Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kaodi" data-source="post: 5800773" data-attributes="member: 1231">I may get called on having a terrible thread name again, but I feel that this is an accurate depiction of my question.I am wondering whether, when naming a setting, it is better to give the setting a unique name that in some sense describes the flavour or the core conceit of the setting, or whether it is better to use the proper name of the world (or the focus of the world) depicted.Examples of what I might consider descriptively named settings: Forgotten Realms, World of Darkness, Planescape, Birthright, Spelljammer, Dragonlance, Ghostwalk.And properly named settings: Greyhawk, Blackmoor, Eberron, Golarion, Kingdoms of Kalamar, Ravenloft, Nerath, Mystara.Both groups have some really iconic names in them, of course, but I was wondering if one approach might be, on average, better. I am playing around in my mind with an idea for a setting that sort of boiled up when I was thinking about how 5e works (or, if I were to doggedly stand upon my own arguments, 7e) . So far most of the names I have been brainstorming have been descriptive, but there is a bit of an issue in putting one together that flows nicely, because the name I first thought of is shared by a recent game and also a recent unrelated movie. If by some completely insane stretch of the imagination I were ever to publish (even if just posting my ideas for anyone to use) , I would think that cound be problematic from a branding perspective. So that is sort of when I decided I ought to ask the question first before continuing.Sadly I am not sure if my core conceit is original for a setting. It sort of cribs off a modern trend in fiction in an explicit but more limited way.</blockquote>

Verification