Should I run 1st or 3rd edition?

[Banjo]

I’m preparing to run an Exalted game. The first part of my plan is to run a small game with a short 3 story arc to familiarize myself with the system so I can apply any hacks I think are needed for the main game. But 3^rd is damn near impenetrable, and it requires generating a tremendous amount of player buy in, possibly too much. It then occurred to me that I do have the option of two other editions.

For me 2^nd is immediately out.

This is the one my players know well, but that also means that they know all its flaws well. I’m not interested in relitigating this system, it wasn’t especially good then and now unsupported there is really no reason to revisit it.

That leaves Exalted 1^st verse Exalted 3^rd.

The Exalted 1^st setting is in my opinion by a very far cry the best iteration of the Exalted setting overall, though there are a few nice refinements/additions in 2^nd and 3^rd. Ultimately however setting is mostly window dressing and can be mostly ported between editions freely with little loss.

So, this brings me to my primary question. For those that can remember, how well does 1^st edition hold up and how does it compare against 3rd?
Specifically:

1. I have run 3^rd for a few one-shots and despite itself the system SEEMED to play fairly well. But that was with static low tiered pre-generated characters. Does the system become unwieldy later?
2. Given that charms have an absurd number of triggers for effects, does that become overwhelming in play? Example: effect triggers on 3s, 8s,2s and doubles on pink elephants? or power recharges on x.
3. How much trouble do players have creating and maintaining characters? I find it unlikely that a player is going to be able to parse the sheer number of charms.
4. Follow up. How likely is a player to mess up or miss important charm choices that later cripple their character? Example: Whatever is going on in crafting. Important defense charms.
5. Additional follow up. How likely am *I* to miss broken charm combos, or pitfalls? For example, charms that are unfair vs a player (2^nd was rife with these) or players combos of doom.
6. I know 1st stayed playable up to very high levels of play, 2nd did not, does third?
7. Do you think it is more work to:
   1. Hack 1^st ed up to a smoothly functional state with later edition functionality
   2. Hack 3^rd to add useful and interesting adversaries such Abyssals or Sidereals. AND keep track of the antagonistically relevant charms out of a potential 2000+ charms.

I want to like 3^rd edition and I want to run it but I feel like it is really fighting me hard. Despite being a rabid advocate of 1^st and 2^nd I can only seem to muster a lukewarm attitude for 3^rd. Two of my most grievous problems buying into 3^rd edition are:

1. The baffling charm design left an almost impenetrable mass of charms with tediously fiddly mechanics.
2. The publishing speed/decisions that leaves Abyssals (The primary antagonists of the setting) till 6 years after the published core. The creative equivalent of publishing rules for Dragons in D&D 6 years after release. Additionally, the Underworld is full third of the setting and it won’t see publication till 2023. WTF?

[Ekorren]

I heart 3e.

[Isator Levi]

(I tried making a character, but I just couldn't be bothered).

Why not?

[Jutlander]

These days I doubt I will ever play Exalted by the rules again. One of my friends have made his own hack of the rules for an indie game (Lady Blackbird) and applied it to the Exalted setting and we just do that now. We get all the flavor of Exalted without having to deal with first edition ("Irresistable Salesman Spirit lets me do what?"), second edition (a game with as much errata as actual rules, it felt like), or third edition (I tried making a character, but I just couldn't be bothered).

[Chausse]

The Lore rules for Introducing a Fact we very rarely use, but when we do I've been happy with it.

I must say Lore was the surprise for me. On my first campaign I was totally not open for the Challenge a Fact rules and we basically didn't use them at all.

On my second campaign, we tried to use it respecting the intents of the rules, and oh boy did we have fun. Discovering through a simple state a fact that some parent of a PC was kidnapped because they wanted blood from his family for some ritual, and then have every player realizing "But if that's the case, it means there is another connection" two of three times, to finally conclude that the most racist and arrogant of the characters was actually a descendant of one of his sworn ennemies was such a blast ! This and the Eclipse leader of the group stating Moïse style : "Through meditation and dreams about the past of our people, I have discovered the location of our sacred and long lost birthplace as a kind, let's conquer it !" felt so much Solar I couldn't help loving it.

[The Wizard of Oz]

It has interesting ideas, and so I want to like it, but in practice it's been either frustrating or a giant xp sink.

Whereas I generally enjoy 3rd ed Exalted combat, and never have the "oh no, someone's making five attacks, might as well read a book for 20 minutes and then find out someone took 1 damage" thing that often seemed to happen in 2nd ed. I'd say it's harder to run than, say, DnD combat, but also more fun.

The social system is a bit less radical than it looks, compared to 2nd ed, and it has led to some arguing, etc, but it does generally lead to people making social influence attempts that, well, make sense for the most part. I think it's good.

Sorcery is generally good, though sometimes workings can be a little bit of a hassle to adjudicate, and it's perhaps a little overpowered (less so than 2nd ed though), but it's led to a lot of cool stuff.

The Lore rules for Introducing a Fact we very rarely use, but when we do I've been happy with it.

[SamuraiMujuru]

I wouldn't say this about absolutely everything in it (some of my players have found the Craft system irritating), but I'll certainly that for combat this is very much the case.

That's completely fair. I can only speak to my personal opinions and group. The crafter in my group has very much enjoyed the new system but YMMV.

[The Wizard of Oz]

I've played and ran a lot of Exalted across all three editions. In my experience, from a mechanical standpoint 3rd is the most FUN to play and while initially it's systems are intimidating they all integrate FAR better and more fluidly than either 1st or 2nd.

I wouldn't say this about absolutely everything in it (some of my players have found the Craft system irritating), but I'll certainly that for combat this is very much the case.

[Aoi Cobalt]

First Edition might have a nice backstory and feel, but the mechanics were so broken that the first group I played Exalted with decided never to play it again.
Third Edition mechanics, although hard to decipher at times, actually run smoother and play better than the older systems.
Don't let the lack of books color your judgement, not all the books were out when I played both 1st and 2nd editions of Exalted, and homebrews worked out fine.

[SamuraiMujuru]

Most people have already brought up ac lot of points I'd make, but figure I'll throw in my two cents.

I've played and ran a lot of Exalted across all three editions. In my experience, from a mechanical standpoint 3rd is the most FUN to play and while initially it's systems are intimidating they all integrate FAR better and more fluidly than either 1st or 2nd. Setting wise, 3rd takes a stance almost perfectly between the the vagueness of 1st and over specification of 2nd. New setting additions also add a ton of fun flavor not present in its predecessors.
Been playing this game for eighteen years and I'm fully on the 3rd edition best edition band wagon.

[Synapse]

And it's officially fixed, although my post is lost ;_;


SO
Banjo !

TL;DR: play 3e.


---------------
The core reasons are, for me:

1) The system is simply that much better. The social system actually works, the combat has an action dynamic that dwarves most games out there (including previous Exalted games), and literally will only get better, as is normal for any rpg.

2) Your concerns about "creating the splats that aren't out yet" is mostly already resolved in 3e because there's plenty fanmade conversions that are good.


Additionally, I find your concerns about abyssals "being major antagonists left out" a bit off, because that's not the dynamic in place. Dragonbloods / Anathema is the big one, with abyssals being the new kids on the block. If anything they foil the solars in their narrative place of "The game is changing". Most are under the wings of the death lords, whose modern influence is very much limited. The Realm is pervasive. The Guild is pervasive. Heaven is divided, but even in division they cast their gaze at the whole of Creation.

So it makes sense those threats would have their splats out before abyssals. We all would love to see two splats a year, but that's simply not feasible.

[Synapse]

When quoted piecemeal, i guess. I remember quoting lists before without issue

[Saur Ops Specialist]

The list function, when quoted, causes forum pages to distort and bend just as you see.

[Synapse]

Err... sorry?

[JohnDoe244]

For 1st:

I recommend pinching the Lawgivers house-rule of just giving all the PCs Dex 5 for free. I also would axe XP and award players (an equal amount of) BP instead.

I'd also work out what the characters Evasion/DDV and Parry/PDV would be, and to give all important characters (PCs, Exalts, mortals/other with plot armour) one "free" defence against the first attack against them each round. (I'd also consider using those static values to cut down on rolling.)

I would not use the Power Combat rules. (They're fun, but game-able.)

With these changes, I've had fantastic games of 1E. I have yet to actually play 3E.