Do you think classes should have to conform to ideas from pre-existing fiction?

[Agrippa]

Is this what you think, or do you have a more open ended approach? Do you require litterary or mythological precedents for class abilities and disallow those that don't have pre-existing examples? Like disallowing the warlock class or back up "arcane bolts" for wizards and sorcerers because you can't find them in fiction. I'm just curious about this.

[Raineh Daze]

No. That seems... pointless. Why deny valid concepts because you don't have evidence they've been done before? Forcing conformity to preexisting materials is ridiculous if you want any creativity.

[Agrippa]

According to the opinion I'm talking about not basing classes and class features off pre-existing fiction is like building a house on sand. There's nothing solid to support what you're building.

[Halinn]

Those with that opinion are lacking in imagination, then. Existing work is great for inspiration, but should most definitely not constrain design, especially in an RPG.
Unless of course they're arguing the literary theory that everything is based on something else, in which case they're probably right, but seem to be forgetting about stuff like source amnesia.

[veekie]

Kind of late to the party, but constraints breed creativity rather than stifle it for the most part. It's commonly seen with the case of open ended toolbox games, lack of constraints produces simple archetypes and media-knockoffs, constraints(where there is SOME flexibility in deployment at least) produce a challenge, to create something new within the limits of the old and in the process synthesize into a more innovative thing than either the player or writer can envision in a void.

[Raineh Daze]

Kind of late to the party, but constraints breed creativity rather than stifle it for the most part. It's commonly seen with the case of open ended toolbox games, lack of constraints produces simple archetypes and media-knockoffs, constraints(where there is SOME flexibility in deployment at least) produce a challenge, to create something new within the limits of the old and in the process synthesize into a more innovative thing than either the player or writer can envision in a void.

Constraints aren't quite the same thing as saying you can't give a class an ability because it hasn't been done before, though.

[Keldar]

According to the opinion I'm talking about not basing classes and class features off pre-existing fiction is like building a house on sand. There's nothing solid to support what you're building.

You can build a skyscraper on sand.  If you use enough friction pylons. 

[FlaminCows]

Kind of late to the party, but constraints breed creativity rather than stifle it for the most part. It's commonly seen with the case of open ended toolbox games, lack of constraints produces simple archetypes and media-knockoffs, constraints(where there is SOME flexibility in deployment at least) produce a challenge, to create something new within the limits of the old and in the process synthesize into a more innovative thing than either the player or writer can envision in a void.

This is absolutely correct. However, the restriction can come in many different ways.

You can restrict yourself to making it fit a certain piece of fluff, which isn't a bad way to do it. You can also have a good game mechanic in mind, and create the fluff for it. When you have to explain the fluff of an unusual set of mechanics, it can make you very inventive. You can also have a specific in-game purpose in mind for the class. When that happens you have to be creative with the mechanics and the fluff can take unexpected turns.

Barbarian is based on berserkers, with the mechanics and the game role deploying that story.

Warlock is based on at-will magic, with the fluff and role made to deploy that mechanic.

Chameleon is based on the idea of imitating different classes but not all at the same time, with the mechanics and fluff deploying that game idea.

Basically, you do need a foundation but that foundation doesn't have to be a story.

[veekie]

It does help if the foundation is based on pre-existing fiction, then elaborated from there though. So maybe I should change the terminology I used a bit. Rooted in extant fiction, but not constrained by it. Classes rooted in strong archetypes have the strength of a scaffolding of fluff to extend the mechanical foundations into a proper structure, after which it can be further modified by users post publishing to achieve something more. Built in a vacuum, it is more fragile, with most transformations conforming to a fictional archetype instead of elaborating on one.

[bhu]

I don't require media prerequisites for a class (and mythology still counts as a form of media), but they do help.  For example if I make a class called a Ralfinator based on some odd concept I've pulled out of the ether, no one really knows what to make of it because there's no precedent.  Many will say no because of the unfamiliarity, or because maybe the name turns them off, or other superficial reasons.  On the other hand if I call it a berserker, that automatically attracts a certain crowd who lives to play that cliche (and who will ironically be more forgiving of me if my design isn't solid because I catered to their fandom). 

It's a similar principle to why Hollywood does so many sequels and remakes.  You automatically have at least some built in audience potential who will look the other way when confronted with flaws, and said audience is more predictable.  You already know what they want.  Whereas new concepts don't have any actual social hold yet.  You can't predict how the fandom will react to them, so it's a helluva lot more difficult to make business/marketing plans around them.  As an example if  I tell people they can play an Acolyte of Xoomflothl, they'll just stare at me.  If I tell them "Priest of Cthulhu" there's a better chance they'll be happy because for some there's likely to be an emotional attachment already formed to the concept.

[Jackinthegreen]

It is certainly easier to use some pre-existing stuff to help create a new class or other idea, but it's not necessary if the new stuff has a minimum amount of understandability.

[veekie]

That generally means it has a preexisting presence conceptually, whether the greater class or the components it's built from. It can be understood from a frame of reference, or it has significant staying power, which can't be said for most writers, however great an opinion they may have of themselves, or however good they are at game design. Most literary greats aren't writing for RPGs after all, and the best aspects of memorable writing can be often exclusive with good game design.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Specific dudes can be examples of various classes.
And throw in the classic level equivalent, like:
Gandalf is a level 5 Wizard in this particular game.
Conan is a level 6 Barbarian, etc ...