all of those, except the last one, i'm sure can be fixed. if you start a simple chain reaction causing their death then they can die. I'm sure programming that wouldnt be TOO hard.

the last one (lure them into a cave of baddies where they "unexpectedly" get killed by inhabitants) is a good thing IMO i wouldn't want essentials to die that way.

i know maybe you can turn essentials death on or off in options problem solved :celebration:

I think some characters shouldn't be killable until their respective questlines are spent. In some cases, killing people like the Counts from Oblivion wouldn't make sense as you'd probably be executed or jailed for life if you were able to, regardless of whether you're the Champion of Cyrodiil (in general, people don't go around killing other people and get away with it easily, especially famous people).

OP
That part of the manual is as good as the game. Even now reading it on my little phonescreen makes me happy.

The reason "everyone can die" is gone... We know why (don't we?)

then you should be beheaded or jailed for life if you do. that'd be cool.

They could do so enemies would only start combat with them when your around or when they're scripted to do so... and they could do so that they won't ever start combat unless your around or they're scripted to...

They seem to have gone back on this concept. If they hadn't, we would have been able to drop quest items (thus ruining the quest, if you forgot where you left it or it fell through the floor/landscape) in Oblivion.

I'm thinking it's rather along the lines of "That was then, this is now." The current mode seems to be more "We believe we should allow a lot of freedom, while still feeling free ourselves to throw in any restrictions needed to ease our workload (essential characters rather than figure out how to make the game world work without "invincible" flags on certain NPCs) or reduce complaints (undroppable quest items to protect players from themselves).

If George gave me a sword and said that if I give it to Joe then Joe will give me 50000000000000000 dollars for it, then I'd be pretty stupid if I threw away the sword marked as "Georges Sword" (unless I discover that its an international conspiracy to steal my kidney)...

Yeah man, developers were more tricky back in the day. The King's Quest series comes to mind, there were always little items you have to save for the right time. if you didn't pick up the item or you used the item at the wrong time you'd be screwed. You'd often have to restart the whole game or most of the game.

That kind of risk really makes the game more exciting IMO.

How about marking their name in a different color?

This man speaks the truth. I bought the Oblivion Prima guide just so i could sit on the toilet and read it, i spent an hour on the seat when i first got it.

I honestly was ok with quest items being droppable in Morrowind. It annoyed me greatly that in Oblivion, I could not even DROP what I wanted too. That's irritating. I don't like having my hand held through quest.

When I played Morrowind and killed someone from the main quest the first time, I thought, "Wow!". I had never seen that in a game before and it was awesome. I loaded my newest save and played the rest of the game.

Then, once I had done just about everything I thought possible, I went on a killing spree. I killed every single character left in the game world and I loved every minute of it. It was so fun just killing and killing everyone. Flying around the game world and summoning minions like a new God come down to decimate Morrowind and punish them for their sins.

Wish I could do that in Skyrim, I really missed it in Oblivion...*sigh*

Ahhhhhh, hear the call of the cliff racers....

There is already a way to toggle their essential flag in the game so why not just make so until you do the quest they are essential? Afterwards they are not. I know it doesn't help people right off the bat but its an idea.

In a sandbox game where I can go wherever I life from the beginning there is a risk that I may kill every person who might give me a quest later on including the end boss. If I were to do that, it would kill every quest in the game including the ending. I would be left with no game at all.

I have no problem having essential characters which can not be killed until after I have no need in my game for that character anymore. The alternative, as in Morrowind, is that I kill them and get a little pop up message saying I have severed the the ties or whatever of prophesy which is every so maddening and causes me to have to go back to a former save before I killed them. Of the two....I'll take the essential, non killable characters.

The only other way around it is to make the game so linear that I won't run into them until the time is right which makes it no longer a sandbox and takes away freedom to roam.

Seems if I want that....I'll run off and play some other game.

But RPGs are not really about player choice, they are about character choice ~using player choice will inevitably be playing out of character, unless one is playing one's self in the game ~and that's not what RPGs are about either.

A good role playing game is ALL about restriction; as you play under the restriction of the specific character you create.

If your character is not a genius, then you should be restricted from genius dialog choices; If they are not agile, then they should not be sprinting across ponds like the super agile in Oblivion (say...).

I can definitely see where people who share your point of view are coming from. No one likes having their game ruined because you killed someone you didn't know was supposed to die, but that's what those messages are for, saying you've messed your game up, ala Morrowind.
But, and hear me out, that's not the point.
The point isn't that I want to just kill everyone I see. The point is, is that I can kill everyone I see. I don't want to go around slaughtering masses of people. That's not how I roleplay in TES. I RP very seriously and killing sprees aren't on my agenda. The point is, it adds a level of tension and realism that was non existent in Oblivion. Like I replied to one post in this thread already, the first time I met Dagoth Fyr, I literally crapped my pants because of the tension. If I let that trigger slip, bam. I'm done. Game over. That makes it REAL. Knowing that all I have to do is "wait" 9 seconds for him to regain consciousness after I slaughter him with a massive battle axe absolutely ruins immersion for me. Just KNOWING that I could kill him makes it so much more realistic. It's not always about "hey, I want to kill this guy and ruin my game." It's about knowing if it came down to it, it could happen.

^agreed. I only lost one item on Xbox of the dozens of games i played (i lost the dwemer flying boots after i plunged the Corpusarium early).. I just did the back-quest though where you lose a lot of HP permanently

on PC you can't really lose an item

RPGs are about whatever the player decides it's about. No steadfast rules for the masses except the in game restrictions and/or those placed upon us by the GM.

Gosh I hate it when one person's preferences define an entire genre.....

And after all these many, many years of playing RPGs....everyone still defines the genre in so many different ways. An rpg really is just a game in which we play a role, develop our character and make choices which effect the outcome of various quests and the game itself while following the rules of that particular game as set by the GM or the Devs. That is all. But that is pretty off topic for this thread I imagine.

The thing is if they make it like Oblivion where you can only knock out quest NPC's then at the very least give them some insanely funny comments to use after you do such a thing.....

Martin gets back up after a brief period of rest on the floor....

"Well done my friend, but if you try that again at the very least stick me in a vital spot next time so I can avoid the pain of reawakening."

I am certain Beth can come up with much better comments then that but you get the idea...heh

A difference of terms then... Role playing is different from adventure gaming. the latter is about exploring a virtual world as a class of creature, the former is about interacting with the story as a specific creature. :shrug:

**Its the "role". In a Middle Earth RPG, if you are playing as Gandalf, you are not playing a wizard.. You are playing Gandalf the wizard, and should stick to what actions Gandalf would find appropriate ~as opposed to what Sauruman would be comfortable with.

(But its moot really, as TES starts you with a blank slate ~no role to speak of .)

I remember playing FF (The first one) for the first time. This was a few years as I had a goal to play through all the old FF titles. I was even doing it in a hard way, using a Single Warrior. I progressed through the game and got to near the end. But what did I learn after a certain point? I was supposed to have a Flute that the princess gives you in the first 20 minutes of the game. The only problem is you didn't get it unless you talked to her at a certain point. Which means I couldn't finish the game. Needless to say I was PISSED.

No quest item should be missable to the point where you can't go back and get it. I have no problem with them being droppable as long as they don't disappear.

In today's markets for games, genres meld and combine to better meet the intent of the devs and the desires of the fans. I've no problem with adding a bit of adventure to my RPG or a bit of RPG to my shooter....It's all good.

And...different strokes for different folks and all that jazz.

I like to roll with it and I like it when developers don't become stifled by some pre-defined definition of what is set "true rpg" or "true shooter" or "true adventure" or "true strategy" . If someone is making an rpg and throws in some adventure and some strategy gameplay and it does not break the basis of what the game is....it's all good by me.

TES is and always has been a sandbox RPG and most who have played TES games for a long time...well that is what they like about it. Steadfast rules annoy the heck out of me. I like breaking rules.

Its true; can't argue with that.
(Actually the rest of the post was certainly true too. )

I like breaking rules too. That's why I like the option of breaking quest if I want.