Talk:Endhaven (3.5e Campaign Setting)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Wow, I hope this goes somewhere! I like the idea, and when/if I make a world I will put it here. Once again, good idea. --Green Dragon 18:24, 9 April 2006 (MST)

Getting in Touch[edit]

I had someone drop me a line here, and they asked me to get ahold of them on myspace. I do not have an account there, nor will I be getting one. But, I have now added my wiki contact info to the wikiworlds so that folks CAN get ahold of me.

I have greatly expanded the rules on planes. This has been fun. --Dmilewski 12:01, 11 April 2006 (MST)

Using the Wikiworld Campaign Setting[edit]

I'd like to know how many people are actively using this campaign setting in campaigns or adventures they're running currently AND/OR are planning on running soon. Does anyone have a rough estimate, or perhaps just respond to this post if you are running a game using this campaign setting. See, I've got an idea that will help this project, but it will require collaborative efforts of many Dungeon Masters. I'll go into more detail if people show interest. --LoneLobo 08:04, 21 December 2006 (MST)

I don't use this... sorry. However, I am sure that many anonomous users are.. Why exactly do you want to know? Also, I would run your idea by Dmilewski, an admin who used to run the wikiworld (BTW, I alerted him to this page..). Thanks. --Green Dragon 08:55, 21 December 2006 (MST)
Definitely best to talk to me. I really don't know if anyone is using Wikiworld at all. (I have a kid coming along, so I've not even been able to start the Wikiworld development campaign.) I'm mostly developing Wikiworld as a long-term project to create a world that uses what's on the wiki itself.
If you want to contribute, by all means, pitch you idea. Give me the index version of your idea (3-6 sentences), and we'll go from there. --Dmilewski 09:14, 21 December 2006 (MST)
My idea isn't really fully developed at this point; I was going to base further development of it based on how Wikiworld is currently being used, but, if it isn't really being used, I'm not sure how that will affect things. Basically, just, when I first began reading about Wikiworld, I first thought that it would be a great long-term goal to not only allow the campaign setting to be altered by Wiki editors (in the traditional spirit of Wiki), but also suggest that Dungeon Masters who are using the campaign setting to reflect on the Wiki any significant changes to the world that may have been caused by players in the game(s) they are running in the campaign setting (in a similar style to how the storyline of the CCG Legend of the Five Rings is constantly affected by the outcome of the game's tournaments). So, if this was to be the case, (in addition to DMs using various planes in the setting for games, and creating new ones) I thought it would be a great idea to set up an adventure/campaign in Wikiworld that would be a collaborative effort between many DMs running games simultaneously. For example, what I had in mind would start out something like this: A spellcaster trying to travel between planes messes up big time and ends up getting sent to the wrong plane, and it's a plane that has never been discovered before. He starts recruiting people to help explore this new frontier, and start building settlements there. Sooner or later, each of the major political groups in Wikiworld hear about this new plane and they all want control, and each starts covertly making advances. The campaign would include lots of political unrest, leading to diplomatic missions and politically motivated quests, and eventually the Player Characters may have to choose sides. At the same time, lots of world-changing decisions would have to be made, which could have long-standing effects on Wikiworld. And all the while, on this new plane, settlements would have to be built slowly at first, only with the resources that the PCs have (and what they can convince NPCs from various other planes to contribute) -- common issues that would come up would include building Landing Points, Gateways, and marking paths for convenient interplanar travel, plus all of the usual difficulties involved with building new settlements in mostly unexplored regions. I'm sure the Feral Nation would start planning some raids too, as soon as these settlements started prospering. But anyway, sorry I didn't exactly stick to 3-6 sentences, but, I got out the words I needed to get out. --LoneLobo 13:20, 21 December 2006 (MST)
Coordinating a single game is tough enough. Multiples? My head hurts.
In my imagination, Wikiworld is a no canon world. That is to say, nothing about this world is set in stone, any adventures written in it can conflict with other adventures, and DM's are free to interpret the setting to fit their own needs. To that end, you are certainly welcome to develop a series of adventures based on your idea. They would represent one interpretation of the setting.
If you need a McGuffin, I suggest an Adamantine Mine. You can use Broadford. I was discussing something like this with my wife. Basically, it's a frontier town that discovers adamantine. Most adamantine mines are exhausted or have poor yeilds. There's a whole lot of desire for adamantine. The Jura City dwarves want the mining rights and are willing to garrison thousands to control those rights. Likewise, the Traders want it, too. The local druids know that adamantine mining is environmentally terrible, and want nothing of it. The Feral Nation has no adamantine, and would want it. Other factions of the Border League may invade to take it. (The League does invade itself periodically.) All the while, you have a booming population, infrastructure that needs building, and power politics spinning out of control.
The danger of this is that a new war of Law and Chaos could break out, and EVERYONE is afraid of a new war. That, in an of itself, is worth a campaign.
I say go ahead and develop away. Let's see what comes of it. --Dmilewski 15:03, 21 December 2006 (MST)
I could develop it with no trouble. Just, a lot of the fun of the idea was that around the world, a few, or several, or many DMs could be running their own game sessions, with this same storyline, and then updating to the Wiki changes to the world that occur during their game sessions.
The reason why this is ideal is really for the long-term. For example, if you and I and a dozen other DMs are all DMing this story, and after a few months (in-game-time) it becomes apparent that there's going to inevitably be another war of Law and Chaos, the outcome would end up being determined by how the most players align themselves, throughout all of the different game groups that are going on, overall, and the Wiki is used to regulate, and for the DMs to collaborate.
Also, (and this is the reason why I don't think I'd want to use Broadford) if it is a newly discovered, unexplored, plane, each game group could be exploring and settling different parts of it. If you're DMing a game, you could have it that the PCs find an adamantine mine, and settle there; and at the same time, if I'm DMing a game, I could have it that the PCs find a silver mine, and settle there. Then, collaboratively on the Wiki, we could figure out how far spaced apart the two places are, and maybe even provide stats so the settlement can be visited in other game groups.
So yeah, I mean, I can design and run the campaign, but if I'm the only one running a group with it, it becomes just another campaign set in Wikiworld, not a massive collaborative effort, which was my original intention. --LoneLobo 16:23, 21 December 2006 (MST)
I see your point. I also see the scale of the challenge. Have you ever run a LARP? I mean write it, run it, produce it. They are a great deal of work. I think that you could pull this idea off, but it would take work, dedication, and a much more mature game world than we have right now. We also need to account for game time, where one day can take a month of real time to resolve for one group, while another group rests for a month. What happens when two groups do the same thing in one week? How do you resolve plot contradictions? Who coordinates the DMs? How do you pace time? There's a big human logistical problem to be solved. It's quite a daunting one. That's the detail where the devil lives. --Dmilewski 17:21, 21 December 2006 (MST)
It would be a large-scale project to start out with, but once it's set in its ways, it wouldn't be too difficult as long as all of the participating DMs were pulling their own weight with the necessary collaborative efforts. I have run LARPs in the past, but only on very small scales; I'm actually in the process of producing a very large-scale LARP right now, but with the amount of work I'm trying to put into it, and the amount of time I have available to work on it, it'll be years before it's finished. But anyway, I agree that pulling off this project would take a lot of work and dedication, and I think we've already got that covered. Turning Wikiworld into a much more mature game world, though, will take the most work, but it is easily enough done if we get several more people (preferably perhaps the same people who would be planning on running campaigns in collaboration with this project) to expand the world. I don't think time would be an issue, though; every party can move at their own pace; As long as each DM is updating the wiki with any significant changes that occur during their game sessions, it'll be easy for other DMs to adapt to the dynamic setting. Just, whenever a DM is running a game session in the setting, they should check the Wiki beforehand for updates. It could even be changeable at a real-time interval. Of course some groups would be faster-paced than others, but I think it would even out to a happy medium. Plot contradictions and two groups doing the same thing in one week would both have to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Most minor issues could just be ignored, and major issues would be discussed in the Wiki until a logical conclusion could be come to, and perhaps it would even end up spawning new storylines (ex. Your group of PCs and my group of PCs both defeat in combat the same specific one of the Liches on the Council of Skulls. On the talk page for the Wiki, we decide to solve the solution by allowing the rumors of the other party's success reach each other's parties, which leads both of the parties to realize that one of the foes was actually an imposter -- or both of them were and the real Lich councilor is in hiding somewhere. Which leaves it open for either/both parties to investigate the situation further, or ignore it and move on.). I don't think any one person would have to coordinate all of the DMs, as long as we have descriptive instructional Wiki pages on how DMs should handle certain things in the setting, and as long as all of the DMs are cooperating and collaborating appropriately (although conflicts are bound to arise, in which case it seems most appropriate for a D&D Wiki admin to regulate the conflict). --LoneLobo 19:56, 21 December 2006 (MST)
I do see actual games as a driving force behind this world. I would adore it if folks expanded and developed the world as they expanded and developed their games. I want to run a tabletop for just that reason. Games drive development. That level of continual interdevelopment I can only hope to see. If this project does this, then I consider it a runaway success. Much of what you describe could be done in a journaling style. Posters post what their groups are doing into adventure journals, and the writers could decide what should be changed or expanded based on those journals. --Dmilewski 20:15, 21 December 2006 (MST)
That's exactly what I had envisioned for this setting. I just don't know how we should get it started. We'll need at least a few different DMs running games to start out with, and I think it'll eventually snowball in popularity. Some of the main things that we'll need to figure out to start with are the statistics involved with building some of the things that are integral to settlements (including things integral to settlements in potentially dangerous areas, and structures to make planeshifting to this new plane easy). If you think it's worth it, I'll start working on the project, and in a day or two I'll post what I've got so far (it is the holiday season, though, so it may take some time). --LoneLobo 20:39, 21 December 2006 (MST)
I would be willing to DM a game inside the Wikiworld if this happens.. However, the PC's would start out as level 1 so they might not be able to change much in the entire world. Anyway, if you get this up and running with the Journals idea, I am in. --Green Dragon 00:06, 22 December 2006 (MST)
Well, all of the PCs in all of the parties would start out at level 1, so it would obviously be a long time before there were any major advancements for the world, but, once we figure out all of the statistics for parties to build up settlements, and recruit NPCs to inhabit them, things like that would have long-standing effects on the world (other game groups building settlements slowly from the ground up will add to the options that DMs have for further plot advancement in their own sessions). --LoneLobo 02:15, 22 December 2006 (MST)
Once again, I think this is an amazing idea, all we need now are more DMs... Possibly start a thread on Wizards? What would you recommend? --Green Dragon 09:40, 22 December 2006 (MST)
Something like that. I was hoping more people here on the D&D Wiki would have chimed in to show interest, but your statistics seem to show that you've got plenty of viewers, but none of them are registering and contributing. Oh well, we'll change that sooner or later, with any luck. But anyway, I'll start working on the actual project like I had said and I'll hopefully have something to show for it in the next couple of days. And in the meanwhile, we'll all just have to come up with ways to attract more DMs. -- 09:51, 22 December 2006 (MST) Oops, I wasn't logged in. --LoneLobo 09:52, 22 December 2006 (MST)

InterestingHm. Wiki World is interesting. I think there should be some Good and or evil aligned gods and demi gods. Neutrality makes me want to annihilate something with holy wrath. Kamin

There's room for that. My own attentions just haven't turned that way. --Dmilewski 20:54, 16 February 2007 (MST)

The Planes[edit]

Shouldn't all the planar information (i.e. near planes, far planes, iconic planes, and planar travel) be grouped under comology? —Sledged (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2007 (MDT)

There are good reason to combine them, but there are also good reasons to keep them separate. I prefer keeping them as separate logical units. I think that they are each thematic enough to warrant their own page.--Dmilewski 10:35, 12 June 2007 (MDT)
At the least shouldn't comology be listed before all the other planer info? —Sledged (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2007 (MDT)

E102 10:59, 30 June 2007 (MDT)E102E102 10:59, 30 June 2007 (MDT) I agree with you. All the planes should be grouped under one catagory

I've been doing work on this and rethinking this. Many things will again be collapsed.--Dmilewski 09:38, 3 July 2007 (MDT)

RPoL Game[edit]

So, this looks really cool and I was thinking, hey this would make a cool RPoL game. So who is up for it to make a WikiWorld RPoL game on RPoL? You could Co-DM with me and help me make it right. For those who do not know, RPoL is RolePlay onLine ( and is a place where people can run roleplaying games through a post-by-post system. Watsyurname529 15:39, 23 October 2007 (MDT)

Folks who want to do that sort of thing can. I have a baby in the house. I have no time for more projects. --Dmilewski 19:04, 23 October 2007 (MDT)
Thanks, however I have never been a fan of online D&D. --Green Dragon 19:08, 23 October 2007 (MDT)
So is no one going to try to help me? --Watsyurname529 19:03, 24 October 2007 (MDT)
It's your idea. That makes this idea your project. It's up to you to make this project happen. --Dmilewski 19:21, 24 October 2007 (MDT)
I was just wondering, it's alot easier to run a game when you have another DM, especailly since I'm not that familiar w/ Wikiworld --Watsyurname529 19:33, 24 October 2007 (MDT)

RPoL Adventure[edit]

I'm still going to run the Wikiworld RPoL Game. If anyone wants to help, that's great. Anyway, I do however wish for your assistance on creating a suitable adventure for 4-5 1st or 2nd Level characters in Wikiworld. --Watsyurname529 20:21, 25 October 2007 (MDT)

Name Change[edit]

I am changing the name of Wikiworld. Basically, there are already multiple IP's out there named Wikiworld and I don't want to compete for namespace. Its already enough of a fight making your own setting without fighting others using the same moniker. Confusion == BAD.

I did a search using potential names and from those results chose "Endhaven." This better describes the setting, where it is the last throws of a dying multiverse.

So, welcome to Endhaven.--Dmilewski 10:14, 9 April 2008 (MDT)

What are your thoughts on standardizing the Endhaven supplement's names to match the standard CS supplement names? For example instead of "(Endhaven)" it would be "(Endhaven Supplement)". Your thoughts on this idea? --Green Dragon 22:38, 3 July 2008 (MDT)
I'm OK with that. Endhaven should be a model of goody goodness. --Dmilewski 07:34, 4 July 2008 (MDT)


I had noticed that when searching for "Endhaven" I would get a list but the main page would not be on the first page, and I'd have to click and go thru categories. For ease of navigation I created the page Endhaven (3.5e Campaign Setting) and had it redirect to the main page. If you'd rather not have that then sorry and delete, just thought I'd let you know why I did it.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:22, 2 December 2008 (MST)


Should Endhaven articles have the Supplement part added to their namespace to match other Campaign Settings (i.e. an article would be ArticleName (Endhaven Supplement) instead of ArticleName (Endhaven)?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:44, 30 December 2008 (MST)

Featured Article Nomination[edit]

No mark.svg.png — This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

I have nominated Endhaven as a whole to be a featured article. I believe that it is one of the best (if not the best, but I have to feel some bias for my own, right? ;) ) campaign settings on the site, and showcases some well made homebrew that Wiki surfers can adopt for their games with relative ease. Although this main page has no picture, a representative picture could be culled from one of the Supplemental pages if necessary.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:39, 19 August 2009 (MDT)

Comment — The subpages, while very complete and informative, are lacking a well-integrated structure and have been for some time. --Green Dragon (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2013 (MDT)

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!