As I said in my last post, I'm working on an OSR thingy. Here's an excerpt from my outline for myself (which may see print if I ever finish the damned thing, although the typoes will be fixed by then, I assure you):
How is this game different from other OSR or retro-clone games?
I'm mostly sticking by what I said about the races although I might make some Eldar/Elric/Hellboy 2-inspired Elves to serve as monsters. But the classes part is something I've started reversing on. When I started brainstorming it seemed like the four iconic classes really were superfluous. But then I changed a mechanic specifically the BAB/THAC0 one (I'm still waffling over which one to use). From there, I began idly wondering how a Fighter would work with my alterations while still feeling like a Fighter. Then there was the Thief/Rogue. Idle brainstorming formed into a pretty solid concept of a master tool-user. The Wizard was sort of already in since I was planning on making an Illusionist based on the original version that appeared in The Strategic Review. But then I stumbled upon the Arcanist, a class from Pathfinder. I hare Pathfinder but like the spellcasting system the Arcanist uses; it's a good medium between pure Vancian (which I'm not a fan of) and purely spontaneous (which has always felt poorly-implemented in a D&D context). Now I'm toying with the idea of splitting the cleric into three classes each dedicated to a specific archetypical theme like healing, necromancy, and fighting/monster-hunting.
3. It purposefully avoids detailing traditional Races (such as Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, and Halflings) and traditional Classes (such as Clerics, Fighters, Theives, and Wizards). This is not because I hate them (except for Gnomes, which I’m iffy on) but rather because I feel that with the many, many versions already available on the market I don’t need to cover them.
The point I'm trying to make is that if and when you start to write something, be willing to go back and revise things when you make a change. Don't think of such revisions as "giving in" or "selling out"; rather, think of them as explorations of other avenues.