I've had roughly the same group of players for any tabletop game for like 20 or more years. Two constant, the others cycle in and out as life permits. Started with the little red box with elmore art that covered levels 1-3. Played through 1e and 2e, the bulk being 2e (everyone loved the skills & powers, combat & tactics, and spells & magic splats back then), before we finally got our hands on 3e, which was well liked equally by both the munchkin and the perpetual elven wizardess role player over other editions.
We did plenty of marvel super heroes FASERIP version with the ultimate powers book and randomly generated characters, tried some ars magicka, some top secret, and they really liked weg D6 star wars. Everyone loved the RIFTS setting but the rules were just too much. Played plenty of magic the gathering up until the release that contained slivers (ice age was my favorite set). We still do axis & allies when we can on a custom blowed up and laminated version of the revised historical edition when schedules align, though most just play it online now with programs like tripleA. (had it blown up and laminated to be mountain dew proof as one guys fat fingers on the default board would regularly scatter stacks of infantry across europe and piss me off.)
After we started getting people in 3e who had not played in prior editions where there were not rules for everything (and DM adjudication was thus built in to the understanding for veteran players but alien to these newcomers) was when the gaming frequency waned as no one wanted to deal with the cheese and the whining that the game was broken because you must let them break it or you are a bad DM and we should play vidya instead. This hiatus was interrupted by the release of 4e, which we did not buy but thoroughly researched and retched and bitched about w/o ever having played.
It was at this point I discovered that weg D6 system had been released as space/adventure/fantasy, and I bought these and never looked back. But my two forever players, while they liked it for fantasy well enough, seemed to have trouble w/o class and level to restrict them, feeling aimless and timid. I developed some advantages/disadvantages (a native D6 system mechanic) that emulated abilities and restrictions of D&D classes, and they rejoiced that yes D6 could "do" D&D. Then they pushed me further to come up with a formula or process by which D&D characters/monsters/magic items could be ported over, and I did, so completely in fact that one could essentially play D&D as written but upon the D6 rather than D20 chasis.
It came to pass in all this with the playtesting and one shots that their comfort level and understanding of default D6 fantasy grew enough that now D&D emulation is too confining. They have presently tasked me with retaining a very loose notion of class and level, portability of D&D items, spells, etc, but to walk it back to the more fluid and versatile concepts of native D6 (which is skill based). They want now something less confining than the strict D&D classes where you get x abilitiy at x level if you are y class, and for the concept of class to be walked back to "thematic guidance" rather than the traditional hardline concepts where a ranger is always a ranger and clerics almost always turn undead, etc..
They cite 2e skills and powers, where you purchased abilities and custom built your character in ways that could sometimes transcend traditional class tropes. Functionally this is already buit into D6 via the advantage/disadvantage/special ability section of the rules, and just needs some D&D'esque customization.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Which brings us to this point where we ponder the very concept of class itself, and where I pick your brains for thoughts on the matter.
For example, I always disliked that cleric was its own class, that there existed a line between divine and arcane magic. Or that ranger was a distinct class, I never felt it different enough from fighter or rogue to justify being it's own class. I always felt that barbarian suffered this same flaw and should rightly have been termed berserker. Wizard, sorcerer, druid, witch/warlock, shaman, priest, cleric...these I felt were essentially the same class separated only by the particulars of how they fuel their magics, all but the first two being servants of supernatural or divine entities who are rewarded with magic for their service. The restrictions on armor for casters never really made mechanical sense until 3e where you could wear the armor but it reduced your casting effectiveness.
My present rough draft utilizes only 3 rough "classes" that I've termed archetypes or focuses, a martial/magical/mundane focus, each of which gives access to a short list of skill increases (and skill increase caps) and advantages/disadvantages particular to each which are free at level up or which cost if you go outside your focus. This leaves you with something like martial archetype and occupation knight, or magical archetype warlock occupation.
So, what is your take on classes, hard or soft?
Do you like classes at all?
Only soft class concepts or harcoded D&D style?
Are there classes you feel should not exist? or which should but do not?
I've heard many who favor OSR complain for example that thief/rogue should not be a class because it steps on the toes of fighters or mages who wish to disable a lock or trap.