FANDOM


Forums: Helping Hand > CCC Adventures

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

I've been wondering, should the CCC Adventures be documented in this wiki? For those unaware, CCC stands for Convention Created Content; a program by WotC to promote conventions. It allows convention organisers to work with the Adventurer's League team to create adventures within the Moonsea region.

I ask because the canonicity is vague. Against the idea is:

  • Technically they are written from people outside of WotC.
  • They are less vetted than other published content.

For the idea is:

  • They update and flesh out many areas that haven't been touched for a long time (eg. Elventree, Ylraphon, Elmwood, Thar)
  • As per the FAQ, WotC still works to make sure no established canon is contradicted: "Your adventure will take place in the Moonsea, should not kill off a major NPC in the region, destroy any significant settlements, give inappropriate treasure, or violate the established canon of the campaign or of unique content that is already in the pipeline prior to your submission. If you do, we may suggest minimal changes for you to bring your adventure content into compliance."
  • As with all adventures, the part that is most useful for this wiki are the details of people, places and organisation (not necessarily the events of the adventure itself).
So what is the consensus? I personally think they should be added; albeit lower in the hierarchy that any other material.
Aesir Stormwind (talk) 00:44, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
Hard to say.

From the Adventurer's League Content Catalog:

"Convention-Created Content; adventures that are not necessarily canon, but can be created by conventions that have been given permission to do so."

It then goes on to list a bunch of CCC adventures (there's about 40 of them thus far). The "in-depth" section of the catalog doesn't go into further detail on canonicity, unfortunately.

There's also the question of what to do about adventures like Cloud Giant's Bargain. On one hand, it's an official Wizards-published adventure, but on the other it appears to be a tie-in to some sort of podcast. I certainly hope Wizards does not intend for this to be canon, but it does remain an official adventure set in the Realms.
Ir'revrykal (talk) 06:07, July 5, 2017 (UTC)

That's understandable. I personally feel they should be used, but perhaps with a clear note on where it comes from, similar to video games.

As for Cloud Giant's Bargain, it isn't the first time characters from that podcast were referenced in realmslore. With one of the characters appearing (in a very minor role/ almost cameo) in Ed's last novel Death Masks. But... yeah I don't really think podcasts should be considered canon. So what about this character? Should it be never recorded?Or be written of as with no relation to the podcasts? Or simply be taken as an 'easter egg' and not 'serious' realmslore?
Aesir Stormwind (talk) 08:15, July 5, 2017 (UTC)


Unfortunately, D&D is becoming increasingly nebulous and the distinctions between settings and what's official and what's fan-made are becoming hazy. The Forgotten Realms has become the core setting, which it means, like Greyhawk in 3e, it's at risk of being diluted to the point of homeopathic non-existence. I feel the wiki should be more strict with this fringe stuff, before we become overwhelmed with C- and D-list material. Unfortunately, I don't know much about what's going on in D&D now, as I bailed at 4th edition. Adventurers League looks like the old RPGA (is that still running?) and we've been including both of them, and it seems official.

"Not necessarily canon" means it's not canon by default or not canon as a matter of course. By "necessarily", WotC are probably leaving an option to accept a good one as canon Adventurers League material at some point.

Being written by non-WotC staff is probably okay, as licensed video games are also written by non-WotC/TSR staff, but we include them.

The fluff of the adventures and developed locations isn't important, as any fan, DM, or player can do that.

Looking at the guidelines for CCC, they seem to be about putting DMs and players on the same page, both with each other and with the official setting, rather than declaring them canon. CCC adventures are valid for Adventurers League play, but not official Adventurers League adventures.

Finally, I feel their limited reach counts against them. These are released to, I dunno, several dozen players at one convention one year. The rest of the fandom may have very limited ability to access them through official channels, nor are they expected to. Other users of the wiki cannot verify them.

So, I would say the CCC stuff is not canon and not valid for the wiki. They're DM's own adventures with a stamp of approval for convention play. I would qualify that those that graduate to the Dungeon Masters Guild and are sold as official D&D Adventurers League adventures later down the line (as the guidelines promise) probably would be valid and canon, but they'd have to be accessed and sourced that way. That is, we cite the AL module, not the CCC module.

Similarly, I feel Cloud Giant's Bargain is not canon, unless it gets released through official channels. But even if it is, the podcasts and Penny Arcade's Acquisitions, Inc. universe isn't valid for the wiki, only this one small sliver of it. It's like how aspects of Ravenloft and Greyhawk can appear on the wiki, where they directly pertain to the Forgotten Realms, but the rest of the setting is off-limits.
— BadCatMan (talk) 12:14, July 5, 2017 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.