Why do you spam the word "historically" as if it is any part of my argument. Dual Wielding is less effective, it's stupid, you gimp yourself when you do it. It has nothing to do with history, the only widespread historic use of dual wielding was rapier and parrying dagger versus, guess what, rapier and parrying dagger.
My argument for not adding it, is that, unless there is some IN-UNIVERSE explanation as to why it's functional, it would just be stupid to do it, less effective than a single weapon or weapon and shield.
You are answering yourself in this post by contradicting yourself.
You mention you don't base your assumptions on real life and history (and as a matter of fact DW was used in Japan and is a style developed by one of their greatest swordsmen in the mid ages), but then you assume that DW is less effective.
Why? On what do you base that in a fictional universe?
If in our real combat situations in the middle ages when wars were waged with swords mainly, it was less effective, what makes you think it should be the same in this DOS fictional world?
It could be just a different style that people would want to use for fun in this game. Why would it be gimping or less effective or whatever you want to call it.
It could be not more not less effective overall than other styles, just different way to play the game as a melee.
