Fabula Ultima general thread [+]

[Aldarc]

Oh, I dont think that's it at all. Ema had a very specific vision of how they wanted the arcs of play and relationship between GM and Players to go and has done all they can to try and make it happen. The actual gameplay constantly has things the "programmer" didn't think of happening (see: Fabula Points to add narrative and mechanical elements to scenes so long as they don't contradict establish world Truths).

Yeah. In fact, I think that Ema has the opposite approach of a JRPG programmer. A lot of their play principles are coming from the narrativist side of things. They are big into play to find out what happens, PC-centric play, asking the players questions and building on their answers. As early as the Introduction providing an overview of the Game Master's responsibilities, which I will hopefully get to soon, Ema has opinions about the GM trying to run Fabula Ultima like they would a traditional TTRPG.

 

[Aldarc]

INTRODUCTION, PART 1

We get a brief introduction telling us what this game is about and what are JRPGs (with examples). If you know, then there isn't much value here. If you don't know, it's a fairly brief, if not generic, introduction. I think Ema is aware, and they try to establish the "vibe" of JRPGs that makes them distinct.

But at the end of the intro, Ema lets us know a significant way in which gameplay in Fabula Ultima acts as a departure from JRPGs:

Unlike a videogame, you won't play through a prewritten plot and grind for experience by slaying monsters for countless hours or carrying out duties for quest-givers.

And there it is. No "prewritten plot." Not grinding for monsters or doing fetch quests is also nice, but the lack of prewritten plots is key.

Instead, you will build your own story together little by little, and you will be rewarded for playing your character in a way that fits their role and identity in that story!

Likewise, this suggests to me that the story and world revolves around the characters instead of the inverse.

The book then shifts to talking about what are roleplaying games. It tells us that TTRPGs in Japan are referred to as "table talk" roleplaying games.

Roles
We are told that one person is a Game Master, and that the rest are Players). The game suggests 2-5 players, which is probably best. I think that most people would be forgiven to gloss over this part as fairly "bog standard." But the game's opinions are already coming through about the Game Master's role in this game:

As the protagonists establish goals and make choices, the Game Master will challenge those goals and describe the consequences of their actions.

...their role is not that of an adversary, but rather someone who aims to make the protagonists shine throughout the story.

But notice here what comes first. The protagonists (i.e., the players playing their PCs) establish goals and make choices. It's about them. The GM's goal is to create obstacles that challenge the PCs' goals and choices but in a way that makes them "shine." What's interesting here for me is that the relationship almost feels reversed, with the GM reacting to players instead of the usual framing found in other TTRPGs of the players reacting to the GM.

There is also the usual platitude that there is "no win condition" in this game. I understand where this sentiment is coming, but I'm not entirely sure if most people actually believe it in practice. And we are shortly reminded - to the horror of some people in this hobby - that Fabula Ultima is a "game" and that roleplaying games are "games." But Ema gives a short example of roleplay, but then we get this snippet.

...these events will take place in your imagination — a space that is often called "the fiction".

Emphasis in bold, Ema's. If you find the term "the fiction" to be horrible Forge jargon, I'm sorry to tell you that it's here on page 11 in the Introduction. But it's hard for me to imagine in anyway that this inclusion is somehow disruptive, gatekeeping, offensive, or convoluted for newcomers to the hobby. It simply says that the shared imagined space is sometimes referred to as "the fiction" and then moves on. That's all that is needed for an explanation.

That's nice. But what is this game about? I'm glad you asked. Because Ema is about to tell us. In short, they acknowledge that we play TTRPGs for different reasons, but FU is designed to emulate the feel and stories of JRPGs. But what does that mean? Ema lists five points:

• Heroic and Fantastic Action
• A Game of Heroes & Villains
• Heroic Destiny
• Challenging Battles
• Your World

This last point stresses that there is no "default world" or established setting. As we learn later (spoilers!), the group will help create the world together. (Sorry, GMs who like world-building on their lonesome.) However, Fabula Ultima nevertheless eight core principles or pillars of play for its game worlds. Some of this won't sound exactly all that different from D&D, which is hardly a surprise given how JRPGs were influenced by fantasy roleplaying games from the United States. But there are some differences.

The Eight Pillars

• Ancient Ruins and Harsh Lands
• A World in Peril
• Clashing Communities: the world is divided, in conflict, and resolving hostilities are key to saving the world
• Everything has a Soul: spirits and spiritual energy are an important part of the world and how magic works. Essentially, the influence of Japanese Shintoism.
• Magic and Technology: two sides of the same coin, but also present in the game. There is not a neat divide between sci-fi and fantasy.
• Heroes of Many Shapes and Sizes: PCs will be different sorts of people, and can even be elderly or children
• It's ALL About the Heroes
• Mystery, Discovery, and Growth: a bit of a three for one, but the idea is that PCs will explore mysteries about the world and themselves through play

That's it for now.

 

[zakael19]

The thought comes to me that you could grab all the non-mechanical aspects of this and directly use it with Daggerheart mechanical design and it would work really well (the one aspect of FU I personally like the least is the very intentionally designed and well executed JRPG-esque combat). I think FU is hitting on all the same very uh "narrative neotrad" elements that DH eventually does with a more conventional game frame, but does a better job of being clear and directive to push in the direction it wants. The advantage of not being a Big Name game trying to get bridge sales I guess!

 

[Aldarc]

The thought comes to me that you could grab all the non-mechanical aspects of this and directly use it with Daggerheart mechanical design and it would work really well (the one aspect of FU I personally like the least is the very intentionally designed and well executed JRPG-esque combat). I think FU is hitting on all the same very uh "narrative neotrad" elements that DH eventually does with a more conventional game frame, but does a better job of being clear and directive to push in the direction it wants. The advantage of not being a Big Name game trying to get bridge sales I guess!

Shifting Fabula Ultima combat to more TotM style combat in the vein of Daggerheart is probably easier than shifting the game to Final Fantasy Tactics grid-based combat.

Edit: I will say that calling Fabula Ultima "neotrad" makes Ema sad, as in a feeling of failure at their design intentions sort of way. And I see where they are coming from, so I nowadays try to avoid applying that label for FU.

 

[zakael19]

Edit: I will say that calling Fabula Ultima "neotrad" makes Ema sad, as in a feeling of failure at their design intentions sort of way. And I see where they are coming from, so I nowadays try to avoid applying that label for FU.

heh, fair. I guess we don’t really have a good “bin” for whatever it is that FU/DH/DW2 are trying to do. A bridge between more classic narrativist ethos especially on the GM side but a completely different game feel and kinda implicit “characters in complete concert + OC aspects + arcs of story + etc.”

Shifting Fabula Ultima combat to more TotM style combat in the vein of Daggerheart is probably easier than shifting the game to Final Fantasy Tactics grid-based combat.

I’m just not super into the core mechanical design of FU from a GM “running the game side.” But as you note JRPG tropes and DnD heroic fantasy vibes have very similar touch points and origins.

 

[Aldarc]

heh, fair. I guess we don’t really have a good “bin” for whatever it is that FU/DH/DW2 are trying to do. A bridge between more classic narrativist ethos especially on the GM side but a completely different game feel and kinda implicit “characters in complete concert + OC aspects + arcs of story + etc.”

I think that Ema comes from the perspective that Neo-Trad is still "traditional." For example, Cypher System and a lot of Free Leagues are basically "Neo-Trad" in the sense that they take design cues from indie games, but still often involve GM-curated/prewritten adventures.

In 2015, Tomas Härenstam speaking about his Mutant: Year Zero roleplaying game, defined it “neotrad” game for the first time. “it’s got the production values, ease of use and plentiful campaign material of a traditional RPG, combined with the kind of clever and thematic rules design usually found in the indie games”, he said.

 

[zakael19]

I think that Ema comes from the perspective that Neo-Trad is still "traditional."

Gotcha, that would explain the sad. Neo-narrative? Lmao

 

[Campbell]

I don't really view Fabula Ultima as neotrad in the slightest. It's pretty much just a straight up modern Narrativist design. Its rules tech (outside of its Persona inspired combat system) is basically a fusion of Burning Wheel and Blades in the Dark (down to "say yes or roll the dice" and "let it ride"), and you start by establishing a set of premises to explore. The prompts during world creation, group creation and character creation seem very centered on where's the conflict here. The reward model is also basically Mouse Guard. I'd have to see it meet the table to be sure, but what I'm reading seems to have stronger reinforcement of exploration of premise than even Blades in the Dark or Stonetop.

There is a focus on found family, but the way it's expressed through the rules is on dependence and evolving bonds we are constantly putting at stake. The vibes remind a bit of Apocalypse Keys actually.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't really view Fabula Ultima as neotrad in the slightest. It's pretty much just a straight up modern Narrativist design. Its rules tech (outside of its Persona inspired combat system) is basically a fusion of Burning Wheel and Blades in the Dark (down to "say yes or roll the dice" and "let it ride"), and you start by establishing a set of premises to explore. The prompts during world creation, group creation and character creation seem very centered on where's the conflict here. The reward model is also basically Mouse Guard. I'd have to see it meet the table to be sure, but what I'm reading seems to have stronger reinforcement of exploration of premise than even Blades in the Dark or Stonetop.

There is a focus on found family, but the way it's expressed through the rules is on dependence and evolving bonds we are constantly putting at stake. The vibes remind a bit of Apocalypse Keys actually.

That said, I do think that the one of the wonders of Fabula Ultima's design and book layout is how it seems to unintentionally deceive people into thinking that it's a fairly conventional TTRPG. I don't think Ema is trying to deceive anyone. I think they are just trying to teach the game.

Most people skip the credits, and those who look may not recognize the games listed for what they are. At face value, it doesn't necessarily look like a typical sort of "narrativist" game like Apocalypse World or Blades in the Dark. There are no moves or playbooks. People likely see the classes, levels, character builds, etc. that are commonly associated with games like D&D and Pathfinder, and initially view Fabula Ultima along similar lines.

The game is opinionated but those opinions are fairly unobtrusive, while also doing a good job of teaching the game in a way where you don't necessarily recognize how those opinions are in dialogue with the wider TTRPG hobby.

FWIW, I think that a similar phenomenon is also the case with Daggerheart. People see the superficially f20 aspects of the game (e.g., races, classes, builds, etc.), and generally assume the game plays like an f20 game.

 

[zakael19]

FWIW, I think that a similar phenomenon is also the case with Daggerheart. People see the superficially f20 aspects of the game (e.g., races, classes, builds, etc.), and generally assume the game plays like an f20 game.

TBF I think DH is far easier to play as a F20 game by default, FU has more opinionated system level implementation and guidance (it never says "you can ignore this stuff if it doesn't work for you" for instance IIRC). Like, honestly, in play at my tables there's very little that actively separates DH from a 5e game that's being run in a "play to find out" sense, and it's far more open that it expect the GM to front and guide a dramatic story.

I'd have to see it meet the table to be sure, but what I'm reading seems to have stronger reinforcement of exploration of premise than even Blades in the Dark or Stonetop.

Yeah I guess it'll depend on the premise and who the group of players consists of and chooses as themes of play. If it's stock High Fantasy stuff it's probably more like classic FF play tropes, with some sort of Big Bad and like Kingdoms Under Threat and Can We Be Heroes and stuff (as presented in the Press Start scenario). I think the Techno Fantasy frame and suggestions in the book around that is more interested in big premises like class struggle/capitalism/etc that many of the JRPGs in that area dig in to.

(Eg: in the Tones and Themes section: "What kind of tone do you expect during the narration? Would you prefer a heavily dramatic tale dealing with complex situations and emotions, or would you rather tell a fantastical story where good and evil are easily told apart?")

Compared to how games like BITD/SFTD/Stonetop have played out at my table, the vibe and interrogation of beliefs etc as reinforced by the mechanics have felt very different.

But point taken in general, I think I just see games like this that have strong space for "OC" style character development as something a little different then how games with playbooks and more set starting conditions, and that might be a me thing.