Some of the things people don't like about Skyrim's quests are the result, it seems to me, of Bethesda not wanting to let players fail quests. Essential NPCs, for example, and guild storylines that don't require associated skills or have many choices.

How willing is everyone to accept the possibility of quest failure? From a realism point of view, it's surely only reasonable that going around killing people could mess up some of one's plans in life, and the fact that it doesn't in Skyrim is part of what makes people complain that one's actions in Skyrim have little real effect on the world. On the other hand, to play for a couple of hundred hours and then find out that one messed up a quest inadvertently, right at the beginning, is frustrating. How would people like this to be handled?

failuer should be an option

Just make it the way it was in Morrowind.

Theres a mod and console command to turn essential npcs off.There should a "Theres a mod for that©" emoticon.

Thanks, but I don't personally mind NPCs being essential, because I don't try to kill them, and I should think it only reasonable that doing so wrecked my game. But I wonder how people who do want to kill NPCs feel about missing out on quests altogether as a result. Or how people would feel about other actions making it impossible for you to complete quests (annoying people, for instance).

I don't mind missing a quest if im RPing.

I actually hate knowing I can't fail a quest. I just knew there was no getting kicked out of guilds long before that was made clear. I knew half the quests couldn't be failed, as well. I have been playing since 11-11-11, and the feel of the quests just made me know there was few that could be failed. It was hard to fail a quest in Oblivion, but you still would have a feeling that there was some kind of failure that could happen even if there wasn't.

I'd love to have quest failure in the next game. Not even for realism reasons. It just feels better to have that feeling that you'd better not screw up. It makes things more fun and makes multiple playthroughs have different approaches in other ways. What if I want to kill Imperial Crazy Drunk when he asks me to kill his cat in the next playthrough since I killed his cat in the current playthrough, for example.

If theres a quest I dont want to fail its the wedding I mean if you wait AN HOUR OR TWO to late you fail!!!!!!!

I think New Vegas did these right. You could kill almost anyone, but if you did kill someone associated with a quest, it fails the quest even if it hasn't been started yet.

This but there should be an option so it dosent tell you you failed it if the havent started it for RP purposes.

Its dumb to make it impossible to fail most quests. That ruins most of the challange. Now my only goal is to keep pressing forward without dying instead of actually completing objectives and goals.

For people who've already put in a lot of playing time, essential characters can be a PITA. If I know I'm never going to do the quest the "needs" this or that NPC, or that their part in my current game is finished, I'd like the option to kill them myself... so make them vulnerable to attacks by me or my followers, but otherwise immortal.

For new players, though, I can see where that would be a problem because unless they check the guide or go online to look at a wiki, they're not gonna know who will be necessary for what quest later on in their game. And stopping to do that every time you're about to attack some person you're not 100% sure about would not be a very fun or immersive way to play IMO.

So I dunno... a toggle between the two modes maybe? I'm on PC so I just use mods or console commands when I want to make someone killable, but console players have no options at all.

Edit: what I would like more than the "option" of failing a quest because of killing an NPC who is essential to it is the option to *refuse* a quest that I was railroaded into just by doing something completely unrelated. I don't want to be stuck with the Forsworn Conspiracy just because I walked into Markarth. I don't want to be stuck with A Daedra's Best Friend just because I visited Falkreath. I don't want to be stuck with "talk to Brynjolf about his scheme" just because I went to Riften. That sort of thing is far more irritating to me than immortal NPCs. Better yet, give me the option of refusing a quest and then make the NPCs who are essential because of it unessential as a result of my choice. Then if they end up dead, my choice actually meant something and there's no going back from it.

Ah. I haven't played New Vegas because I never liked Fallout, but it seems more and more that I should give it a go. Did you just get 'Failed quest: some quest name you've never heard of' message flashed up, or was it more subtle?

I should like to be able to fail quests by saying the wrong thing, but I think having a banner appear on screen the moment you do might be alienating.

Its the 'Failed quest: some quest name you've never heard of' message flashed up and I agree saying the wrong thing should fail the quest.

It's fair really. It's just like saying "I will recover your MacGuffin" Started: Find Bob's Macguffin

But if you want, break into the NCR's HQ and kill the Ranger Chief. You'll fail a quest, but so what?

If you shoot Bob, killing him. You'll get Failed: Find Bob's Macguffin

I think that essentials should be a choice in the settings for killable/non killable and for FO:NV NPCs don't matter when zombies(my custom mod ) are swarming around.

What about other ways of failing quests - dialogue options, for example? Would you want a 'Don't let me say anything too stupid' game setting?

sure and a way to delete completed/failed quest would be nice.