Well, title says it all. Since the entire Talislanta library is now free, I'm wondering.

3e has the best rules, 2e has the best art and best "feel". Both editions have volumes that don't exactly correspond (like the sorcerer's guide vs the archaen codex, or the cyclopedia vs the worldbook) and are basically complementary. The original book is statless and useable with everything.

The later volumes of the 2e cyclopedia are very much optional and somewhat contradictory in both rule options and world details. Use for inspiration not canon.

Otherwise search this site for the word Talislanta in posts by me for why I like 3e over later editions.

3e has two elements I don't like: how the arduans (sp.? bird people) are depicted and a general tendency toward metaplot and big damn heroes in the modules.

Way back when I played in a campaign of 3e (I think) Talislanta and quite liked it. We tried the 4e version - no character levels, just skills - briefly, but didn't like it as much; the magic system in particular was a lot less flavourful. I haven't checked out the earlier versions.

Other than that, I probably wouldn't use the d20 version of Talislanta in spite of my bias toward 3rd edition D&D. While it brings in alot more options by combining or crossing over with other D20 products, it would probably be alot more work for the GM; the Archetype system in Tal is great for fast NPC generation e.g. when the PCs pick a fight with random NPCs at the wayside inn.

There is also a GURPS Talislanta (never published unless it has gone up at the Tal site? - I picked up my copy of the manuscript from the Tal yahoogroup files). Same caveats as d20 Tal, really.

Talislanta 4e is one of these rare cases of a new edition of a game that recapitulates all the good things of the earlier versions and fix the bad withouth betray their roots. The system is very intuitive and can be adapted to every imaginable situation. The pictures, taken from the best of earlier editions, are superb: I think there is no one I dislike... in a book of +500 pages! The setting is described in evocative detaill and there is any glimpse or metaplot of signature characters (I can't remember any named character in the entire book). And the most important for me, It's a complete game sistem and setting in one book: you don't need anything else to play lenghty campaigns (or one-night adventures) for years.

I agree that 4e does away with the hints of metaplot that crept in during the 3e era, which is good, and it's very complete in one volume--even though a few supplements were published for 4e.

BSJ pretty much summarizes the negatives of 4e from my perspective.

5e is supposed to do something to fix the un-Talislantan feel of 4e magic, but 5e also has a rep for being filled with errors. The 4e Codex Magicus also has (probably the same) fixes to magic. I'm glancing through it right now.

As I've written before, I like the hybrid levels+skills approach to character generation/development in pre-4e, so 3e is best for me.

In general, a lot of the books are pretty fluffy--e.g. Codex Magicus and Archaen Codex are both arcane histories of the world with maybe a little mechanics thrown in. But it's all good fluff, and little to no execrable gamer fiction. (There's a separate book of just fiction, can't say if it's execrable or not.) In short, you'd do well to download everything for reference even once you've picked a particular rule set.

I'm a fan of the big blue book (4e) even though magic did lose some of that Talislantian flavor that was present in the first three editions.

Fourth Edition, the Big Blue Book. Why?

1) Comprehensive. It has everything you need to play in one big book.

2) The rules are the best play tested and most complete. Unlike say 5th edition which has glaring gaps and balance issues.

3) The best magic system. Unlike some I think this is where the game did right by Talislanta. The magic system is robust, powerful and fun. In previous editions (3E) any order was pretty much just like another Wizardry carried most of the same spells as Natural Magic which was much the same as Elemental magic with only slight name and special effect differences.  4th Edition made the spells more personal, to both the character, and the characters training.

4) Its keeps the mechanic, ditches classes and levels, and still makes the game playable, and similar to what it was--it wasn't a huge leap of game desitgn, but it was a subtle and effective change that made the game more robust in terms of play.


Drawbacks

1) It is hard to find in print.

2.) It still relies on its archetypes. While not a problem for me. It is for some people. 5th ditched this for its path system which was horribly done. I know the archetypes are more limiting, but exceptions to them are in the GM's perview and certainly any GM I play under could do a better job than Morrigan did. (Sadly)

3) The print book is heavy. It's HUGE. It was one of the first of the "new style" books IIRC the "Hey this book if dropped will break toes." (Other games in this new style were Hero 5E, the later Starblazers Adventures, and Dresden Files games.)
 


General good things about Tal.

1) The world is unique. It is broad but not deep, allowing players and GM's to jump in and play. Depth can be explored by Gm's during their campaigns but you won't lose players at character creation, usually.

2) System is simple. Of the big huge book only about 20 pages is rules.

3) They are now available free as PDF.

Damn 4rries !

I have a number of hard-copy Talislanta books I bought new; most are 2e, but I have the 1e books, too. This thread prompted me to browse through them for the first time in years. The Sorcerer's Guide in particular really stands out to me. It has a lot of stuff that could be easily used in other fantasy RPGs, and it all has a very "old school" feel to it.