to because she's now essential :celebration:

I agree. The whole "unconscious system" was more a lame safeguard for kiddies than anything else. Now finally your actions have REAL consequences.



If they do that, I'll make a mod to remove all Essential tags and then kill them all.

I'm intrigued that NPCs will apparently have recognised relatives.

I'm guessing either:

• Kill both the man and his daughter and some randomly generated cousin from another province will be drafted into town
  
• Kill both the man and his daughter and that's it. Too bad. You had a second chance.
  
• The daughter is immortal.

Hum

1. Kill shopkeeper
2. Kill daughter
3. Kill cousin (if he is dumb enough to take over business)
4. Buy the shop dead cheap
5. Give the quests to some dude at the fighter guild by yourself

well in TES XXII maybe? :liplick:

Is that a joke? I am all for killing quest givers however a consequence of doing so should be that you dont get the quest. There should be bigger consequences for your actions and also more unique playthroughs.

I am pretty sure that they will give you the option to kill the "second" quest-givers. You just fail the quest, Fallout style.
Unless it's a main quest.

It's just another safe guard for those who want everything in one play through.

It's just like level scaling to give you everything even if you hit the same 5 dungeons repeatedly for 100 hours.

I guess it could be interesting, but I see it as just a gimmick to get around the essential NPC issue without actually addressing the whole idea of choices and consequences.

Of course, I'm baseing all of this on the fact that this is just one quest they've spoken of. There could be quests where if you kill a guy and his son or whatever takes over, then the quest becomes either one of trying to get back in favour with them or they perhaps hire bounty hunters to kill you and you have to go back and finish them off if you want them to stop doing it.

"Killable questgivers" is nice and good unless they get killed by random critters that chased the player into a town...

hahaha agreed

You're too late. I just gave the job to some Spellsword.

Oh wait, no classes.

killable quest givers doesn't have any indication on whether or not MQ quest givers are invincible or not

The quote doesn't tell us that, and I'd say it depends on how this works. If the daughter is actually an NPC the game randomly generates to replace the dead character who is then said to be his relative (Since the game has randomly generated quests, I could very well see it having randomly generated NPCs appear as well.) then it could potentially allow you to kill off the person infinitely and get infinite replacements (That sounds really weird when you put it like that.) or maybe if you kill her too, then the quest just gets broken, we'll see.

It must also be said that just because some quest givers are killable doesn't mean all of them are killable, maybe only characters involved with side quests are killable, or maybe it even only applies to said random quests. I could very easily see the game using essential NPCs like Oblivion for the main quest, we'll just have to wait and see. When you assume things that weren't explicitly stated, you run the risk of being proven wrong.



I agree fully there, if I kill an NPC and end up breaking a quest because of that, then it's my own fault for doing so. If I don't like it, I'll reload, or if I did not know about it until I had overwritten all saves from before that characters death or it was so long ago that I'm not willing to replay all that, I simply won't do that quest, or I'll start over with a new character, but when quests get broken due to things outside of my control, like NPCs getting killed by enemies when i could not have helped them, that gets annoying, choices and concequences are great, so long as the concequences are for choices you made. When you have to suffer the concequences for things outside of your control, it's just annoying. As long as Bethesda can find a way to keep quests from being broken by important quest givers dying when they decide to go for a walk out of town or during these dragon attacks the article talks about, though, I'm all for letting players kill any game character they please.

Oblivion had several of these too, only then you'd get a pop up with 'an NPC important to this quest has died' or something like that.

But it's pretty damn complicated to keep track of every NPC that might be involved in a quest somehow and might be the target for a random murder by the player, and either stop the relevant quests when he dies, or give them to other NPCs. So I doubt there will be a whole lot of killable quest givers.

It's like that statement of if you drop your claymore on the ground, that a kid might pick it up, walk over to you and tell you that you dropped something. As if that's going to happen everywhere, or even once. I don't think you can generalize specific examples like this over the entire game.

That was my reaction too. The way it's described makes it seem more like a way to ensure you can't miss a quest no matter what you do rather than making the world more realistic. But hey, maybe that was just a single example and it'll work really well, who knows.

That was Morrowind.

Then you are a horrible person and the dark brotherhood will now be watching you. Oh, and you'll be cleaning up the mess when the rest of her family want to wear your bones as a hat.

the threads of prophecy have been severed!

I figure that if you kill the guy's entire family, the game will just decide you didn't really want to do a quest for them, anyway.

Morrowind only had this for characters that were required for the main quest. In Oblivion everybody important for the main quest was essential (except for a few cases were Martin had the ssential tag removed, but then you had to reload if he died), but some side quest did indeed have dialogue boxes informing you that an NPC important for the quest died and that you can no longer complete the quest.

I loved it when that prophesy message popped up in morrowing. If you want to cause an extinction event while ignoring the quests you should be able to.

1. Kill the quest giver
2. Round up the whole family/friends into one building
3. Burn it to the ground.
4. What quest?
5. Profit
6. ????

My guess is that there will still be essential characters because the game would be broken otherwise---consider what would happen to the story if the first thing you do is assassinate all the kings and queens of the cities----there goes the whole civil war plot.


It would be awesome if they found a way around this--but I think that royalty might run out of heirs.



My guess is for small quests, if you kill too many relatives--they dont come back anymore and you cant do the quest.

Reminds me of how I got a charecter into the dark brotherhood, I was doing Big-heads quest for the fork... suddenly he had gotten killed and everybody thought I did it...