Quote Originally Posted by Fatebreaker View Post
*shrug* I don't mind a game which tells me that players are different or better than non-players. Exalted and 4e both go about it in very different ways, but they're up front and honest about it. And I don't mind a game where players are exactly like everyone else, except for how they happen to have a real-life puppeteer. L5R does this rather well.

I do mind a game which... isn't clear on the subject. 3.x, for example, had PC classes cost the same XP as NPC classes, with no special requirements to pick a PC class. So why would anyone choose an NPC class? It just makes me picture a world full of muddy li'l tykes going "Golly gee, I sure hope I grow up to be a commoner!"
You misunderstood the whole point of NPC classes. The PCs are the special ones. The fighter has the training, i.e. feats. The warrior just has the basic anyone can pick up a club. The wizard has the training, i.e. spell progression to level 9. The adepts only practice at Hogwarts. They don't go to the Department of Mysteries to fight Death Eaters to put into practice what they learn. Divine adepts just take care of their tribe and don't need to know more than they do. The NPC classes are not there for players to take. They are just a quick reference guide if for whatever reason a commoner needs to engage in the combat the PCs are in. For the DM to determine class abilities and features for every commoner is madness. The NPC classes with their levels is just so the DM has something handy to use commensurate with the level of the PCs. The BBEG and their Lieutenants still have PC classes like always. They're the BBEG and Lieutenants because they have that training. If the DM wants a commoner to have a PC class he's more than welcome to. The NPC classes are just there for when the DM doesn't want to get into such detail for whatever reason. They are a tool, not a template for the gameworld.