I've been following (and backing) this game since Day 1 of the KS, and it looks promising.

It's a high fantasy game with a system that looks like a mix between Numenea and D&D4 4th. It has Numenera's core mechanical simplicity and diceless GM'ing approach (only players roll dice; although there are optional rules for a more traditional approach to GM'ing), combed with a power structure similar to D&D 4th (which in my own experience I've always found to be a good idea, it just didn't work for D&D, or at least not for the feel I want from D&D).

The highlights in the design seem to be to allow party-based combos, and powers seem to be designed so that the group coordinates their actions for better effect when possible. For example, there is a Mystic power that (aside from doing damage) makes the target vulnerable to electric damage (next electric attack auto-hits), then there is a Judge power that deals electric damage. If the Mystic first uses his power, the Judge gets to auto-hit.

I'm usually not a huge fan of this sort of systems, but Unity seems to be simple enought at its core mechanic to make this doable to me and my group; plus I've wanted a game to scratch my Final Fantasy itch for a while, and this game as a strong FF vibe from the setting, artwork and mechanics.

The is a 40 pages sample over KS, a 6-pages combat example and other interesting stuff.

The books is expected to ship December 2017, but in a few months (November 2016 or before) all backers should have a digital package to get us started.

The art and backstory are very MMO-ish. The line "a variety of builds and combos await you" is not quite the best way to sell me a game but still, my curiosity is piqued. I'll pass because the authors seem to have no great track record, and their sheer enthusiasm screams "heartbreaker" to me. But if it sees the light of day, it's going to be a beautiful book... Looks insane, in a good way.

This KS is close to its end-date, so i'm giving it a bump. It's a very pretty thing and it seems well thought out. The design sounds good, imo. As said above, there is a ~40 page primer you can download to see what it's about.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/215931791/unity-tabletop-rpg

Sounds interesting, but am I being too much of a crank for being irritated by their "fail forward" blurb implying that a miss in combat = nothing happens?

Quote from: JamesV;912669Sounds interesting, but am I being too much of a crank for being irritated by their "fail forward" blurb implying that a miss in combat = nothing happens?

Yeah, apparently the idea that failing to end an opponent in combat has a built in "complication" - namely leaving open the possibility that your opponent can end you is lost on these creative new school narrative geniuses.  You think for people all about the story, they'd be in for a richer gaming experience that requires more patience than a meth whore.

But, like every single design element to come out of Forgey Theory, the concept of Fail Forward is only there to protect from bad GMs those people so scarred and bitter from childhood gaming, that even Gollum has to say "Dude, let it go." (Yes, I'm aware of the ironic riposte)

That having been said, a FFVII simulator with the opportunity for the freedom and optional roleplay the tabletop delivers might be cool every once in a while.  If the mechanical gameplay is structured solely on tactical combination and storygame nonsensery though, the tactical side better be deep.

I game like this, like 4e itself, with forced OOC gameplay and tactical depth is practically tailor-made for a "game within a game".  Once, my Shadowrun players were hired (by a rich fan) to clandestinely protect a celebrity, a VR star.  They entered a virtual reality FRPG game to prevent the death of the star after they found out a Vor hacker had removed the safety filters on the game's simsense feed (essentially turning the opposition into potentially deadly as Black IC).  (Yeah it sounds like a cheap ripoff of A Killing Glare, but the real setup hid my hackery better) I should have known better, but I actually expected them to do something different.  Anyway, we broke out AD&D for the sim, it was awesome.  However, a game like this would have possibly been more fun I expect.  It's always good to have as many deadly fantasy VR games as you can in Shadowrun.

He writes a little bit about failing forward in the primer. It's not as bad as you guys seem to think. He is not a hardcore narrative designer/gamer. The game looks a lot more like "a bit more freeform" DnD 4e or even more like "a bit more freeform" 13th Age. Or at least that's what a lot of people have said and taken away from the primer and/or the pretty long thread on rpg.net (the design forum thread, not the one in the TRO subforum).

I'm normally not even that big of a fan of class and level systems...but this game seems interesting and cool...at least to me

Eh, I read it.  Somewhere there is a complete and total disconnect between mechanics and the reality of the setting for designers like this.  Here's what he has to say about Fail Forward (Fair Use blah etc.) (Emphasis mine.)

Quote from: Unity Free SamplerFailing Forward
What happens when you roll under the TN and fail a roll? In Unity, failing doesn't always mean that nothing happens. In fact failing can lead to some very interesting situations that would not have otherwise happened. The spirit of the game encourages players to explore possibilities and GMs to facilitate alternatives to "you miss." Outside of combat, there are rules that provide a margin or some slush in the TN vs the player's roll. If a player's roll result is barely under the designated TN, the GM is encouraged but not forced to make the failure interesting. The GM's Guide section of this book has guidelines on how to handle these situations and provides multiple examples to inspire your own play.
While Unity's design encourages failing forward, there will be situations where forcing such mechanics do not really make sense. It also can become mentally exhausting for the GM to constantly come up with interesting outcomes for tasks that are fairly straightforward and lack the potential to spiral into something more. The general philosophy on failing forward is to engage the guidelines when it's easy and it makes sense. There is no point in wracking your brain to figure out what happens if Bob barely rolls under the TN for picking the lock of a box in an empty room. In this situation, it's ok to say "You fail to pick the lock."
Within combat, there are rules that dictate what happens on basic attacks when you fail to overcome your opponent's defenses. Many of the powers available to the classes have failure conditions tied to them as well. There is a strong emphasis on constantly moving things forward and avoiding stagnation. See the Combat Rules and Classes section of the book for an extensive write up.

I will admit, the portion I underlined shows the author to be sane and aware of the creative drain on always coming up with complications just for the sake of it.  However the bolded sections show bog-standard Fail Forward language that points out that disconnect.  How can missing someone in combat be boring?  You've failed to kill the bastard trying to kill you, you've prolonged the combat, thus making it take longer (reinforcements may arrive, etc), he now has a chance to kill you that he didn't have before you bunged it.  Even in standard D&D, every miss, every 2 instead of a 10 for damage is a failure to finish the combat as quickly and easily as possible, which means that even if you win, you may be diminished in some way - HPs, Wounds, Criticals, loss of healing magic/items, increasing the chance of alarm bringing the whole place down around you.

Only with the most basic and inexperienced of GMs does a miss in combat only mean that the combat takes longer.
Only if you blindly or willfully ignore the reality of the setting does a miss in combat not have the potential to mean much, much more.

See the example of Fail Forward: (Fair Use, bleah, etc.)

Quote from: Unity Free SamplerFail Forward Example
Brother Darius is a holy man, having found the faith in his later years. Those that have come to know him respect him as their local Priest. Those that have known him before he found his calling remember his years as a teenage ruffian and street rat.
Passing through the marketplace on a sunny morning, Darius is drawn to the tantalizing aroma of fresh meat pies being sold by the town's baker. The temple has been a bit tight on money lately and Darius doesn't have enough to purchase a pie. He looks around slyly, his eyes shiftily darting left and right. "It's just a pie, no one will miss it" he thinks to himself, as his chubby fingers dart out to snatch one.
Some old habits die hard. It's a busy marketplace with lots of eyes and Darius is out of practice while being a good deal heavier than when he was as a spry young man. Darius barely fails his roll for attempting to steal the meat pie.

The GM's eyes light up at the possibilities she can spin this situation into:
1. Maybe Darius in his nervousness and lack of practice, squeezes a bit too hard and crushes part of the pie. Sure, he gets a piece but now his hands and some of his clothes are stained with meat sauce. He better think fast because this situation might escalate if someone
notices.

2. Maybe Darius gets the pie but as he's moving it into the folds of his robe, it drops to the ground. It sits there in the hot sun, caked in dirt, bugs, and possibly dung. The entire table leans in a bit closer, wondering if this gluttonous man of the cloth will decide to shovel the pie into his mouth regardless. It's a bit of a character defining moment and could potentially be a running joke among the group.

3. Darius manages to get the whole pie safely concealed and into the folds of his robe. Success! Or is it? The GM begins to describe a small street urchin with a ruddy face and disheveled hair pointing at Darius. A large smirk crosses the urchin's face "I know what you did mister and I'm telling." What's Darius going to do? Perhaps bribe the child? Share some of the pie with her? Or maybe he'll threaten her.

Whatever happens, the choices can continue to spiral and lead to the possibility of something interesting. Darius' choice might reveal a bit of his past to the players around the table, engaging everyone on an emotional level. The street urchin, troublesome as she may be, is still a kindred spirit as Darius might recall the feeling of being hungry and cold in his younger years wandering the streets alone as well. Maybe engaging the street urchin will lead to a new side-quest about a certain gang in the city bullying and using the homeless children for their own ends.

Who knows where failure will take you?

This is a prime example of taking something that naturally exists in a setting, ie. the natural consequences to what you do, give it a kewl hip label and branding it as jargon.  

What is your skill roll for?  Stealing the pie without being seen or caught.
What does a miss actually mean, you were unable to actually grab the pie, or unable to do it unseen?  Able to grab, unable to pocket?  Who saw you, how do you gauge level of failure?  GMs have been doing this since Braunstein, that's why they called them referees.

That's not Fail Forward, that's called having a Skill System and a GM who can shit unassisted.  Also note the one thing not even mentioned is the possible fallout for a "Holy Man" turning to thievery.  But that would be actual consequence, not stuff thought up and tossed in because we gotta "keep that story moving forward".

It's the difference between playing the world and authoring the world.  Yes, there is a difference.

BTW, the tactical choices do look deep, deeper than 4e.  This might be the one game where "GM's don't roll" is actually a good idea as opposed to ideological douchebaggery.

While it might be a lot of blah blah for you, the tragic reality is that lots and lots of people are not that inspired. So spelling it out helps.

It seems weird for those of us who get that without someone typing it out, but for lots of people it is a big "Ohhhh??!!!" Moment. Yes, tragic, right?! But i have seen it happen too many times. And sometimes i get that feeling that reading comprehension rapidly diminishes with every following generation of WhatsApp and Iphone junkies :eek:

AND, in case of Unity, there is also mechanical heft behind it, at least in combat. There are actual rules to "missing" in it. I find that interesting. Sure, it's not the coming of a second rpg jesus, but it's an ok thing, imo. Sometimes, reading posts on this forum here, i get the feeling that some of you just like to gripe (yes, me too ). Or some even seem to wish that rpgs hadn't evolved at all so that they can still play their first edition DnD box. The cool thing is - you can!!

Anyway, if it's not for you, it's not for you.

The "Fair Use bleah" was just pointing out I'm quoting a large section of text without permission invoking the Fair Use Clause which allows us to do so for the purpose of discussion and criticism.  The bleah was for the legalese not for the game text.

BTW, I'm not a current GM/player of any version of Dungeons and Dragons.  Mythras/RQ6, Dragon Age and Yggdrasil were the last three sessions I ran, and even though I'll probably go with Mythras/MERP/Harnmaster for Middle-Earth, I'm gearing up for a testrun of The One Ring, so I'm not exactly Old Geezer.  What I do, however, is call people on their bullshit, so frequently I end up refuting the ridiculous falsehoods people say about AD&D, which might mark me as a "old D&D grognard".  I played the fuck out of D&D, I left with 2.5, returned for a bit for 3e, left again with 3.5, looked upon 4e as D&D Necromunda, and am disappointed that so much of 4e made it into 5e.

I'm a mechanics nerd, I love seeing new mechanics and Funky Dice don't scare me.  I actually loved the Wardancer mechanics in WFRP3 - absolutely fucking brilliant.  Too bad they were imbedded in a game full of OOC mechanics.

I'm all for new development - of mechanics I can engage with IC.

Quote from: Anglachel;912686AND, in case of Unity, there is also mechanical heft behind it, at least in combat. There are actual rules to "missing" in it. I find that interesting...

My crabbing about fail-foward aside, mechanical heft is something I am sometimes interested in, and the sample combat is kinda interesting. The sample goes off GM adjudication for spacing and distance, but it does look like it would be easy to represent and clarify with minis, ala D&D 4e. While I am more of a "theater of the mind" GM, I've been looking for something a little more tactical and gamey, but not 4e.