Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Freedom: Can there be too much?
Dubhlaith
Member Posts: 1,012
Elikal started a thread here about the race/class restrictions in SW:TOR. He said that race/class restrictions should not be implemented, and praised Anet for its stance on GW2.
This got me thinking about freedom in general in RPGs. How much is too much? Can there be too much? Sure, making a charr guardian or a human engineer might not be great because they should be rare, but should that not be an option for players, given that it would be for inhabitants of the game world, were it real?
By that token, should a player be able to, say, walk up to a guard in a friendly city and start punching them in the face (or using real skills)? Of course, if the player did this, something bad would happen, either physically or legally, but should it be an option? Would this increase immersion, or break it? Why?
Can you think of anything that, if allowed, would be "too much" freedom? Why would it be too much?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Comments
I know that when I first started playing EQ and WoW (just a few examples, there are more), I accepted the restrictions of class and race combinations, as part of the lore and how the world was. It gave races their own identity and helped in this way tell something of the world you walked in. You'd typically find certain classes be dominant among certain races like wood elf druids and rangers in EQ.
Looking back, it would have made races less distinct and have less meaning and identity in my eyes if it would have been possible to do all classes with all races, from wood elf monk to high elf necromancer in EQ.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Yes, there can be too much freedom sadly.
The problem is that some people are just jerks and can spend all their time in game making it hell for a few others. The problem with that is of course that a lot of the players quit because and that is the reason the games with most freedom have so few players.
It may be freedom to be able to spend a whole day killing the same player but it isn't good for the game and it sure isn't realistic. Any person in any society in any historical period could not act like that against anyone he feels like harrasing.
It is possible that you could make a game that would be realistic enough to stop that behaviour but still have a lot of freedom, it would however have to have perma death, player run guards or police and similar things.
Other mechanics as classes, levels and so on is limiting the players freedom as well. That could be removed without too big disadvantages. With a point system that makes it possible to create your own class (or use an existing if you prefer that) players could buy their own skills and abilities. You would have to balance the skill by giving it the right cost of course. And when you earn enough XP you can buy a new skill or feat, or you could raise an old one (and you can of course put it on automatic as well for people who choose not to bother with micro maneging).
Levels is the most restricting thing in a MMO, it forces you to get exactly the same progression as anyone else of your class because of it.
I don't quite agree with OPs placing of GW2 BTW. It do restrict the PvP a lot but on the other hand is it very free with skills since you can pick them from a lot of different ones instead of getting the same as anyone else, in that way it is very free. I think adding all things and call it freedom is a misstake, some games are free in one way but not in other.
Yea, I suppose my placing of GW2 can be seen as a little odd. Interestingly, they have complete freedom with race/class combos, and seemingly with moral choices and such, but they prevent things like griefing, with the reasoning that you give, Loke, that a few people can ruin the game for the rest of the players. That is a totally logical design choice, because they want PvE to be about the E, not players in-fighting. So in some ways, they are making a very free game, and in some ways it is even more limiting that games in the past. I am very interested and excited to see what it is like. I loved GW, but it wasn't a very immersive experience for me. But damn, was it fun. I really hope Ritualists make it in later. I love my Rit, so much.
Maverick, I take it you are saying it is a better design decision to limit (perhaps arbitrarily) class choices, so that you have distinctive races that feel a certain way. I think there is some merit to this idea; I mean, people love to be the "oddball," and so if you allow a weird combo (gnome warrior anyone?), people will play it.
I think, however, it would be better to, instead of outright preventing it, to provide some strong, let's say, incentives, to not. I think I made use of NWN as an example. They had racial bonuses, and favoured classes, which made it much more likely you would choose a certain race for a given class, or vice versa. I like that idea better, because it allows for the choice, but still provides distinctions. Of course, I think they would have to be pretty harsh. I remember playing EQ, and being a Wood Elf. That was my first experience with 3D computer RPGs. The feeling of walking high in Kelethin, I'll probably never have something to match that in a game. I know part of that is it being my first experience, but everything in EQ felt real and dynamic, and I do think part of that was race/class restrictions.
Part of it was probably how harsh and real everything was. There wasn't the many things in modern MMOS that make it so much easier to track your current goals, and there wasn't the idea that you could just run into mobs and die and not regret it, or that you could expend all your energy on a fight and not be vulnerable for a time. That's powerful stuff that just isn't replicated in most MMOs today. But I digress.
Moving backward, I am a big fan of racial bonuses/restrictions. And I mean strong ones. Using EQ as an example (I forget what any of the bonuses were, I remember them being pretty minor), say you have a high elven or erudite wizard, that's normal. Say high elves have 15% more intelligence and erudites have 20% more. That's a big bonus. But then say also they have much less strength. You're a lot more likely to be a caster class if you're a high elf than if you are Barbarian.
But, of course, I can see how that would be both hell to balance and off-putting to a lot of people, so perhaps just preventing Barbarians from being wizards or High Elves from being warriors is a better solution, overall.
What about player interaction. What's too much? Is Darkfall too much? Is the idea behind GW2 too far in the other direction? What should you be allowed to do in the world, and what conveniences break realism for you? For example, in most games you summon your mount using an item or a spell. In Darkfall or Fallen Earth, your mount is a real thing you can leave behind and lose if you aren't careful (though I think in Darkfall you can turn it into a figurine or something). That's clearly more realistic, but it sure is annoying as hell.
What's good freedom, or what's bad freedom?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Unlike many people believe Freedom actually takes time and effort to code.
See programmers don't program restrictions, they program possibilities. If you want to punch that guard in the face then some programmer is going to have to program that. If you want there to be consequences then that's also going to have to be programmed.
So the question isn't just "Is more Freedom a good thing?" which is already very debatable as posters above me have said. It's also "Would you wait 5 extra years for a game to add more Freedom?".
Because seemingly simple things like 'consequences' will take that long to program. A legal system? We haven't even got it working smoothly in Real Life! How do you expect a fully functional legal system without bugs in a game?
The amount of freedom you currently see across all games, from Darkfall to WoW and from EvE to GW2 is what's probably around the maximum they can realistically give us. Any ideas that are beyond that, unless you have coded them yourself completely without any bugs in under a year, are not possible at present.
Programming virtual worlds with systems that feel natural to us is HARD. It's freakishly HARD. It's Turing-test HARD.
Freedom is all fine and dandy when talking about it, but when actually trying to program it you'll soon start hating it's guts.
So why spend 5 years on building a system with freedom when you could spend one year building 25 systems on rails? It's a game, most players will think 25 sets of rails is more then enough. And that group that wants freedom isn't going to be satisfied by your 5 years effort anyway as it's still not free and there will still be restrictions.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Also on the topic of racial restrictions I'd like to repeat some posts I've made in the past about how players somehow assume that all fantasy races are just differently skinned humans that have human organs, human psychology etc.
What if ogres have problems filtering incoming sensory information like some people have ( commonly seen in for example autism ). They wouldn't live in crowded places like humans. They'd go crazy from sensory overload and would likely go on a violent rampage.
These ogres wouldn't pick pet classes. These ogres wouldn't pick classes requiring them to go to some sort of engineering school or magical school.
What if Drow simply lack the brain regions necesarry for empathy? They would be incapable of understanding that others in fact feel emotion or anything at all. To them there'd be no difference between moving inanimate objects and living beings. That'd be a pretty good cause for "evil". They'd 'maintain' and 'assist' other living beings as long as they had use to them. But the moment their use ended they'd throw them away like a broken tool. Because they're incapable of seeing them as any more. They're simply incapable of empathy.
These Drow wouldn't pick support classes that helped others just for the sake of helping them. They wouldn't pick tanking classes that take the blows for others.
What if Ferengi spend their entire lives in basically a puberal state of hormonic balance? They'd always be self-centered and greedy. Their hormones would leave them little choice. That would simply be the way they are.
These guys wouldn't pick any support classes either. They'd all go with rogues and such classes.
What if wood elves are by nature extremely claustrophobic. Merely being in an enclosed space would cause them to panic. A reaction that's ingrained so deeply into them that removing it would basically cause them to turn so apathic that they'd stop living. There are butterflies in this world with migration ingrained in them from birth. They didn't learn to migrate. They can't unlearn to migrate. They migrate. End of story.
These Wood Elves would never pick any class wearing plate armour. They would never pick classes requiring them to be indoors such as engineering-based classes.
What if dragons experience physical pain on the slightest touches? They wouldn't ever turn cuddly. They'd bite your head off every single time. And if you ever managed to train them to ignore the pain reflex there wouldn't be much of a dragon personality left, let alone a cuddly one.
These dragons wouldn't ever pick any tanking classes. Neither would they pick barbarian-like classes. They'd only take classes that get hit extremely rarely.
And this next bit:
But if you want to know how it works in RL then maybe we could look at a group of creatures that, unlike humans, have very close relatives. Let's take the big cats, because big cats are cool. We've got Lions, Tigers, Leopard and Jaguar. These basically look like different skinned versions on each other ( like fantasy races ). They can interbreed ( like fantasy races ). etc. As good a comparison as any.
Now Lions are one race and they often live in prides. They group up and they have their social structure there. Now prides are cool, so we're going to include these in our big cat game in the form of a class. A pet class. Now should this class be playable by Tigers, Leopards and Jaguar who do not live in prides? Of course not, that's silly because they don't have Lion brains and as such don't have Lion behaviour.
Now let's take a more standard class for our big cat game. The Warrior. Now Tigers are the biggest at 300kg, so obviously good warrior material. Lions are also good at 250kg, again good warrior material. Now Jaguars have a bit of a problem at only 135kg. That's about half of what Tigers and Lions have. But let's go with the whole completely unfounded in real-life explanation that speed compensates for strength, this is a game anyway. So Jaguar warriors are in. Then we come to the Leopard. Leopards come at max 91kg! 3 Leopards are less then one tiger! How far do you want to stretch this thing for Leopards to become Warriors?
How hard is it too imagine that some Fantasy races might not have Human physiologies? Maybe they've got lighter bones meaning that in a world inhabited by strong-boned warriors they never ever become warriors because those that do get all their bones broken in training and are never seen again. Maybe there's some minor racial trait causing the Republic or Imperial Military to reject individuals from those races into their elite squadronds ( like how in Real Life woman aren't allowed in combat roles ).
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Gobla, that's exactly why I used Darkfall as an extreme example of lots of freedom. Eve I think I mention elsewhere as well. Obviously, this discussion is about ideals and possibilities, not the very hard (and much appreciated by all, I'm sure) work of coding. I think we can all agree coding things is complicated, especially the more freedom you want to add.
How about you answer the question? Where would you like the line to be drawn with regard to player freedoms? (I am of course, talking about what you'd like to play, not what you think is more plausible to be made.)
I swear, sometimes I think you argue for the sake of it.
Edit: As for your quotes of yourself, there, I don't think any of that is substantiated by anything. Sure you might be right, but A) even if you are, those creatures are sentient and have the *choice* and
But again, that doesn't answer the original question. What do *you,* Gobla, want in terms of freedom?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Gobla's right. It can be costly to come up with lots of possibilities. So there can be too much freedom. When trying to add more options you need to compare the cost of doing so and the benefit of having these extra possibilities.
Class restrictions don't make any sense for me. In real life you have three races - white, asian and black. It's like saying black people can't become lawyers or white people can't become doctors. Why the hell not? Nothing is stopping a race from becoming a specific class except if there is some really good reason where that person will be physically unable to become that class/profession. A specific race may see a specific profession as bad but this does not mean that every single member of that race shares this belief. It is unrealistic.
Too many people say that not having enough freedom is unrealistic. Yet the same people don't see ganking people without any consequences as unrealistic.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
You missed the answer:
"So why spend 5 years on building a system with freedom when you could spend one year building 25 systems on rails? It's a game, most players will think 25 sets of rails is more then enough. And that group that wants freedom isn't going to be satisfied by your 5 years effort anyway as it's still not free and there will still be restrictions."
You draw the line where spending time on freedom would give you less good content then spending time on rails.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
You mean like how in real life women aren't allowed in combat roles in the military?
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I moved this debate here, since it doesn't really belong in a Star Wars thread.
High Elves are just a different strain of human? You might want to look into like 95% of the origin stories of Fantasy worlds.....I've yet to see Caucasians or Asians get centuries old while the rest of us die in 100 years.
And cats don't have free will or sentience? Where did you get that? I don't think you want to get into that phylosophical debate because frankly there's no way for either side to win. We don't know what cats think.
Ugh. I can't help myself. Aging is like, less then .1% of DNA, so yea, pretty damn close. I mean, humans and apes have very similar DNA sequences. (Right now there is some contention about exactly how much, but it's pretty damn close.) But forget the human part. Caucasian is to Asian as High Elf is to Dark Elf. What differences do you have? Let's see, height, colouring, some facial features, other minor details. They look different enough you can instantly tell, but mostly, they are the same, where it counts. What makes them different is culture.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
You've used this statement before, and it still doesn't make sense. Let's pretend, for the moment, the real world has classes, and I'm a fighter. I want to fight. So I can't join the military, or a specific group, because they don't allow it. Firstly, that isn't about choice. That's about external rules, as I've tried to explain before. Secondly, I can join mercenary groups, or I can go into private contractorship to be a fighter for people who want someone to fight for them. A group not letting me do the thing I want to do does not preclude me doing it. It precludes me doing it for them.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
I think the discussion needs to be taken a step further back: why do people play MMO games?
The answer is, because of the fun and entertainment value they can provide (except maybe in some cases, like when you're forced to play in a Chinese prison
)
That fun is caused by various means. Immersion, and suspension of disbelief are two of them, convenience in gameplay is another one.
What provides immersion and by extension what provides fun is different for everyone.
To give an example: the long travel times in EQ contributed to my sense of a vast world and thus to my immersion (= more fun), I myself don't mind long travel times for that reason while instant teleportation to everywhere would make that part meaningless and kill immersion for a considerable part when it comes to the feeling of a vast world. Others however find long travel times a nuisance, it doesn't do anything for their sense of immersion and to that extent doesn't contribute to their gaming fun.
The same applies to a lot of things, the XP death penalty, restrictions in class/race combinations etc. In a way, rating what is immersive/fun in an MMORPG or what is good freedom is like asking what you like to see in a girlfriend or partner: you'll hardly get the same answer from everyone, because everyone has different things that they find important or enjoyable.
As for good freedom and bad freedom: besides it being subjective, it also depends upon how all the elements of the gameplay and the designed MMO world gel together. To use the gf example again, you might find charmnig some traits like overtly chattiness in your girlfriend because it's how she does it and who she is, it suits her well, while the same trait you might find annoying in someone else like in a new gf.
Restrictions can feel a burden and hindrance of your gaming fun in 1 MMO because all these restrictions and annoyances have been adding up to a general sensation of claustrophobic lack of freedom, while in another MMO the same kind of restriction feels as completely natural and part of the gameworld you play in.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
"So why spend 5 years on building a system with freedom when you could spend one year building 25 systems on rails? It's a game, most players will think 25 sets of rails is more then enough. And that group that wants freedom isn't going to be satisfied by your 5 years effort anyway as it's still not free and there will still be restrictions."
You draw the line where spending time on freedom would give you less good content then spending time on rails.
No, no. I am curious what you, Gobla wants. Not what is practical for a developer. All other things being equal, how much freedom becomes too much freedom?
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Where does it say that High Elf is to Dark Elf like Asian is to Caucasian?
And how does that relate to how Human is to High elf?
And if bringing DNA into the equation, how would DNA react to magic? How would DNA react to having a world with fantasy gods that actively interfere in day-to-day life?
You're making hundreds of assumptions in saying that High Elves have just different height, colouring, facial features and other minor details when compared to Humans. I've yet to read any fantasy books where the author explicitly states:
"And all High Elves were just a minor genetical strain of Humans and their brains and physiologies were just exactly the same so really, you should treat them as humans."
More often then not nothing is stated at all about their psychologies and physiologies. So you shouldn't make any assumptions about them. Keep your mind open and accept the possibility that they may not be differently skinned humans. That fantasy races may indeed be something magical, unique and well..... fantastical and that they may act and react in ways that we mere normal humans find illogical and unreasonable.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
I am well aware who I am, but thank you for reminding me :P.
The problem is that any question asked under "All other things being equal" is useless. All other things will never ever be equal. Development time for freedom will never be equal to development time for rails.
It's like asking a question under "All other things being pink".
And honestly, I don't know what would happen if all other things were either pink or equal.
I just know the current reality. And the current reality is that any freedom beyond what we see in games like EvE just isn't practical to implement and would take so much time that whatever product rolls out wouldn't be enjoyable.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Other:
I say Classes should be a restriction. makes Combat easier to balance for PvP and PvE.
Also I dont mind Race Restrictions. Think about it. How strange would it be to have a Undead Paladin?
Philosophy of MMO Game Design
The fear of sandbox freedom is its easier to break something than make it. For lack of equitable punishment for asshats, we need to contrive protection for others. Put simply, if you have the freedom to make a house, you can't grant others the freedom to destroy it willy nilly.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
With freedom comes responsibility. There is an unfortunate lack of responsibility (asshats) on the internet. This means we all suffer because freedom has to be restricted in some manner to keep the asshats in check.
As far as class/roles/races go, if it doesn't matter to the logic of the lore of the game, there should be no restrictions.
Let's be clear about one thing first: we are talking about COMPUTER GAMES here. We talk about fictional worlds, worlds which only exist in our imagination.
It is important to highlight that, because somehow it seems like in the famous wizards apprentice, the fabrications are threatning to overtake the fabricators.
If I can dream it, it is real.
If I can believe it, it is real.
If I can explain the background of it, it is real.
It may not make sense to YOU. But when we let THAT govern our fantasies... we die in a very profound way. Computer games are dreams of humans, made visual and manifest in form and shape. Are dreams not limitless? Is the horizon of fantasy and imagination not endless? The most famous tale about human fantasy, Michael Ende's novel was called "Neverending Story", because Fantasia has no limits.
We live in a grey, meaningless world of stockholders and beancounters, of suit-men and Norms. And now our dreams and fantasies should be counted, measured and limited too? NO. I say NO and passionately NO! I have my own fantasy dreams. They may not be yours, but as less as *I* tell you what you should fantasize about, so I won't stand you telling me! And to hell with Canon! Canon is just a fundament, not a Procrustes Bed! Canon is the beginning of things. That any IP does not TELL of "weird character x" doesn't mean it does not EXIST!
Reality is so infinitely diverse, bizarre, unforseeable and full of exceptions, exotics and weirdness, why should fantasy be streamlined down to some narrow, grey suited bean counters vision? It is FANTASY, it doesn't HAVE to make sense to YOU, it just has to make sense to ME, why my Darkelf joined the Paladins, why my Bothan became a Jedi or why my Sylvani becomes an Engeneer. Make him a social outcast, make levelling more difficult if you must, but do not set your personal feelings are rules over what another person's dream should be!
A person who rolls a Darkelf Paladin usually thought something about it, which is likely more than you can say about the many Dwarf Warriors or Highelf Rangers who just blindly follow some dumb stereotype. The sole limits are technicalities, like a Droid can't be a Jedi, since he has no Force. But even these technicalities are very rare. I mean, the Green Lantern Corp has a PLANET as member. And it can't "technically" wear a ring on the finger. To those with imagination EVERYTHING is possible.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Well said.
Whenever an online community extends beyond a couple hundred, there becomes less and less regard for those outside one's immediate circle. Anonimity amplifies that. What brings it all to an explosive head is that the Easily Offended and the Easily Amused actively seek each other out, the former to have something to complain about and the latter to get a rise out of someone with minimal effort. The more freedom of action a game offers, the more common the encounters between these two. This tends to have a negative impact on everyone in the community. Well, except the Easily Amused. They're laughing their asses off in vent or guild chat.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I found Dubhlaith's idea of racial boni good. It does encourage that many will play a certain class/race combo. So your world is still filled with mostly your stereotypical expectations.
On the other hand, it would allow to make "broken characters". A fallen High Elf who became Necromancer. A Darkelf who found his way to the light and became Paladin. You know, I am a storyteller. I wrote books, drew comics and I am full of characters and stories. Now as such, I am always pissed when I am restricted by some totally absurd, wanton set of limits. Like, a Darkelf can NEVER be Paladin. End of story. I HATE such limits. Let his path be hard, if you must, but my dreams are just so different than the standard fantasy steamlined concepts.
I just HATE to be confined into stereotypes. The grumpy Dwarf warrior, the cheery Elf Ranger, the stalwart human Paladin... I am so SICK of these overdone stereotypes!
Let's be honest here about one thing. Fantasy and Sci-Fi are in fact VERY conservative, not to say reactionary media. The noble blond Elves and the evil dark skinned races. Sounds familiar? I am not going so far as to accuse all Fantasy to be Nazi ideology, but it DOES breath a very, very backwards ideal of the "perfect ubermensch". It's all very Tolkien. The Ubermensch blond Elves vs the evil dark skinned southerners. I don't attack Tolkien for it, but I still see how much he was a child of his time. I say, it is time to let GO such antics, so backwards stereotypes of Elves, Dwarfs and Orcs. They were good and right in their time, but in our global, postmodern and multicultural realites, they just are absurd. In our Postmodern era, the identity is a self-made and made-up thing, and much less given. Now fantasy and novels have to connect to reality, and reality is... different. Diverse. Why should Fantasy not also move on? Why should be eternally be stuck in some 1950ies Fantasy model, shaped by Professor Tolkien? While I respect these roots, I think it is time to emancipate ourselves from these confinements and develop Fantasy ahead into a 21st century thing. And THAT means for me, to leave many of these old fashioned sterotypes behind.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Sorry, but that's absurd.
Are we so afraid of each other already? Fear is a bad council! We don't cut freedom of speech just because some people are irresponsible asshats! So why should we cut freedom of gameplay for it? People who are asshats will ALWAYS practice asshattery, no matter if you open up roles and classes or not. That has zilch to do with the question at hand.
Some people ARE asshats. Period. Opening all roles to all classes or not won't change their asshattery. Not at all.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Loktofeit did not quote me fully, I did add that if it doesn't matter to the lore of the game, there should be no restrictions.