Hi - before I start, just like to say what a fabulous resource this site is.

I hope this is the right place to post this (if it ain't please could the mods move it to the right one). I read in the design stickies, that this section is about doing design. Well that's what we've done - we've designed a role-playing game. We have a website...

http://www.alice-rps.com/main/Alice_Main.htm

Currently we are working on a free downloadable, which will be ready soon (our web designer is away in Oz at the mo, and will be back at the end of feb - so the lite version should be on the site in March). In the meanwhile I have put in a brief overview of what Alice is about on the forum

http://www.alice-rps.com/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=2

(rather not repeat it all here)

Would really appreciate some feedback

Our understanding is that it is essentially a reversed d20 system (although because of the way we played - we didn't like D&D and the d20 system, and came up with our idea without knowing how the d20 system worked). We think that Alice actually plays better than the d20 system - but would be interested to know what you think on this issue.

Alice isn't intended to be a d20 replacement - we wrote it as a vehicle for our own play and interests - which was essentially ripping off ideas that we got from TV/films and books - i.e. buffy, matrix, sliders style, modern horror (my personal favourite).

The other thing about Alice is where it stands on the GNS spectrum. Alice empahsises Narativism - and is mostly a narrativist system - i.e. the character generation starts with the player writing down their history, and determining their personality before even thinking about what skills to assign to the character (personally I think that this creates better more rounded characters anyway). There is also a very strong Simulationist aspect to Alice (I didn't realise this when it was written) - Alice actually calls it "uber-reality" - the rule systems try to be "realistic" - this is one of the reasons for using the mechanics that we did because Alice treats the d20 as a means of generating a percentage in 5% increments (we did consider using a d100 system - but it makes the maths too complicated, and we wanted Alice to be something that could be done in the head). Some of the simulationist rules are quite complex - i.e. the vehicle systems actually uses (simplified) laws of physics to create realistic outcomes.

Alice is not really a system that would suit those with strong gamist trendencies - in fact we wrote Alice to eliminate/reduce gamist play (Alice calls it powerplaying)

The rules as they stand if they were played in their entirety would make Alice a predominantly simulationist system. However, Alice also has a lite/full fat rules system - i.e. rules systems can be simplified - hence "lite." Which means that it can be played 2 ways i.e. predominantly as a narrtivist system (by adopting the lite rules) or as a predominantly simulationist system (by adopting the full fat rules).

As a group we prefer narrativism - We have had many sessions where we haven't even looked at the rulebook - the mechanics pretty much allow you to do this.

I was wondering what people thought on this narratvist/simulationist split - whether it really is possible to have both in the same system - and then emphasise one or the other.

Actually I have had a change of mind about this Narrativism/Simulationist split.

Been looking at a stongly narativist system (Shadow of Yesterday: the Land of Near - nice system by the way)

Alice's philosophy is more like...

The story is of overiding importance - i.e. it is through the motives and goals of the various characters (player and referee controlled) that the story unfolds. However the outcomes of how the characters interact is strongly simulationist i.e. the outcomes are realistic. Outcomes are largely dictated by what would be a realistic outcome for the actions of the characters. e.g. your Character is trying to shoot the tyres out from a fleeing car - the system determines how hard it is to hit the car's tyres (based on "realistic" probabilities for hitting such a target) - you could then determine if the driver could keep control of the vehicle if it lost a tyre or where the bullets would hit if they missed the tyre.

The Character generation is similar in that you are required to detail a history and personality - from this you choose the skills that fit the history/personality, which I believe again is simulationist i.e. the skills chosen fit the "reality" of the character. e.g. my character went to university to study particle physics, therefore he will have a physics skill, a research skill, a computer skill. He might also be a geek so will have poor social skills etc.

I guess the "uber-reality" moniker is probably more appropriate.

Don't conflate "narrativism" with "lack of rules." Really, all three modes can be done in the presence or absence of heavy rules. Also, and I think this is a really sad terminology thing, don't conflate "narrativism" with "presence of storyline and plot," which is possible in both Narrativist and Simulationist modes.

What are you trying to do with your game? When you play, what rules do you actually use, including rules that aren't written down? What are the extant problems in your game -- we can't help you solve them if we don't know.

yrs--
--Ben

Hello!

First, yes, you are in the right forum, with all the right starting points.

Ben's questions are very useful too, so it might help to get an idea in your head about what a group is really doing when they play, and then communicate it through a series of posts as we're talking.

And one minor tweak on my part - let's just shelve the whole GNS thing. A lot of people post their game designs and toss those terms in because they think it's required, or (less honestly) in order to generate responses. But really, it's not an important issue at the moment, and for now, everyone, let's focus on the game and how it's presented.

Best,
Ron

yes you are right - I have confused narativism with storyline. I think I understand the difference now. Alice is a simulationist system. My confusion about which category Alice might fall into is not really the issue.

As the system stands at the moment there are 2 problems. One I think needs to be started in another thread. The other problem concerns Alice's similarity to the d20 system. Firstly I'm not sure whether this is in fact a problem, but I think it would be helpful to decribe the core mechanics of the system.

Character skills are divided into Core, Aptitude and Focus. These 3 separate elements are added together as appropriate in play to give a skill total (the normal range is between 1 and 15 points).

Dice rolling - Alice uses 1d20 for all rolls. On a 1 or 20 you get to roll again, and add the result of the second roll if you roll a 20, or subtract it if you roll a 1 - generating a total range of -19 to 40

Base Chance - The referee decides the Base Chance depending on how difficult the task is to be accomplished. In Alice low Base Chances are hard, high are easy. Generally they are in the range of 5 to 15

Chance of Success - The Player adds their skill total to the Base Chance to give their own personal Chance of Success. They then roll 1d20 and try to get below this total.

Success Points - The amount you get below your Chance of Success gives you the number of Success Points (the system also uses failure points). The number of Success Points can then be used in the game to provide different meanings to the outcome i.e. they can qualify the success or failure.

Degree of Success - to give a more general feel to how well or badly you have done Alice uses Degree of Success. For every 5 Success Points your Degree of Success, goes from Marginal to Complete to Phenomenal to Miraculous. You can also get Degrees of Failure too - Marginal, Complete, Disastrous, & Catastrophic.

Opposed rolls - works by comparing the number of Success Points gained by each side to determine the winner

Automatic Success - if your Chance of Success is 20 or more you have succeeded automatically.

the automatic Success helps to add consistency to the game. The 3 most common Base Chances are 15 - everday task, 10 - skilled task, 5-professional task. This ties into the level of skill to achieve the task i.e. for an everyday task you need a skill of 5, for a skilled task you need a skill of 10 etc. It is used to help the referee to set probabilities within the game - and is explicitly described.

The comments that we have recieved is that this is essentially a d20 system in reverse, and after having looked through some d20 material this is broadly true.

we've used the mechanic in many hours of actual play and it works very well - it's generally simple to use. One of the comments was that the game system tends to fade into background, allowing people to concentrate more on what they wanted their Character to do rather than worrying about the game system - players in fact need to know very little about the system to actually use it.

From the core mechanic above does it's similarity to the d20 system constitute a problem? or more specifically what problems can you foresee with this similarity?