Quote from: The_Shadow;319034Yes indeed.
http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/modpages/dq.html

Aha, yes, I forgot about that one even though it's on my shelf! Well, you can make of it whatever you like--obviously it shows some support for the line by TSR, but they hedged their bets by trying to tie it to FR and, of course, dual-statting it.

Quote from: Age of Fable;319108From what I remember of the 80s, 'realism' was valued, which meant two things: combat, and depictions of a medieval society.

Oh, yes. Hârn, need I say more?

QuoteI don't remember anyone agreeing with the various 'pro rules-light' statements in D&D, to the effect that accurate simulation should take second place to ease of play and fun.

Except for D&Ders themselves, who did make that argument at times. Unfortunately it was hard to make given the apparent complexity of AD&D.

The complexity issue muddied the waters, as you have pointed out in regard to T&T. Howard Thompson had an interesting take: According to this letter he felt that Steve Jackson had made TFT too complicated and so it wasn't as much better than D&D as HT had hoped it could be. Early prophet of light gaming, right? More like accidental prophet, if you look at Thompson's effort to "fix" TFT, Dragons of Underearth. Yes, simpler. But as presented, the game is narrowly focused on combat and dungeoneering. It could break free and be used as the basis of a real RPG, but D&D, any version, probably had more of the broad perspective needed to actually inspire this leap.

Interesting. I've often wondered how sales of HeroQuest and Talisman compared to those for D&D - but I guess those who know aren't telling.