Details, Devils, and why the fuck did the author put that in there

or Creating a homogeneous world part Deux

There are a lot of things fantasy fans can be thankful for in D&D, one thing nobody in their right mind should, however, is the plethora of weapons lists.

Let me explain: it's nice bit of knowledge that there are so many different tools to disembowel a human being. But knowledge of the Arms & Equipment Guide does not a weapons expert make. Most people ignore a simple yet important fact: history. The simplest way to explain this is this: nobody in the Middle Ages knew what a broadsword was, or a long sword, or a short sword. These terms were created later, the normal man at arms of the time had a sword, it might have been broader, or longer, or even shorter, but too short and it was called knife.

But but but, blubber, there are the different sword kinds on the weapons tables, some might blubber. If you're still using those D&D tables, go design adventures, but please stop writing novels, readers might be more astute and pick up on the rogue tulwar popping up in an otherwise medieval Europe setting, or a kukri making its way through the mail armor of a bad guy... if you do this because it's cool, sure go with it, but any applied archaeology student and medievalist will tell you that these weapons are in context utterly useless.

You see, weapons are designed with one purpose in mind: to overcome a specific kind of armor. Armor in turn is designed to counter as many kinds of attacks as possible. The evolution is weapon > armor > weapon > armor etc. A tulwar is akin to a cavalry saber, used from horseback as a slashing weapon against basically unarmored enemies. A kukri is a machete with some weapons properties for all intents and purposes, meant to wound unarmored opponents. Both weapons are as effective against medieval steel armor (be it plate or chain, supported by leather or cloth) as a wet fart. They are slashing weapons, and a knight's armor was designed to withstand a hell of a lot of slashes.

But why are they featured in the D&D weapons lists? Waaaaah! I cannot speak for newer versions of the game, I stopped at Pathfinder, what I do know, however, is that in certain books these lists also contained the flint-stone-studded clubs used by archaic cultures, or the swords used by Incas and whatnot... these lists also came with an index showing which weapons were used in which technological era. Sure that would put the tulwar right into medieval times, and one could now say my hero uses a tulwar, and with a d6 damage the tulwar deals out about as much hurt as a short sword(remember, the term was not used in the Middle Ages). Stands to reason that a tulwar wielder could kill someone in chainmail, after all, the bugger does d6 damage.

And this is where I interrupt this nonsense and repeat: DO NOT RELY SOLELY ON D&D MANUALS!!!

Seriously, you'd have a better chance at authenticity when using a flight simulator on your computer to describe aerial combat!

But medieval... tulwar... sword... waaa!

There there little moron, calm down.

I already answered why the tulwar was not used in medieval Europe, armor. And while soldiers in India also wore armor to work, it was not...? Right! You in the back! It was not made of metal! Why? Yes, you. Correct! It was too fucking hot, so foot soldiers and most riders wore primarily cloth and leather armor, so as to not become a happy meal for tigers. That is why tulwars were used there, because they were designed to work against such armor.

But the weapons list...

*le sigh* You again? Think of those weapons lists as crotches, insecure people need to stuff them so that it appears to be more while basically remaining the meager selection it should have been.
Namely: Sword, Greatsword, Dagger/knife, Ax, Spear, maybe Flail and Hammer, that's it, which, of course means, an ideally geared man at arms had his chainmail, his shield, his sword, and his dagger. Doesn't scream variety here, does it?

And why should it? Weapons and armor were designed for one thing only, the former to kill and the latter to prevent being killed. In medieval Europe the sword was the ideal close combat weapon, only an idiot would have voluntarily chosen a different weapon.

So how could a person stand out from all the other warriors if not with their weapon? Mementos from battles, as in a necklace of teeth maybe, or I dunno preserved heads dangling from his saddle... there are options, but anyone choosing, to use more modern equivalents, a single shot rifle instead of a full auto one might look brave for a moment, the moment before the spray of bullets hits the dirt before him.

If your aim is to just tell a story, without even a hint of realism, why not add laser guns to the mix? After all, it's just a story, right?

Me, personally, I prefer some realism, chopped off hands and all the nice stuff that makes war such a terrible thing.