>>96282807
I'm not reading the thread because I don't give a fuck, but here's my invaluable two cents.
Adventuring Guilds are dumb. They're fun and pulpy dumb, but they're still dumb. Organized expeditions into uncharted ruins, regions and realms should be funded by a wealthy patron - a noble or a merchant or what is very obviously a dragon in disguise. This gives the GM a singular "tentpole" NPC to work with, and for the PCs to report to. Easier for the GM, more fun for the players. This is of course you're writing a story where the Players explicitly get work to dungeon delve, as most (good) stories begin with the PCs being normal people getting tossed into extraordinary situations. Zero to Hero.
That said, Adventuring Guilds are *fine.* They're dumb, but fine. I'm not going to discount them because I'm not a tired old grog. They have their place in games where the GM just wants to have an excuse to put on a funny voice for goblins. They're fine when you want to try out builds, or roleplay among each other, or fish for "funny" situations that you can joke about later. Simply put, Adventuring Guilds are fine when "game night" is more "I'm with my buddies, laughing" than "I'm with my buddies, exploring a world." For that purpose, Adventuring Guilds are great because they take the great big bulk of session-building and remove it. You don't need to explain why your PCs are in the dungeon beyond, "we were paid to do so."
