RPG Character Classes: Restricted or Not?

[Baby Tea]

I recently have been going through yet another play-through of the Baldur's Gate Saga.
As I near the final moments of 'Throne of Bhaal' and my final battle with Melissan using my Elven Fighter-Mage Daes Taris, something has got me thinking...

Character classes.

Every RPG has them, or some variation of them. It's your job. Your role. Your purpose.
At it's base form, it defines your character's abilities, but it can effect your alignment (Morality), your origin, and even your religious world view (All depending on the game of course).

And so I have come to the conclusion that there are,. essentially, two type of character classes:

Restricted: Restricted character classes are the type of class that has access to abilities and weapons that no other class can use. Take Baldur's Gate as an example: It uses the 2nd Edition Dungeons and Dragons rule-set. Thieves cannot use long-bows or two handed swords, and can't wear more then studded leather armour, but can sneak and pick locks and backstab! Mages can't wear any armour and use very little weaponry (And even those they can use they can't use very well), but can cast spells to obliterate people.

Un-Restricted: Un-Restricted character classes are classes that more effect your starting point then your over-all point. You can still use plenty of items, weapons, and spells with little to no restrictions. Oblivion is a perfect example of this. You can make a 'fighter' or something at the beginning with great weapon proficiency and little to no spell abilities, but then never touch a weapon and cast spells the whole time, and then switch on a whim.

My question to you is:
Which do you prefer?

Personally, I would say I like restricted. Un-restricted seem to cater far to much to the 'power' gamers who want to master everything. Restricted classes forces you to make a real, conscious decision about what you want your character to be. You ARE Jimmy The Mage, rather than: Jimmy, the guy who started out using a sword, but then started casting spells, but then decided axes were cooler, and then went back to swords. If it's a role playing game, then you should be playing a role.

How about you, Escapist?

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

I prefer Restricted, it defines roles more easily and means everyone has something to do, so none of the players feel left out.

 

[Andy_Panthro]

I quite like restricted classes, provided they are unique enough. Everyone gets a role to play.

 

[Baby Tea]

I prefer Restricted, it defines roles more easily and means everyone has something to do, so none of the players feel left out.

I quite like restricted classes, provided they are unique enough. Everyone gets a role to play.

We should start a club!

 

[The Great JT]

I like the restriction version for the same reason Cpt. Oblivious said: It makes roles more defined and everyone needs to know their role to function well in a party setting.

 

[Baby Tea]

Well how about in single player as well? I know this is the age of multiplayer, where a game without it is seen like an mutated albino with leprosy, but when you're just playin' away by yourself: How about then?

I still say restricted.

 

[Kiutu]

I like the TES style due to its logic and realism (within the setting)
Anyone can learn to use a sword well, regardless of their profession. Also the leveling, since you could be a wizard in DnD, use your magic to kill stuff and level up, then tack on rouge. "Wow, how did you learn to pick (albeit weak) locks? 'Magic'
In a TES game. "Wow, you are soo good as casting fireballs, but how did you learn to pick locks!?" "Practice"

However, the class system of DnD and such, I do like the specializations, It works better with a multiparty system, but since TES is single player. But I like multiclassing, always, using class advantages to aid. Monk/Rouge works well. Sneak attack + the special attacks Monks get.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

well,while payers may want to branch out a bit,restrictions are good because otherwise everyone would end up like everyone else,making it quite boring.

in short(er): yes

 

[pipboy2010]

I prefer restricted, because of the roleplay elements some of the people above have mentioned.

I was having a 'discussion' (or a losing argument) with some friends playing D&D, where they thought it was stupid that their character couldn't use a shield. "How hard is it just to hold a shield" was the point, and I was trying to explain that in real life it would actually be quite difficult to fight with a 15 pound piece of wood strapped to your arm. The feats and abilities represent training as much as skill, in that the character would have had to learn to fight in that particular style.

In short, why would a sneaky, nimble thief be able to use a greatsword a with the same skill as a fighter? They'd have to spend time training in it, time they spent on their own skills instead. They may be able to fix this with feats, but at the cost of more useful abilities, and thus restriction makes sense.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Both systems, if done correctly, are perfectly fine for me. However I prefer un-restricted RPGs, as they are much harder to screw up.

You can easily mess up in a restricted RPG. One thing that frustrates me is when you need one specific skill to access one specific area, and that game provides no alternative methods to get to that area using other skills. This usually leads to certain skills being dominant over others.

 

[War Penguin]

I like restricted especially if you have friends or NPCs. If they're all restricted then everyone will have a moment to shine if your in a dungeon or anything like that.

 

[Cargando]

Unrestricted for me, I enjoy the freedom that it offers me. E'en if it ne'er delivers...

 

[Symp4thy]

Restricted because I like being able to use skills and items not everyone can use.

 

[SantoUno]

Both for me, the one game that I absolutely love restricted classes is KOTOR.

 

[veloper]

Restricted for any game with more than one PC. Tactical roles make the RPG more interesting.

For single player with 1 character everything might aswell be completely custom. That way you can try everything you may like (even in one playthrough).

 

[TheGreenGrasshopper]

Restricted makes it better to go in a specified direction. I always try to go in the mage direction and preferable one with fire or heal powers, so it doesn't matter that much even tho I think a mage wielding a long bow and a broadsword a 2nd equip is far from realistic or usefull for your party members.
So I'm going for restricted

 

[Baby Tea]

I like restricted, as they make each play through as a new role different, force people to work together and do their unique jobs in multiplayer, and I feel they are a bit more challenging. I find un-restricted really fun, too. It gives you more abilities, morre incentives to gain said abilities, and makes the game a tad more fun in a few cases. It can also make the game a bit too easy, though. For this reason, I prefer restricted, but I still thoroughly enjoy un-restricted.

I would agree to this!
I certainly enjoy both! Though I find restricted is far more suited to story driven games, and unrestricted is more suited to sandbox.

 

[j0z]

I like the TES style due to its logic and realism (within the setting)
Anyone can learn to use a sword well, regardless of their profession. Also the leveling, since you could be a wizard in DnD, use your magic to kill stuff and level up, then tack on rouge. "Wow, how did you learn to pick (albeit weak) locks? 'Magic'
In a TES game. "Wow, you are soo good as casting fireballs, but how did you learn to pick locks!?" "Practice"

However, the class system of DnD and such, I do like the specializations, It works better with a multiparty system, but since TES is single player. But I like multiclassing, always, using class advantages to aid. Monk/Rouge works well. Sneak attack + the special attacks Monks get.

I have to agree with you. To use a real-world example, nothing kept the archers in the middle ages, in the heat of battle, from dropping their sword and picking up the claymore of a fallen comrade to use against the enemy that was threatening to overrun them.

 

[Exocet]

I prefer a nuanced version of restriction.

Basically,anyone can use any item (apart from obvious physical execeptions:ie,a halfing wielding a two handed hammer).
However,if you don't have enough training with that item(or none at all),you get penalties.

That way,a mage can wear heavy armor and wield a bastard sword with a tower shield,but his spell will definately fail.

 

[ArchBlade]

I prefer a mix, in which you have to pick a definitive character class, but you can still use just about anything with no restrictions.

The catch, of course, would be that using items and weapons not designed for your class would carry huge penalties. Such as a warrior casting spells. They would work, but would fizzle most of the time, or a mage using a great axe, it would undermine the full damage potential of the heavy weapon in general by nerfing it's melee quotient.

EDIT: That's not to say I'm picky. I'll play any variety of these designs, as long as they're done well.