Adventurers' guild - Useful or lazy?

[Resileaf]

As the title asks, what would people characterize an adventurers' guild in a given fantasy setting? Is it a useful, logical organization to arise in a world where people commonly run around handling big monster and rampaging orcs problems, or is it a cliché that would be better replaced by smaller, more focused mercenary groups?

I ask because in my current campaign (a Pathfinder game), the setting has a large, empire-wide adventurers' guild set up in various big cities and crossroads, offering services to adventurers and clients alike, while in my next campaign (which will be a Starfinder one), I plan to have several large organizations serving as corporations or mercenary groups serving as service-givers between adventurers and clients, each with different specialties and themes, and I was pondering how naratively important or relevent those kind of organizations are, and if it would be better to work with something else.

[Glorthindel]

In a game I played in, the "adventurers guild" was basically just a government taxation / protection racket, that basically formalised the various cities "putting up" with heavily-armed troublemakers hanging out in exchange for a cut of their earnings to pay for repairing the damage that their presence invariably caused. And occasionally they actually provided a useful service (but not often).

[Resileaf]

Ha! Okay, that's pretty creative. I hope you won't take offense if I keep that idea in mind for later.

[CharonsHelper]

In a game I played in, the "adventurers guild" was basically just a government taxation / protection racket, that basically formalised the various cities "putting up" with heavily-armed troublemakers hanging out in exchange for a cut of their earnings to pay for repairing the damage that their presence invariably caused. And occasionally they actually provided a useful service (but not often).

There would be the added benefit of their presence being a deterrent to passing monsters. A dragon is less likely to try to burn down your town if there's a decent shot that there is a ranger there who can shoot off dozens of magically explosive arrows a minute and/or a wizard who can magically nuke him out of the sky.

[Bohandas]

It's lazy if they call it an "adventurer's guild" in-game. That's metagame terminology.

[Anymage]

On one level it is a bit lazy, but on a more important level you only have a limited amount of mental energy available. Gathering a diverse group of pc types and giving them a reason to undertake adventures is tricky, and patrons are a classic way to do this. If it gets the adventure kicked off and the adventure itself is good, you don't need to worry overmuch about how it started.

[S@tanicoaldo]

Just call it Mercenaries guild, no one can call themselves "adventurer" as an occupation and expect to be taken seriously.

[2D8HP]

There's historical precedent for them.

[narrator667]

I had this one DM who completely subverted it. We we're all playing adventure's guild rejects who answered a message from a local baron suspicious of the guild. We we're sent to investigate them. The introduction was long sure, all 6 of us got just two sessions to A. Get the message delivered, B. Decide on whether to go, and C. actually make it there. So worth it though.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My setting uses a formal Adventurer's Guild (by that name).

It started in a nation that's entirely run by guilds. Each has subsidiaries, each with branches of their own. So there's a guild for everything. The Adventurer's Guild was started by a branch of the major church, as a way to put inconvenient but skilled people to work (and clean up messes easily). The members were convicted criminals given the choice between death and delayed death as an Adventurer. The average lifespan of an Adventurer was about 2 missions.

Then a group of Adventurers (a group of PCs) beat the odds and survived long enough to become powerful. They strong-armed that nation and its neighbors into an international treaty organization (like the UN) and got the Guild moved over to that organization. They still play an active role in the Guild--it's become the muscle of this treaty organization. Though few in number, all the most powerful individuals in the area are part of it or are their allies.

Now it has the formal responsibility to "foster good relationships between the Contracting Parties by pooling capabilities from all nations to help those in need." Unofficially, but more importantly, it keeps a watch on those with potential to become powerful, judging their moral worth. Those who fail the hidden tests get assigned the most dangerous tasks.It trains new Sanctioned Adventurers and equips them. It's funded by taxing the use of a portal network between the nations as well as taking a tithe of the sale value of any non-coin treasure recovered by the SAs. In return, the SAs get legal status in all the nations, partial exemptions from some of the national laws (like the caste laws in one nation), and all the loot they can scavenge.

There are other adventurers (note the lack of capital letters), but they lack the protections and backup of the Guild.

The starting point for my groups (especially the school-based ones) is that the party is a new set of graduates from the Adventurer's Academy, setting off on their first mission.

[Jay R]

I prefer to consider the PCs to be unusual in what they do.

Most Fighters in my worlds, like most fighters in the Middle Ages, are part of a standing army or in service to some noble. And while there were real mercenaries in the Middle Ages, there was no guild for them. And even if there are guilds, I wouldn't expect a generic adventurers guild.

In London, mercers, grocers, and drapers were all merchants, but each had a separate guild. Similarly, tailors, clothmakers, dyers, haberdashers, cordwainers, and girdlers each had their own guild, even though they are all involved in making clothes.

Similarly, adventurers would not be in the same guild. The clerics with no permanent position might be members of an order of friars. Monks should be connected to some temple. Bards might have a bardic college.

[Telok]

The next game I run that it's appropriate for will have such a guild. Set up by a bbeg to identify potential heros and get them killed.

Probably involving a suspicously clean and linear dungeon tailored to sucker parties that like to just kill without thinking into making somebasic mistake. Perhaps a room for resting half way through the dungeon with a silent alarm to an intelligent monster.

[The Fury]

It's lazy if they call it an "adventurer's guild" in-game. That's metagame terminology.

Just call it Mercenaries guild, no one can call themselves "adventurer" as an occupation and expect to be taken seriously.

On both of these points I'd argue that it comes down to the overall tone you're going for in the game. Yeah, if you're going for a serious dark fantasy sort of feel, having one of the player party suggest going to the "Adventurers' Guild" might come off as a little hokey and tonally dissonant. On the other hand, if it's got a lighter feel and isn't meant to be taken that seriously, an Adventurers' Guild might actually fit right in.

It can also depend on how viable "Adventurer" is as a career option in the setting.

[Knaight]

It's not lazy, but it's one of those setting elements where inclusion says a lot about the specific subgenre of fantasy you're going for. There's a level of generic fantasy to it, where "generic fantasy" is being used as a jargon phrase that applies to a very specific genre of fantasy that doesn't actually fit most fantasy*, and while that's not necessarily a problem it can be limiting.

On the bright side, it's also a clear signal to people who dislike the genre (e.g. me) to steer clear.

*It's not the best thing to happen linguistically, but I'm just recognizing a trend here. Plus it still beats the chutzpah of declaring a period "modernism", only to have to start coming up with new terms once that inevitably became a historic period, such that "modern" got a secondary usage for the early 1900's.

[RazorChain]

There's historical precedent for them.

Haha...so adventurers are a plague upon the land that goes plundering, pillaging and ransoming towns?


The free companies were just brigands and robber knights when they weren't employed.

[Knaight]

Haha...so adventurers are a plague upon the land that goes plundering, pillaging and ransoming towns?

The term "murder hobo" certainly suggests as much.

[2D8HP]

Haha...so adventurers are a plague upon the land that goes plundering, pillaging and ransoming towns?

And your suprised?

free companies were just brigands and robber knights when they weren't employed.

"Scratch a baron, find a bandit"

[Keltest]

There are probably better names for it than "Adventurer's Guild" or "Mercenary's Guild" but the existence of an organized group of freelance contractors who handle problems of a specific nature is totally plausible. During peacetime when a nation or city-state doesn't have a large standing army, hiring mercenaries to deal with unusual problems like bandits (or monsters, in D&D land) was preferable to uprooting a large number of citizens from their lives, for various reasons.

[LibraryOgre]

It can be two things!

However, decide who they are and what they do. Are they a convenient clearing house for odd jobs? Do they function as an actual guild, offering training and guaranteeing skill and professionalism levels (i.e. if someone is a Master in the Guild, have the put in the years adventuring to handle it)? Are they perhaps a front for another organization? What's their purpose and charter look like?

And, most importantly, do they have a moose head on the wall?

[Andor13]

It's lazy if they call it an "adventurer's guild" in-game. That's metagame terminology.

Not really, "Adventurer" used to be a synonym for bandit, or highwayman. Seems fitting for the Murderhobo guild. In world, I would assume it started as an ironic appellation, which was embraced and some (the good adventurers) are now trying to redeem.

On topic, it depends on how your setting handles high powered individuals. Every society will need to way to handle them, whether that is channeling them, co-opting them, getting rid of them, or ignoring them until they get powerful enough to take over. It's unlikely that this will be a one size fits all solution, even in a single society, but that doesn't mean you have to get into "Fairytale" like rival guild scenarios. It's a worldbuilding issue, but by definition, one that is influenced by the actions of very powerful individuals, and therefore subject to change in world, like the OP describes.

[The Fury]

There are probably better names for it than "Adventurer's Guild" or "Mercenary's Guild" but the existence of an organized group of freelance contractors who handle problems of a specific nature is totally plausible. During peacetime when a nation or city-state doesn't have a large standing army, hiring mercenaries to deal with unusual problems like bandits (or monsters, in D&D land) was preferable to uprooting a large number of citizens from their lives, for various reasons.

Right, it makes things pretty convenient for Adventurers and Adventuring Parties too. Are you a party that's looking for an Arcane Caster? Go to the Guild! They'll find one for ya! Are you an Arcane Caster that's looking to join a party? Go to the Guild! They can place you in a party!

It also occurs to me that the Quest-Giver/Adventuring Party dynamic can go sideways in a lot of ways and the existence of an Adventurers' Guild, (Sorry if you don't like the name, but I need to call it something,) mitigates that somewhat.

Take your typical fetch-quest: Go to tomb, retrieve magic tchotchke-- how many ways can that go wrong?

Just off the top of my head, the quest might be a ruse to get the Adventuring Party into the tomb so they could be sacrificed to a dark god. Maybe the tomb is has several player-killer level monsters that the Quest-Giver didn't see fit to mention. Maybe after retrieving the tchotchke, the Quest-Giver decides that they'd rather betray and murder the party instead of paying them.

On the other side of things, maybe the Adventuring Party would rather insist on being paid half up front and skip the actual quest having got free money. Or maybe they think the magic tchotchke is so cool that they'd rather keep it.

What a guild could do is sort act as an intermediate entity that can promote fair play. While they can't guarantee that the kind of shenanigans I mentioned won't ever happen, they can provide some potential procedure when they do. Quest-Giver posts a job with false or misleading information? Maybe the Guild will bar them from ever posting a job with them. Adventuring Party skipping out on quests? Maybe the Guild will stop allowing them to take jobs with them.

Though after typing all that I realized that I essentially described a fantasy-world HR contractor...

[PhoenixPhyre]

Other things an Adventurer's Guild can provide:

* Escrow for rewards--this might even extend to becoming a full banking system.
* Performance guarantees for quest givers--if the first party doesn't succeed or runs off with the loot, the guild guarantees that they'll send another/track down the AWOL group.
* Factoring services for ancillary treasure [1].
* Logistic support for adventuring groups.
* A control structure for powerful individuals [2].
* Training for new adventurers (apprentices)
* Quest discovery/allocation services (making sure that quests are available to the right groups of people, not too hard, not to easy, easily visible and thus more likely to be accepted).
* Legal recourse/rights [3]

[1] When an adventuring party loots a ruin, how does the economy not get influenced? How do individual merchants have the cash to pay for all those art objects? Why do things have fixed prices? In my setting, it's because the AG contracts with merchant factors. It promises to pay X for certain objects if the merchant will pay Y to adventuring parties. It then can resell them across the international area. And if it takes losses, it's a cost of doing business. The party gets their share quickly and in a regulated way, the merchants get known prices, etc. Parties can sell to non-guild-contractors, but there they take what they get.

[2] In D&D-type worlds, adventurers gain power very quickly and become powerful. A Guild (or similar structure) provides a measure of control over this, since it consists of other similarly powerful individuals with a vested interest in keeping the guild going. This constrains the murder-hobo effect and makes governments more willing to accept adventurers, since they have recourse to the guild for bad acts.

[3] In any status-heavy society, adventurers need status to survive. And foreigners/commoners/etc. are very common among adventurers, while nobles aren't. So a legal, government-approved group like an AG can provide a legal status (Sanctioned Adventurer) which obviates a lot of those issues. For example, weapon permits. Ownership of magic items. Spell-casting licenses. Exemption from certain laws or deputized status (otherwise things like murder become a problem real fast). Things like this vary on a city-to-city basis in some settings, and a broad-based Adventurer's Guild can negotiate official status much easier than a single group.

All of these say that there is a place for such things as AGs. They do only fit certain settings (like most things) and certain game types. They make a good world-building tool for specific outcomes.

[jayem]

I prefer to consider the PCs to be unusual in what they do.

In London, mercers, grocers, and drapers were all merchants, but each had a separate guild. Similarly, tailors, clothmakers, dyers, haberdashers, cordwainers, and girdlers each had their own guild, even though they are all involved in making clothes.

The phrase "and allied trades" can cover a bit of flexibility. Which arguably might be more useful in a more rural area.

Richmond had a company of "Mercers, Grocers and Haberdasherers" and Stirling a "Merchants Guild"
Newcastle and York had a guild of "Merchant Adventurers"!

[Keltest]

Can I just say, I love the idea of Adventurer's Insurance? With coverage ranging from the healing of minor scrapes and bruises to full on resurrection and gear retrieval.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Can I just say, I love the idea of Adventurer's Insurance? With coverage ranging from the healing of minor scrapes and bruises to full on resurrection and gear retrieval.

Sounds like a great perk for those who have proven themselves to the Guild. For a cost, however. Nothing is ever truly free.

[denthor]

In a game I played in, the "adventurers guild" was basically just a government taxation / protection racket, that basically formalised the various cities "putting up" with heavily-armed troublemakers hanging out in exchange for a cut of their earnings to pay for repairing the damage that their presence invariably caused. And occasionally they actually provided a useful service (but not often).

I think you meant to say thieves guild.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you meant to say thieves guild.

Hey, my thieves guild (which is a more odd thing from my perspective than an adventurer's guild) is also the one responsible for lawyers and judges. They're basically the inter-guild conflict-resolution guys. Still engage in blackmail, theft, extortion, etc., but it happens to be "legal" blackmail, theft, extortion, etc.

There's another organization that considers them sell-outs and toadies. Their members are more into the less-legal actions.

[Andor13]

And foreigners/commoners/etc. are very common among adventurers, while nobles aren't.

This doesn't make sense. Historically feudal power rested on military might, and that belongs to adventurers. (Not entirely, a soldier is still a soldier, but mid-level and up adventurers are equivalent to tanks or strike aircraft, expensive but lethal and mobile (and if the others guys have some and you don't,go guerrilla or go home.)) I would expect a feudal style system to regularly co-opt adventurers into the ranks of nobility. (Why do you think Kings grants knighthoods?) And as for the children of nobility, I know it's a cliche, but I seriously doubt the pampered noble who can't swing a sword or cast a spell would last long before getting killed by dopplegangers/vampires/adventurers.

I suspect the successful model is probably more along the lines of:

1. Have lots of kids. (And adopt promising ones.)
2. Give them every opportunity to learn a class.
3. Kick them around a lot.
4. Send them out into the world, with appropriate gear.
5. Vet the ones who come back, and appoint one your heir.

Non feudal systems are possible of course, but they will need a way to harness the power of high-level PC classes characters to keep the high level PC classed characters in line.

Hey, my thieves guild (which is a more odd thing from my perspective than an adventurer's guild)

I've always assumed a "Thieves guild" just represented organized crime like the Mafia/Cartels/Yakuza/etc.

[Tanarii]

I've always assumed a "Thieves guild" just represented organized crime like the Mafia/Cartels/Yakuza/etc.

It's probably just a direct import from the stories about Fafhrd and The Grey Mouser.

[Jay R]

The phrase "and allied trades" can cover a bit of flexibility. Which arguably might be more useful in a more rural area.

Richmond had a company of "Mercers, Grocers and Haberdasherers" and Stirling a "Merchants Guild"
Newcastle and York had a guild of "Merchant Adventurers"!

I still don't see paladins and rogues in the same guild.