But what as become clear to me is that advanced, true advanced, is a magnificently different beast than most of us have ever realized. Because, despite its Rube Goldbergian construction, AD&D does get the job done. It fits together, and while there appear to be contradictions, they are usually found to be contrivances that don't apply in some situations. Clearly improvements could have been made, but the man who was the true brainchild behind its cohesion is, sadly, no longer with us to do so. And he wasn't allowed to say much about it when he was here after the rights were sold. Thus we are left with his first edition, which, keep in mind was really a third edition. Original being the first, supplements being the second and advanced coming as a global third attempt to write the full definition of the game.

I have run into the labyrinth of AD&D when I truly did try and run RAW some years back. Originally we started with OSRIC so the rest of the table could get the rulebooks without buying used ones. But I quickly ran into problems trying to use the original books while my players used OSRIC. They are not the same. Some say the changes are minute, but truthfully they aren't. The problem is the layers of meaning and rules implications in the prose of the 1e books. They are simply lacking in OSRIC, and in fact come in slightly more clear in Matt Finch's second attempt Swords & Wizardry Complete where he sidebars numerous rules explaining some of the behind the curtain history and thinking that went on about certain rules and mechanics. So in our case we decided to make the actual AD&D books the rules default. But I played with savvy players and they began to actually read the books and challenge me on calls I was making in game. Why? Because I was making calls like I always had: because I either didn't know the rule from the books as written, or I knew but I didn't like it. d6 initiative being one--I preferred the 2e d10.

So what I began to find out that we were beginning to have rather deep discussion and sometimes disagreements about the way the game was to be played. The fact is, I rather enjoyed them, but also found my weakness in terms of game knowledge being sorely tested. As it happened this was about the time a slew of Pathfinder players began making noise and we shifted to play PF for a time. And I can tell you what, that didn't do much for my confidence. The point is I have experienced myself the terrible truth about "advanced" D&D. Not many of us are truly advanced players.

In point of fact I don't think Gary was. From what I've heard most of his games were fairly fast and loose, much more "classic" in style than "advanced". And for that matter if you talk to several old grogs they all prefer the original game, Tim Kask included. This influence of the original game on subsequent editions has always been a marvel to behold. In that way I think D&D has remained more or less the same over the years. At its heart, D&D is about a few constants woven together with the imagination of those present. And some people really like that. For myself it creates a real dilemma. More on that later.