I really like that there's some actual difference in the Party Girl's eyes and general expression instead of it feeling like that Adachi-ass forward stare.

This confuses me more, since inheritance and classes are core principles of OOP.
What you're describing also doesn't sound distinct from "having capabilities", it sounds like using classes as containers for capabilities, which still seems quite object-orientated. So to speak, "rules" are an object.

larj trug

This isn't just an organizational issue (Although pedantically, all coding issues can be considered "organization") OOP significantly affects how functional things remain at large scope, and it can be very important for keeping systemic or orthogonal design from breaking under unexpected scenarios.

This also has advantages for interaction between classes. It can hasten their ability to identify each-other's capabilities and naturally safeguards against incorrect assumptions. Complete interchangeability isn't always convenient. It can become a problem when rules rely on or expect other rules.

It would be actively problematic if "Simple Character" and "Player" could be implemented independent of each other. As "rules" one is entirely reliant on the other. And "NPC" may have many behaviors incompatible with the presence of "Player" rules, hence why they're divergent.

This is important because the capabilities of "Player" are designed in context to the functionality found in "Simple Character", and it will interact with other Classes as though it is a Simple Character.

I'm not sure if you fully understand my example. "NPC" and "Player" in this context aren't concerned with interacting. They share a common set of behaviors, but the Player class diverges into something more complex. It might be better to say they both extend off of a "Simple Character".

Especially within extremely systemic design, where "everything" interacts with "everything", having incredibly defined limitations on how certain things behave is very helpful, both for actually being able to achieve the end result I'm looking for and for emergent gameplay.

This is so odd to read for me because I have massive benefits from OOP. Keeping an extremely complicated Player class distinct from a very basic NPC class, with a convergent point of extremely necessary functionality, has done wonders for keeping things unencumbered and implementation realistic.

its all this little twerp's fault

"uuuuhhhh shit-jibbidy how do i make spindash like sonic advance but in three dee?"