Buyer's Remorse

I bought AD&D intending to follow it as closely as written as possible in order to get the full vision of the creator. I felt kind of defrauded after learning that the author didn't use the rules as written himself. In Gary Gygax's case it could be excused, as D&D probably just existed in his head, and he would have no need of a graven rules reference in order to play. However the fraudulent part is with the rules that he didn't play with, didn't playtest, and only included in the AD&D core books because of a friend's insistence or because they seemed like a good idea when writing. It makes the experience of actually playing AD&D a frustrating one, as these rules create large internal conflicts that must be addressed by each GM individually.  An option would be to simply play OD&D + Greyhawk supplement, but OD&D and AD&D share the same critical flaw in not explaining themselves very well, and thus it again falls on the shoulders of the GM to make its systems work.

 I'd say for Gygax, D&D lived in his head so he really didn't need written rules, and the impression I get is that he wasn't much of a strict rulekeeper at the table either, and so expected other GMs to follow his lead.

For another perspective, I was interested in Basic D&D, primarily through the Rules Cyclopedia but in modern OSR circles the Moldvay and Cook B/X version is regarded more highly. Instead I chose the Frank Mentzer revision and bought the BEC sets (out of BECMI) because of their promise of continued explanation and tutorial of the system as opposed to dry rules. I'm quite happy with these sets as I feel that I got exactly what I wanted - a system that works on its own merits with little requirement to houserule, and clear explanations of its features. Some of the systems are a bit too streamlined however, and I feel that AD&D has some good features that don't exist in BECMI.

One bonus for me in the Mentzer sets over the B/X or Rules Cyclopedia is the art. I know a lot of people online prefer the weird and grungy Errol Otus art because "it more accurately depicts the actual experience of playing Dungeons and Dragons", but as an amateur artist myself I appreciate the technical beauty of the Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley artwork.  Since the Rules Cyclopedia tosses all that beautiful artwork out, I feel like I dodged a bullet by not buying that book.

I love reading the AD&D books, but I like playing BECMI a lot more.