Class Options: Deep and/or Wide?

Note: This post touches on the Throne of Salt post here and the Goblin Punch post here .

So something that's been on my mind as the days creep towards when I will once again sit down to run a table top game in PERSON is the relevance and purpose of classes in table-top RPG games.

I think Arnold summarized it pretty concisely- class choices represent a preferred play-style, and encourage that play-style mechanically.

Rogues stealth good, fighters fight good, wizards magic good, and that's all the classes there ever were in the history of ever so we can all go home.  /s

Many games I've played assume that a given group of players will have different preferences and thus the official content for those games is "balanced" around challenging (but not killing or otherwise removing) a number of players in some sort of "default" party composition (fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue being the most popular go to I've seen). The idea behind this design seems to be to dish out an even amount of "fun", allowing each player character to have particular challenges they are uniquely suited to solve. I'm throwing balance out the window for once so none of those concerns are present and I can get a bit weirder with whatever class options I want.

But as I consider what rules to use for this new game (some sort of unholy hack) I'm struck by a choice- do I go classless a la Knave, do I go "classic", or something else entirely? What will be the most fun for both me and my new players?

Here's some of the options I'm considering~

Option 1: Classless- "The Knaves"

Everyone begins the same and can become anything they want. Play-style and progression are determined by factors outside classes such as equipment. I might do some variation of "earning" or "unlocking" different abilities normally assigned to classes through play.

Option 2: The "Classics" 

Some variation of Magic User/Fighting Man/Specialist/ETC. Nothing too weird, just your basic fantasy tropes. Maybe even as many as 5e, but that'd be a stretch. What Skerples called "Extras" in a recent post (link). I'm looping them all in together since the idea is that the classes are pretty familiar even if you aren't an experienced fantasy veteran.

Option 3: The Wide Open GLOG/"Pathfinder"

A big honk'n list o' classes. Kinda like a "Classics+". Weird stuff, working with the players to determine just how weird things get. Void Monks. Angry Geese. Mute Exorcists. Devil Nuns.

The characters place in the world and societal hierarchy would probably be determined after the fact. Like if someone picked a Biomancer I would then have to decide how popular biomancer's are and if they're illegal and things of that sort.

An important point here is that I don't have to make that choice until the players make their class choices. I'd probably make a fairly large list with very brief descriptions to give a general idea, and then just see what the players want to play. In that way, the player's get to help world-build a bit and I can relax and just focus on whatever the character's want to see in the game.

Option 4: A few unique choices- "The Carvergirls"

This is basically the opposite of Option 3. I'd make or pick a small number of unique classes and present them as the only options.  The idea is novel for my games but something that I've actually read a fair bit about before- putting a hard constraint on the number of classes, but making those classes unique to the setting. Games like Spire and Blades in the Dark do this well in my opinion- they put a spin on those traditional sneaky/fighty/magical archetypes and make players learn some new names while sharing a bit about the setting.

You can't be a Rogue, but you can be a Shadow Accountant and Shadow Accountants have their own lore and setting expectations and ability progression that either adheres to or subverts whatever you'd expect a rogue-type character to be. Those changes may or may not be expressed through the mechanics and should definitely be expressed through character interactions if done well.

Just as people probably have opinions about Rogues in most "D&D" settings, they should probably be equally opinionated about Shadow Accountants in whatever setting you use them in.

And now, a rant about the Genius of Carvergirls.

The class just drips with flavor. The post says everything you need to know about them without a single paragraph of "lore". It doesn't ask you to "please read this lore I wrote", it opens up your mouth and shoves it down your throat. It kinda reminds me of some of the better SCP's, a formulaic and slow-burn reveal in an unexpected format.

Carvergirls set a unique tone and opens up possibilities for a very specific game. Even if I made a change as simple as "Your three options for classes are wizard, fighter, and Carvergirl" that limitation would permeate through the rest of the game and fundamentally change the experience of the players at the table. The class deals with, to put it lightly, some real dark shit.

It's inclusion is therefore not a decision to take lightly, and something I have to seriously consider if I'm going to take the route of Option 4 and craft/curate a small set of classes the players are limited to choose from. 

"Women and men; soldiers and outlaws; fools and corpses. All will find their way to us now that the road is clear"

I suppose I could also do some sort of "class unlock" but I don't know how to do that well.

Right now I'm leaning more towards Option #1 and maybe some weird combo of Options #3 and 4. 

I also have no idea about how high-lethality will tie into any of this, as it's my first long-term "OSR" "campaign".

Also if it wasn't obvious I'm real excited for Unicorn Meat.

What's your take on all this? How do you do classes in your game? I'm open to and appreciate any advice anyone might have!