For those who might be interested, there's a much wider and long-running discussion of Alternity on RPG.net at the following
link.
I like Alternity because I see its system as more character-centric.
I agree with CarlZog. That's a useful descriptor to tag onto
Alternity. Individual characters within that game system are more empowered, and yet more fragile than in other systems I've tried. That's why the
Alternity game mechanics provide a unique blend of "cinematic" play with just enough so-called "realism" to satisfy in a way that super-heroic fantasy-based games usually can't.
The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that d20 Modern is Alternity Second Edition, it's just not called that officially.
I would disagree here. I view the D20 system in general as a blending of original D&D/AD&D with a few lessons learned from
Alternity. Then, the progression from generic D20 (i.e., the rules as portrayed for just D&D 3/3.5) into
D20 Modern and now
D20 Future is really just more tweaking of the D20 mechanics because the designers realized the rules didn't go far enough to support the modern/futuristic genres.
If I drew a chart, I'd list it like a family tree. You'd have two systems, old D&D/AD&D and
Alternity, acting as the mother-father of D20. And then, the iterations of D20 as
D20 Modern and
D20 Future would just be further generations within the same lineage. Maybe I'm just playing with words, though. Clearly, what you see in
D20 Modern,
D20 Future, and D20's underlying mechanics, in general...DO have roots in
Alternity. But there's enough of the old D&D/AD&D heritage in there that you can't really view them as
Alternity 2.0. And that's because there are quite a few elements (including many good ones) in
Alternity that got left behind when they created D&D 3/3.5, etc.
Just my two-cents,
--Neil