Why does basically every D&D setting (and heck...

Blame the guy who brought up cops and soldiers in the first place then.

It's fair that a dragon attack would make people shit their pants, but what about an approaching kobold troupe or a group on angry giant centipedes attacking miners? maybe not. These are problems that would be commonplace in a setting that is hostile towards humans, which dnd is.

You're bad at history, aren't you? A generic dnd setting is based on Middle-Late Middle Ages, somewhere circa 14-15 centuries. Now, the thing is, if you imagine the usual low-level threats adventurers hired to deal with, and implant them somewhere in France of 1400s, they'd trigger a huge and immediate response. No duke's gonna put up with some fucking goblins or kobolds fucking with peasants, and even more importantly, trade.

Let's complicate it a bit: add some invading Englishmen. They could wait it out, and if the goblin threat happened to drain too much of French resources, they'd move in having chosen an opportune moment. And then would proceed to eliminate the poor goblins because a country must åroduce goods and trade must flow.

It's possible to imagine a very unlikely scenario when some German petty state gets overrun, and its neighbours let it happen. It's highly unlikely, and even more unlikely is that it wouldn't trigger a new Crusade or something. Don't ever underestimate the potential that xenophobia has for serving as a good casus belli. Heck, you would even see Christians and Saracens uniting against a monster threat.

Now, if we talk the kind of high power-level stuff like evil dragons etc., those might overpower a Medieval state. Three Medieval states? Less likely. All of Europe? Heck no.

Anyhow, generic fantasy is illogical. But it doesn't need to be logical in the first place. Yes, sure, if you start question verisimilitude/internal consistency of a broad appeal kitchen sink setting, you will succeed, automatically. But what's the merit of doing so?

What kind of settings do you play where kobolds and giant centipedes regularly attack townsfolk and that's an everyday fact of life that necessitates adventurers everywhere?

>Cops and soldiers are established, common professions.
Yes, and in the settings where adventurer guilds are commonplace, being an adventurer is an established, common profession. That was basically my entire point.

>What's the point of making adventurers as common as cops and soldiers?
I literally just wrote a whole paragraph explaining it.

>Uh, no. If anything, if a setting is low on adventurers (as it should be) and some threat pops up that only adventurers are equipped to deal with, then that will make the few adventurers who do exist more important.
If a thread pops up that only adventurers can deal with, and they don't, then giant parts of the countryside are destroyed completely, and taken over by monsters and dangerous threats. It then becomes more dangerous. As a result, more and more people are required to keep the areas safe, and more people are going to break out of the mold of city watch or guard and become adventurer. If this happens enough times, then you end up with isolated pockets of humanity protected by guilds of adventurers.

Again, that's if there are commonly largescale, dangerous events that only adventurers can stop. If there AREN'T commonly occuring dangers of that level, then the calmer, more peaceful setting has less total adventurers. Adventurers who constantly quest and search for something, anything to do with their time.

Frankly, it makes way more sense that a setting would require the constant attention of an organized team of problem solvers than that five random weirdos who wander town to town just bizarrely happen to stumble, ScoobyDoo style, into a giant mystery that only they can solve.

>scooby doo style
You know...

Who the fuck holds stock in Mystery Inc?

I mean they are a Corporation. That's what the "Inc" means.

Why are these people called "adventurers" anyway? There's a thousand other terms that would better describe a monster-hunter.

The first centrally organised police force was created by the government of King Louis XIV in 1667 to police the city of Paris.

>falling for the medieval period meme

DND is only aesthetically based on the, say, 1300s-1400s. And not even that much. But society is ANYTHING but medieval, even as tropes go.

If anything, oddly enough, it seems some kinda of romanticized western in which -and this is the point- the posse is more powerful than the sheriff at, say, 3rd level and the fucking 7th cavalry at 10th. At 20th they could punch the English navy in a week.

So... you're right that guards are commonplace in DND, probably more than in IRL medieval age, but it's not really important, they're not really a part of the equation.

Also: for narrative reasons.

>f a thread pops up that only adventurers can deal with

What is it that makes adventurers especial other than the power of the narrative? Does every town have a crack team of adventurers really to answer the call?

There were already adventurers in real life. They were called Knights. There's no need for adventurers as an independent profession.

I'm rather talking about feudal lords marching at goblins with their armies, not about state-financed peacekeeping forces.

You're right of course. Aesthetically it's 14-15th century, but mentality-wise it's a weird-ass mix of post-Roman Europe and Early Iron Age. Which is also why it's pretty much useless to talk about DnD from the standpoint of IRL history.

It seems like over time a subconscious divide between plot important characters and background characters has become institutionalized.

Stories are of course about notable characters (either by virtue of being the one's something simply happens to or creating the situation by being special) that have interesting, uncommon and dangerous events happen to them (that's what "adventure" means). Those character compel far more than the people making up the regular world. So of course people want more of those and fill settings to the brim with types molded after their heroes. Of course a narrative can not accommodate giving weight to the sheer numbers of those characters, and has a need to elevate the characters the story is actually about above their peers. This leads to the normalization of formerly heroic types. The Adventurer profession in our modern fantasy sense is born. They are the losers of an narrative weight arms race.
This power creep is of course exasperated when your media has the need to accommodate large undefined numbers of player generated characters by design, such as in P&P and video games. And you have the usual feedback loops of imitation doing their part.

The hero character Aragorn -> lots of Aragorneers -> Aragorn, the Aragorneer

You know why most settings have adventurer guilds?

Character death.

Don't get me wrong, character death is fine in games (sometimes). But when you're the chosen heros of destiny it just feels weird that every single hero of destiny who passes away gets replaced by another one who just so happened to be crossing your paths.

If destiny is that overt (because that's the only way heroes wandering about can meet with such strange regularity) why the fuck can't it just you know... Not let the dragon attack the village?

Sometimes adventurers just aren't special. Not every setting needs to about Link or Frodo or the Heroes of Light.

Sometimes an adventurer is just a man with a sword and nothing to lose.

Adventurer's guilds are an example of slipshod writing. D&D doing it is dumb, and anime is for children - or rather people with the critical thinking aptitude of a child.

>If a thread pops up that only adventurers can deal with, and they don't, then giant parts of the countryside are destroyed completely, and taken over by monsters and dangerous threats.

Oooooooooooooooor maybe you make those threats rare, and adventurers rare, so when one of those threats pops up, it's a sign that shit has gotten real.

The alternative is some comic book superhero shit where supervillains are trying to take over the world multiple times every week.

This isn't rocket science.

Why do you need adventurer guilds? It makes more sense for the king to give them a knighthood, become a knight, get a castle and bunch of serfs to work for him.

Why do you care?

No, really. Why the fuck do you give a shit about something you don't even play?

I prefer scrappy mercenaries and adventurers to 'chosen one's', but that still doesn't make and adventure guild a good plot point. Why would these people even form a guild? That sound's closer to a mercenary company or a bandit clan - but member's of those groups have somewhat aligned views, a guild of random Joe's with competing moralities and motivations outside of 'adventure' seems stupid.

Big brain user asking all the important questions.

No, really. If we could all just take a moment to step back and be as intelligent as this guy.

>I am not smart enough to incorporate an idea into a setting
Adventure guilds were a thing since 1970's fantasy. Sorry, anime is only just now catching up to the concept. Sorry you're an illiterate, unimaginative, no-fun-allowed kind of person. Maybe Veeky Forums isn't the place for you.

adventure guild =/= mercenary company
Just being both fighty for money doesn't make them the same.
After all
adventuring guild =/= army
army =/=mercenary company

So the issue have at this point is the WORDS adventurer guild, not the idea. It's them being called Adventurer Guild instead of Mercenary Company or Bandit Clan.

You're literally arguing over the words a concept has to name it instead of the concept itself.

So here's your reason: people just prefer the name adventurer guild over mercenary company.

That's it.

But I do play.

...

Then why do you care what other people do in their settings, user?

You're thinking it from the wrong side of the coin.

Adventurers ARE special. Absurdly powerful in regards to everyone else since, say, 2-3 level. In there are some archwizard NPCs or something they're not that many either.

So: what you'd need to do is specify why they are special, considering they are clearly special as fuck.

I honestly stand from the western idea, mind you. (not the REAL west, but still)

It has it all:
>races (with a little more equality, I guess, but not that much. Few are good, most are evil)
>optimism with a side of freedom (no slaves or something like that) and even capitalism
>the frontier thing (generally without the expansionist thing, tough)
>arcadian feeling all over in the points of light
>a shitton of wilderness being, well, wild
>the past isn't visible, but it's pervasive and unknown (i.e. dungeons)
>there still is the 1% (not robber barons, but nobles)
>all in all the mentality is actually surprisingly rational

Real difference is that there is no "final" authority, but even that it's not a given.

Now it's not a perfect analogy, but I think it is there. One would wonder what they've would tought of as a "high fantasy" setting in the renassaince, but it was not their style.

>I am not smart enough to incorporate an idea into a setting

I already stated that it was a sloppy idea with a flimsy back story. Imagination has nothing to do with it.

>Adventure guilds were a thing since 1970's fantasy.

This isn't a explanation of why it is a valid concept.

>Sorry you're an illiterate, unimaginative, no-fun-allowed kind of person.

That's a lot of assumptions. I'm sorry you feel that way.

>Maybe Veeky Forums isn't the place for you.

I'm discussing the merits and weaknesses of a commonplace fantasy trope, while you're spouting kneejerk reactions and random insults. Form a solid counter argument before appointing yourself moderator of this board.

I already explained the difference between a mercenary company or bandit clan and an 'adventurer's guild'.

>D&D doing it is dumb
It got started in D&D. Anime didn't have anything to do with it for decades after the trope existed. Your own critical thinking is flawed by preconceived notion and personal bias.

In which of the three adventurer guild bitching threads you made today?

>everyone on Veeky Forums who disagrees with me is one person!
>if I hurl baseless accusations I can discredit him

m/a/nbaby cross boarders are the true scourge of Veeky Forums

Worse than quest threaders and worse than /pol9k/, their stupidity and childish tantrum like hostility has drug countless threads into the ground.

>Why does basically every D&D setting (and heck, even lots of those Japanese light novels with adventurers' guilds) assume that adventurers are so commonplace and run of the mill that "adventurer" is a common label and people can identify a party of adventurers on sight? Some party enters the tavern and the people inside go "Oh, adventurers" or some unbelievable crap like that.
Because that's the metagame of any world that uses anime/comic book levels of power scaling.

>Guy gets crazy strong fighting monsters, and his wizard and cleric friend become vastly more competent at their jobs
>Other people see this
>Begin to immediately go on quests as well to gain super-human powers
>Kings and lords see this power transaction
>Begin to hire heroes if only to protect themselves from other heroes who could wipe out entire cities single-handedly
>They realize the fastest way to get these heroes powerful and well-equipped is to get them together and have them fight monsters.

The other aspect you mention, that of the party dynamic, is just simply put the best way a party survives. Offensive Physical and Magic abilities, someone to heal, and someone to take care of the in between specialty tasks balances out and allows them to survive more.

>If adventurers are a dime a dozen, doesn't that cheapen PCs? Or the idea of going on heroic adventures in general?
Exactly.

...Oh, there's no clever answer for that. Either you cheapen the idea of the heroes being THE heroes and just make them essentially your average joe with super powers, OR you make them the ONLY heroes which are likened to gods and will most likely realize they can wipe out entire armies with little effort and take over. Even if they act morally in the latter half, they soon realize it's a superman syndrome where they are literally the only stopgap between mega-liches and Podunk Village.

>Anime didn't have anything to do with it for decades after the trope existed

When did I say anime did it first? Quote me.

>Your own critical thinking is flawed by preconceived notion and personal bias.

Ironic.

I didn't say you said anime did it first. I said anime didn't have anything to do with adventurer guilds for decades after the concept existed, and thus blaming anime for it is an irrelevancy when the concept was created by D&D.

>complains about baseless accusations
>makes a baseless accusation that it must be crossposters who disagree

You sir are a artist.

>I'm going to conflate the existence of groups of people who do stuff in the setting with a concept I don't like and call them the same thing so that I sound intelligent

You want a solution for adventurers' guilds?

Centralize them. Every guild -or even, THE guild, actually a national agency- has a real control on what the adventurers do. In effect, they're not doing sidejobs, they're the fucking XCom Squads, doing sweeps in alien environments for the king (or the archwizards, whatever). For a lofty slice of the riches in them, of course, tough it's probably not a job you can quit on a whim (PCs do have quite some freedom in choosing their "quests" tough, unless there is an emergency)

This explains why
a) there ARE powerful PCs going around instead of the powers that be looking for that loot
b) they're not destroying the economy
c) the government doesn't use the military for shit like that. It actually kinda does, but these threats need something way more special OPs. PCs probably get a load of collaboration with the military, of course.

I guess it kinda destroys the muh comical anime adventuring guidl thing, at least if done as it is, but there you go. Adventuring guild(s).

Wouldnt make more sense for knights (and samurais) to be the monster-hunters rather than random dudes in a guild? I mean, violence is the entire point of being a knight: capable of killing stuff. Youd think that lords and kings would immediately try to recruit those who have skill, agressiveness, taste for violence and courage to become knights or send them on the path of knighthood. Also, they become easier to control and partially neutralize their murderhobo tendencies.

Ok, but I was speaking about the current state of fantasy settings. OP mentions Japanese novels himself.

Or, or, OR, you can make adventurers rare and specialized in dealing with threats that armies are poorly suited for.

It's basic RPS.

Adventurers > monsters only adventurers can handle > armies.

Knights and samurai are ideally expected to be gentlemen soldiers, rather than raging beserkers and murder hobos. They were a part of the minor gentry of their nations - not random bandits in armor.

To elaborate: basically they're fulltime privateers that when decide to do Quest A (for which hopefully there is some intel) work strictly with the MERA (Monster Extermination & Research Agency). Which is a fucking good thing, actually.

I guess the freedom part isn't necessary, but most players are pretty anal about some level of "freedom".

Why should a lord throw away his elite troops? If that were the case, enemies would weaken counties by herding monsters into their territory. And the answer would be to herd monsters back. You would have to have specially trained people for that, who would go out, hunt monsters, bring them into enemy territories for payment.

Almost like a guild or something.

Money and powerful magical artefacts.

>Knights and samurai are ideally expected to be gentlemen soldiers.

That's just an ethos that developed to control their murderhobo tendencies. Knigjts were no different from an adventurer or muderhobo for a long time. Even bandits could be granted knightood in exchange of serving the king. Also, these chivalry and bushido ethos didnt become strong until knights and samurais were fadding as the primary soldier and emphasis on the aristocracy bit became stronger.

Why is everyone assuming that monsters are crawling out of the woodwork and not some rare beasts only rare adventurers can handle?

Because then why are five rare assholes just happen to be in the place where the rare monsters are?

>elite

Lol no. These guys could even be former bandits. Your character has probably killed a ton of mlnsters or a n orc chief. Why isnt your character a knight already?

Same reason why PCs just so happen to encounter level appropriate fights.

The narrative revolves around them.

Why would the five rare assholes not be where the action is? That doesn't sound very rare of them.

Because eventually you run out of land to plop people on.

It works better if it's not worth it economics-wise to raise an army (do we even have standing armies in the setting?) to deal with the said monsters.

It's more likely that adventurers are second sons or the like. You know, the type the whole Europe went through a hurdle of Crusades to get rid of.
Also, on a side note, this fringe vertical mobility outlet that adventuring is, it might actually delay the formation of centralised states by quite a bit. Couple that up with no famines in 1310s happening, no Black Death, and voila, feudalism gets to exist for another couple hundreds of years.

I differentiate the two as mercenaries being almost exclusively used for militaristic purposes; adventurers are guys you can hire for almost any odd job your village isn't really prepared for. This could be routing bandits or protecting a caravan like a mercenary might, but also searching for lost pets and children, exploring ruins, and extreme pest control.

This is a good explanation, thank you.

>adventurers are guys you can hire for almost any odd job your village isn't really prepared for. This could be routing bandits or protecting a caravan like a mercenary might, but also searching for lost pets and children, exploring ruins, and extreme pest control.

But are these guys really going to be superheroes all of the time?

The simple solution is to just drop "adventurer" as the label for your PC's. Adventures are what you go on, your stated profession is something else. Mercenary is what usually entails the PC's career under this idea. You go out there and kill monsters on the behalf of some town, noble, king, etc. So just call them mercenaries and move on with your life.

As for guilds, mercenary groups also cover what most people think of when they think "adventurer's Guild". You get paid by someone to go out and kill stuff and bring back proof you did it.

If you think Adventurer as a title cheapens the exploits of your players and the place they occupy in your setting than just change names. If you're players don't mind a setting with an extremely gamified term and framework than let them have fun with it. The only reason I see threads like this getting made is because A) A new chapter of Goblin Slayer dropped, and B) People forget that you don't have to run stuff the way the game setting may tell you too. But I have no experience with D&D and I'm not sure how present, and featured the idea of "adventurer guilds" apply to their settings.

And if you want to have a guild, make it make sense to the setting and the players. I like how Daughters of the Lillies handles it with Mercenaries being overseen by the mercenary guild, and for other members of the group to be subcontracted individuals that don't have to register until they have pulled enough resources in to justify filing the proper paperwork. It's a clean system of operation, makes sense internally, and lets the "adventurer" still feel unique since not everyone does it and the structure is bureaucratic in a way that doesn't rely on arbitrary ranking systems and JRPG conventions.

Just drop the name and change the fluff to suite your needs. Don't stress out over how other people are doing things if you think it's not going to be fun.

It's not that "adventurer" is a title is common, it's that "Why are these superheroes so fucking common, god damn."

This shouldn't be like a superhero comic series where there are a bajillion and one capes everywhere.

This. Make them special forces. Tie them with religious or secular organizations. The PCs can still feel special, can have relative freedom in their actions and have clearly defined boundaries (e.g. treason, excommunication) within the world they operate in. You can also give them a neat badge or a scroll with a fancy seal they can wave around to incite cooperation, or not if they want to stay under cover.
This shit practically writes itself.

Second verse same as the first.

Just don't make heroes that common in your setting and threat that omnipresent that you would need a group of beyond-average characters running around it.

It's your setting, do what you want that makes sense. Superhero comics suffer from writers trying to keep hundreds of heroes in the same setting while also selling issues to fans on a constant basis. That means lots of doomsday events and crossovers. You're running a game for a small group of people, just do what you want to make it engaging.

So explain why published settings like Eberron, which are SUPPOSEDLY all "Adventurers are rare, yo" still have lots of adventurers guilds around one city like Sharn alone.

Because they're not just monster hunters. In this day and age, they'd be called freeters or handymen.

Most adventurers aren't superheroes.

I don't know the setting so I can't answer that. What you're asking me to do is qualify a setting that does something you don't like. Someone out there likes the structure that Adventurer Guilds offer and are willing to make a setting for it and others will play in it.

What I'm telling you to do is ignore stuff like that because you don't have to run it that way. If you don't like it move on and run what you do like.

If it's a well-established guild, a few would be really high level guys, but the majority would be lower or middle-ranked for more mundane jobs.
I mean logically, adventurers would be ranked according to their general ability and have their specialties noted down somewhere. They'd be rented out depending on what kind of services you needed, their general danger, that sort of thing.

By being PC tier they are.

PC's don't always get to superhero level even with their narrative importance.

They aren't real detectives in most stories they just call themselves that to look cool.

TG hates fun and has to suck the fun out of everything until no one has fun.

>If you don't like it move on and run what you do like
Not him, but that isn't really in the spirit of the thread. You're welcome to like or dislike a thing, but we're trying to discuss the concept. Just going "like what you like lol" doesn't really help the discussion.

Nah, people make threads like this over and over and it's the same outcome. Arguing over terms and arguing about badwrongfun. I'm presenting the third option which is "just run what works for you"

I gave my own impressions of how I would run adventurers if you want to discuss that then discuss it. He asked me to justify another setting that, by my assumptions, violates what he thinks constitutes a good use of adventurers so I just told him the golden rule.

If people want to talk in circles about how best to run an idea, go ahead. I don't run stuff that is locked into the D&D or medieval styles of fantasy so this isn't a problem for me. The concept isn't inherently bad, but it only works if players accept that their chosen profession is more common or commodified than it would be if 'adventurer' just applied to extraordinary people who arose through circumstances.

This really is a case of "it depends on the setting" as much of a non-answer that is. Most people aren't discussing specific setting just the general idea and that isn't going to go anywhere because everyone interprets the basic concept in different ways. The guy I mentioned talked about Eberonn, how about people discuss the merits and flaws of that setting and see what the consensus is? I don't know it so I can't participate in that avenue.

If to read online superhero comics you'll find they are different from DC and Marvel. LIke Unordinary and I Don't Want This Kind of Hero.

In the same vein, it would help if TG we just expanded our horizons a little bit.

I wouldn't say every setting. Darksun. Ravenloft just to name 2. But asking why adventurers are commonplace in an adventure setting is a bit like asking why space exploration is so commonplace is sci-fi.

The best way to think of it though, is that adventurers are the gold rush miners of their time. A career that has suddenly become very profitable, or has been profitable for a long time but is also very dangerous. And there are just enough of them and distinguished enough that you know one when you see one.

Its one of those things that just sort of sticks out. If you live somewhere around the Klondike gold trail in the late 1890s, and a fresh face walks in to town with nothing but a shovel a pan and a twinkle in his eye, you're probably not going to assume that his plans are to start a farm with that shovel and make bacon with the first pig he slaughters on that farm with that pan.

I mean... that entirely depends on the flavour of setting you want, doesn't it?

I have never once assumed that any character I've ever made in any D&D (or other system) game I've ever played was supposed to be some important unique protagonist.

Adventurers, if they have a guild, are literally a profession, that's what a guild implies. They also tend to not have uniforms, wear haphazard gear heavy on magic, and look abnormally attractive.
If, on the other hand, they are essentially wandering mercenaries, then they are wandering mercenaries, and past level 5 or so in D&D when Flying Fireball is available to you as a tactic and the Barbarian / Fighter is smacking someone twice in one turn, you are theoretically well known enough that anyone can just look at you and say 'oh, that's xxxx party of adventurers'. Furthermore, you're also likely to be holding a +1 weapon. A +1 weapon is worth so much that an entire village of dirt farmers is unlikely to be able to afford a single one, yet your entire group has +1s and a stat boosting item.

Fuck I love that concept.

Because we're describing a story about five rare assholes, and we don't write stories about the boring parts of people's lives.

I mean the solution is to stop making PC's superheroes.

Not him but the real solution is to either lower the powerlevels involved (so basically e8) or to keep worldbuilding consistent by making everyone above a certain level rare as fuck.

Using Overlord's explanation - it's not that Knights are weaker than adventurers, but that Adventurers are specialized in getting rid of 'special' threats. The knight can break a line of swordsmen better than the fighter, but the fighter is experienced in dealing with giant beetles, trolls, ogres, kobolds with firebombs, and so on. Adventurers are the people for the job. It's the difference between an army mage, who prepares Fireball and Minor Image and nothing else, and the Wizard, who keeps spell slots open while his buddy benefiting from Invisibility scouts the cave to figure out if they're dealing with a hydra or a young white dragon so he can prepare the suitable spells. Knights would lose against monsters because they're one-trick ponies, in other words, while adventurers don't fare as well against an army because they're not 'built' to go up against one.

>assume that adventurers are so commonplace and run of the mill that "adventurer" is a common label and people can identify a party of adventurers on sight
Because in those setting they are commonplace enough for them to be identifiable.

>adventurers are extremely common due to the nature of the world
>due to dark forces/magical whatevers, monsters are everywhere
>dungeons full of evil gribblies literally appear and get bigger and full of deadlier stuff the longer they're left alone
>guilds/organisations appear to coordinate the efforts of adventurers
>sending newer ones off to get supplies from slightly dangerous areas
>sending more experienced ones off to clear dungeons, protect towns, assist normal military forces with basically special ops shit
The world is similar to Monster Hunter - basically everyone everywhere is somehow on some level involved in the constant battle to stem the tides of monstrous threat, whether it be actively adventuring, making equipment for adventurers, feeding and clothing adventurers, tending to adventurer wounds, making safe places for adventurers to stay, etc.

It's kind of cliche, but I like it. The idea that constant monstrous strife is just a fact of life and that some people enjoy going out there to beat up on gribblies is enjoyable to me.

>The world is similar to Monster Hunter - basically everyone everywhere is somehow on some level involved in the constant battle to stem the tides of monstrous threat
I mean the issue with this is in Mon Hun, for the most part there isn't much of a monstrous threat outside of random aberrant attacks iirc. People in monster hunter hunt because monster parts/materials are such an integral part of daily life. It's not comparable to fighting Goblins or Orcs because we don't depend on Goblins and Orcs for food/tools/etc. The monsters in Mon Hun are pretty much just dumb animals with powerful abilities and are hunted because they're too dangerous to be domesticated for the most part.

>e we don't depend on Goblins and Orcs for food/tools/etc
And by we I meant, people in a generic fantasy setting don't depend on Goblins in Orcs for food like we depended on animals and nature for food and materials to make tools.

>this thread

OP, your autism really knows no bounds.
How many times do you need to be BTFO?

Yeah I've never been a big fan of the idea of a group of 'adventurers'. It seems obvious to me that so many campaigns just turn into murder hobo territory because the only thing the party of 'adventurers' had to stick together is their desire to kill monsters and gather loot.

I much prefer making it clear from session 0 that the party is explicitly part of a certain faction. They might be the Knights of a noble, part of a mages guild, or members of a secret cult of demon hunters. Whatever it is it will give the players a unified sense of direction as to who they are as a group. They'll also know how to react in roleplaying situations. Do the demon hunters want to take time out of their demon hunting to help some random villagers protect the village from Orcs? Hence you have more depth to the game.

They can of course deviate from this as the game goes on, albeit with some consequence, but they'll have a strong base to start with.

Because they engage in adventurism. They go to foreign places, and take excessive risks for lucrative rewards.

>Why would these people who go on dangerous missions, organize themselves in such a way to get other people who want to risk their life for fun and profit.

Gee, user, I dunno.

I don't get it either. I just call them what they usually are - mercenaries.