What is exactly value of originality in naming stuff? Like, countries

>>53889797
R.E. Howard more or less did that. Most of his names were real world names with one or two sylable changed, and some of them weren't changed at all.
Go ahead, if someone compalin tell them that.

>>53889797
That's sort of what I do. I try to use mythical or psuedohistorical names for my setting, like Hyperborea, Avalon, Arcadia, Thule, Nod, etc. I think it makes the setting more accessible for players and it adds a touch of class.

File: 1369340970752.jpg (167KB, 612x557px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 612x557px

>>53889797
With original naming you work against bleedover from the real thing overwriting you fiction.
You also signal greater care taken in the production of your setting, as copying is associated with laziness. Demonstrating laziness in a comparatively simple task furthers a perception of general lower quality.
Unique names further help anchoring your product in the mind of others. "Thuringians" is associated with the real people. Nobody will think of your setting first when hearing those names (and online search difficulty looms down the line, if relevant). Unique names make telling new people about setting details easier. For example they wont think it is alternate history.

>>53892217
>You also signal greater care taken in the production of your setting, as copying is associated with laziness. Demonstrating laziness in a comparatively simple task furthers a perception of general lower quality.

I don't think so. When I read Robert E. Howard, the use of real world names made the setting feel more mythical and weighty. I never got the feeling that he was just being lazy. If anything, original naming is usually lazier because stealing a name requires research, while inventing a name can be just making a gibberish word on the spot.

>>53889797
>What is exactly value of originality in naming stuff?

Because people routinely confuse the LABEL with the THING.

Call a country Vinland and despite all your efforts to tell your players and readers that it's not a distant colony of Vikings they will still insist on making assumptions based solely on that name.

If you want people to listen not make assumptions, you need to be original enough to avoid using words which feed those assumptions.

File: 1490829138629.jpg (3MB, 5166x3894px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 5166x3894px

Stealing existing names is a better idea because people will already get a feel for what the nation is about.

>>53892217
>"Thuringians" is associated with the real people.
Who the fuck are Thuringians?

File: these guys.png (1MB, 698x962px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 698x962px

>>53894777

>>53894731
how would one make a map this nice.

>>53894638
If you call your made-up country based on Vedic India "Vinland", of course people will be confused. But if it's a distant colony of not-Vikings in a not-Europe setting, Vinland would be an appropriate name because it uses those assumptions to make the setting more clear. It's all contextual.

I find it useful to give places their own names, even if it is a blatant ripoff of a real-life culture, because it signals to the players that I can and will just make stuff up about this country whenever I want. It does not have to be particularly "original", but it helps to be at least somewhat different from the commonly-used name of the place in real life.

>>53896019
>It's all contextual.

No it isn't. Stop thinking like a soon-to-be-unemployed-after-graduation Literature or English major. Context doesn't mean shit because most people don't look or listen long enough to even begin understanding the "context".

Put a country named Vinland in a setting based on "Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp" and your players are going to assume "viking bonobos" well before they actually thinking about it,

File: tumbler pepe.png (108KB, 1631x1571px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1631x1571px

>>53896130
>most people don't look or listen long enough to even begin understanding the "context"

You shouldn't assume most people are as retarded as you are.

>>53894901
Ah, so Syrians?

Honestly there are some good names in history, the trick is knowing how to use them in a way that sounds interesting and isn't just obvious. For example, rather than using Swabia, you may call it Sualience - taking cues from Swabia and Provence with a slight difference. It makes it not as obvious at first.

I for one prefer either historically based names, or simple ones like Rivertown. When a fantasy story has K'zorandel the Mazarov running around in Toqidet with his A-Rupfib, it's guaranteed to be shit.

>>53894731
mirror universe europe

its lampshading the fuck out of your bad habits

>>53894638
That's why you take the connotations into account when unoriginally naming things. Connotation is a powerful tool that shouldn't be ignored solely to favour originality instead.
Naming a Viking-themed country Vinland is going to make players remember and understand the basic idea of the country more effectively than naming a Viking-themed country Urlodia or whatever unique 100% original name you force yourself to come up with.