Popular weapons *PWN* better ones in RPGs

[Johannes]

The only thing I have against katana/wakizashi in Fallout series, is that there's no mention of maintaining. They are a complicated mix of different parts, and need regular maintaining to ensure function. They prolly could last longer in the interior desert, but the nearer the coast, the harder it is.

In the hand of amateurs, there should only be the blade remaining. Evry other parts has been rusted/lost away.

Cmon, there's no maintaining of guns either.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

^That explains why a critical failure will cause them to crumble into dust.

 

[laclongquan]

The only thing I have against katana/wakizashi in Fallout series, is that there's no mention of maintaining. They are a complicated mix of different parts, and need regular maintaining to ensure function. They prolly could last longer in the interior desert, but the nearer the coast, the harder it is.

In the hand of amateurs, there should only be the blade remaining. Evry other parts has been rusted/lost away.

Cmon, there's no maintaining of guns either.

Fair enough. Durability is not in use at all. Okay.

 

[SymbolicFrank]

Durability and maintenance of weapons are separate issues, especially with firearms.

Some guns, like the AK-47, UZI and FN-FAL work equally well in a swamp or a desert, and don't care if you maintain them at all. Others jam all the time when they are used outside their comfort zone or when not maintained spotless, like the G3, M16 and variants.

Then again, any weapon that is made of non-stainless steel or steel without a surface treatment that prevents oxidation, will rust. And pretty fast. So, even if you have a "maintenance-free" gun, you still have to prevent rust.

So, in a Wasteland scenario, guns that haven't been used for 200 years either work, are a pile of rust, or have been recently created.

 

[Gulnar]

I wonder where the heavy sword worship came from anyway. Myths and hero stories have an equal representation of magical swords as they do bows, spears, hammers etc., yet RPG devs mostly lust after swords.

It's because it's the most well known weapon of knights. It's also more elegant than an axe, or a mace. Also, since many peoples usually forgot that a knight stop being awesome if it's without a horse, the lance/spear is usually forgotten too, even tho it's probably the best medieval weapon.

Another thing it's that a sword is a weapon made for and only for war. You can't hunt with a sword (unless you're some crazy survivalist who guts boars with a sword). You can't cut wood with an axe. On the other hand, all other weapons are derived from non warmongering tools: the mighty broadaxe from the lowly wood axe, the dreadful halabard from the hunting spear, and the terrible mace from the stick.
You can't be a hero with a axe: you'd look like a woodcutter (or at best a raging psychopath), nor with a spear (you would look like a hunter), nor with a mace (you would look like a cretin). So that's why the sword is worshipped. Because it's a shitty weapon you can use only for war.

Actually no, if I remember right the katana is a significantly better weapon than its european counterparts.

You remember poorly.

 

[GarfunkeL]

It's interesting when the ferocity or wildness of some characters is underlined by the writers, he or she is usually wielding an axe instead of an sword. Similarly, mace is very hardly seen but Sauron wielded one - Tolkien most likely very deliberately had his heroes use swords and his villains use maces.

 

[Lujo]

It's interesting when the ferocity or wildness of some characters is underlined by the writers, he or she is usually wielding an axe instead of an sword. Similarly, mace is very hardly seen but Sauron wielded one - Tolkien most likely very deliberately had his heroes use swords and his villains use maces.

I think classism might also have something to do with it. A sword is a warrior caste weapon, or alternatively a soldiers weapn (it was historicaly almost always made for war angle). A spear is too egalitarian, at the lowest level it's just a sharpened stick, an everyman weapon. Axe is associated with woodsmen. A mace - it's basicaly a club, an improvised primitive weapon, but it's ceremonial counterpart, the baton and the scepter are associated with authority and authoritarian rule.

 

[Nikaido]

Plate armor master race.

 

[Akratus]

Katana vs German Kriegsmesser:

 

[laclongquan]

Talk about durable, maintainance. it's more applicable to small squad tactical game than big group, because in big group it's more like a hassle. So use it for 10- squad game.

For 10+ squad game, resource management is critical, ala Fallout Tactic. Ammo management in that game is marvellous: you know one type of ammo is shit but you still use it, to save ammo of better type for one or two main guy.

 

[Mystary!]

I wonder where the heavy sword worship came from anyway. Myths and hero stories have an equal representation of magical swords as they do bows, spears, hammers etc., yet RPG devs mostly lust after swords.

It's because it's the most well known weapon of knights. It's also more elegant than an axe, or a mace. Also, since many peoples usually forgot that a knight stop being awesome if it's without a horse, the lance/spear is usually forgotten too, even tho it's probably the best medieval weapon.

Another thing it's that a sword is a weapon made for and only for war. You can't hunt with a sword (unless you're some crazy survivalist who guts boars with a sword). You can't cut wood with an axe. On the other hand, all other weapons are derived from non warmongering tools: the mighty broadaxe from the lowly wood axe, the dreadful halabard from the hunting spear, and the terrible mace from the stick.
You can't be a hero with a axe: you'd look like a woodcutter (or at best a raging psychopath), nor with a spear (you would look like a hunter), nor with a mace (you would look like a cretin). So that's why the sword is worshipped. Because it's a shitty weapon you can use only for war.

Actually no, if I remember right the katana is a significantly better weapon than its european counterparts.

You remember poorly.

It's interesting when the ferocity or wildness of some characters is underlined by the writers, he or she is usually wielding an axe instead of an sword. Similarly, mace is very hardly seen but Sauron wielded one - Tolkien most likely very deliberately had his heroes use swords and his villains use maces.

I think classism might also have something to do with it. A sword is a warrior caste weapon, or alternatively a soldiers weapn (it was historicaly almost always made for war angle). A spear is too egalitarian, at the lowest level it's just a sharpened stick, an everyman weapon. Axe is associated with woodsmen. A mace - it's basicaly a club, an improvised primitive weapon, but it's ceremonial counterpart, the baton and the scepter are associated with authority and authoritarian rule.

Oh come on. It's not a fucking mystery why swords were both popular and common.
They are simply the most effective melee weapon, which is why they stuck around as long as they did.
It's no coincidence that sabres, and not axes or maces, were used by armies and police forces up until the mid 1900s.

Maces are a counter to armor, they do relatively little damage against flesh and have terrible reach, you'd need to hit somone in the head to kill them, which most people wont let you do. Swords can stab and cut more easily, even a cut against someones thigh is a potential kill.

Axes pack alot of punch and are cheaper to produce but they are less versitile and unwieldy compared to swords. Can't stab, less cutting edge, can't use them in tight formations or back alleys.
They work best against stationary targets, like opposing shield walls. In duels their lack of a handguard makes them a liability against competent swordsmen, who could block an incoming blow by putting their edge in the trajectory of the axe wielders fingers. Ouch.

Polearms on the other hand are p. sick, but less practical to carry around outside of the battlefield.