I have been working on my own pen and paper setting for years and when I came across Pathfider I decided it fit what I wanted to do best, rules wise.
I've been kind of taking the "Eberron approach" where I basically grab every recognizable element of Pathfinder and retool it for my campaign setting.
As people who play settings, do you prefer when a setting "calls a tengu a tengu" or do you prefer the races to have more lore appropriate names for the setting?
I find it causes more confusion than immersion to have to explain what something is only to have a player go "Oh it's a [uses normal term], why didn't you just say that?"
Eberron renaming everything was a big turn-off for the setting for me, and I've seen it mentioned by others as being a distraction as well so I think I'm safe in saying I'm not alone.
Now retooling things - adjusting the "expected" stats and lore and such - is good and helps give the setting its own flavor. Using my own homebrew as an example, I bumped Kobolds up to a full PC race and adjusted their stats appropriately, retooled Dwarves to be primarily sailors and altered their racial abilities to reflect that (and gave Kobolds their mining/smithing/underground dwelling niche), and reskinned Half-Orcs as fullblooded Orcs and removed their ability to crossbreed with Humans. Doing similar adjustments to races is recommended if you want them to have a different flavor or feel in your world, but I wouldn't recommend changing names. Save the new names for things that don't already have bestiary/racial entries. =)
I dunno. Is it worth it to you for that level of immersion into your setting? A bullete is a bulette is a bulette...you describe it, it won't matter what you call it, people will know what it is.
Thank you both for the input.