In this thread, we have ample proof that established/experienced GMs don't need the Patron section to have the group work under the direction of a regular employer, established in the setting, and get "perks" from being related to this power group. I agree with this general sentiment: it's a natural thing to imagine once the group is comfortable enough with the setting that their PCs will try to become part of an organisation, whether a trade guild, a wizard academy or a political power.
But I am not sure experience in creating campaigns and familiarity with a setting, both hallmarks of established GMs, are really needed to imagine that by oneself. In fact, the "newer players" or "yet to be recruited" groups are probably familiar with CRPGs and MMORPGs, so they are probably envisioning campaigns as a series of scenarios linked not by player initiative (that requires a human GM) but by the tasks provided by a quest giver, with "faction gain" as part of the recompense for doing the work. Reputation gain with a faction providing benefits aren't something new players should be introduced to, it's probably the way they envision a campaign structure in the first place, if they come from the much larger videogames player demographic. It is also a natural way for beginning DMs to motivate the players... While a first-time GM might struggle to imagine what will happen if the characters DECLINE the quest in the first gaming night, and decide to go carousing in a tavern instead (haven't we all feared that at some point), the natural, if heavy handed answer is "you're city guards, it's your F... JOB to go after the kobold caravan raiders!"... So basically, I feel the background of a group patron is the more natural choice and not something that would be introduced in a late book in the line. The beginning DM would probably only read the base books before running a game and not buy all the line at once, wouldn't he?
The mechanical part seems to be reduced to "coworkers can give advantage to each other once per long rest". Not something very imaginative not something that would make sense: if the PCs are self-employed, shouldn't they be even closer than if they all work for an overarching structure that could provide them with the same opportunities individually and not only as a group? As it's a small benefit, it's not something that's problematic but I don't think it will provide the "meat" of this book. I can see a section on patrons being interesting if they can flesh out some flavorful patron organizations that could inspire the creative juices of the DMs, but if it's the case, it's possible the page they decide to provide as a sneak peak probably wasn't the best. I think just having generic ideas of reasonable requests one could ask a specific type of patrons (for example, access to an advantage-providing on History check for an university...) isn't something the newer DMs would need. The exemple they allude to in the text (exception from certain law) can be interesting if they manage to provide flavorful examples, but is it possible in a setting agnostic book? I am pretty sure DMs with even 0 experience can imagine that "you're a city guard, therefore you're entitled ot bear arms within the city, like the nobility and unlike much of the locals" is a logical part of the job, not something they need a reminder of.
io9.gizmodo.com
