Knockback

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Anthony

There is no question that it is possible to knock someone down with an attack, and a person who is off balance or falling over can move some distance. However, the concept 'knockback' usually implies that it's the attack itself moving the target, and that's basically a nonissue outside of slam attacks.

Perfectly right.

But GURPS rules don't specify how the character is exactly knocked back and why. They just say whether he is moved back and precise how many yards away.

So, as very well said by Koningkrush just above, let's the Game Master describe how, depending on the attack, and things will be more realistic.

For a sword slash, for instance, the character can just stumble backward because of pain (8 points of damage is surely very painful; and even if a good armor absorb some of it, it's a very shocking impact).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gollum

For a sword slash, for instance, the character can just stumble backward because of pain (8 points of damage is surely very painful; and even if a good armor absorb some of it, it's a very shocking impact).

That's knockdown due to a major wound, not knockback.

[Skarg]

The GM can just rule, yes, but I'm still interested in having an impartial game system that can do it.

Sounds to me like I'd want one with more randomness, the chance for people falling back even with no damage, or of taking a lot of damage but not falling back, and some sensible rules why those things are more or less likely to happen. I'll check that houserule thread when I have more time.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Gollum

OK. But to my point of view, you put too many different things in the word "stance" here. As I understand it, the stance, or "having a good footing" (dachi in Japanese) is different from the combat distance (ma or mai) and from the fact of moving (ashi).

Now, I'm French and I may completely misunderstood the subtleties of the English word "stance".

I fear it's actually the opposite I'm probably using the term stance far too loosely, I'm talking about footing, body position, angle to opponent, the whole lot.

But on similar point of language use, when you say "fly" are you talking about actually leaving the ground, or are we talking about stumbling a couple of steps before over balancing?

Originally Posted by Gollum

To make the technique I am talking about, you have to strike just under the center of gravity. A bit under. Like I said, it is a matter of few inches. The purpose is to unbalance the opponent as effectively as you can and if you strike above the center of gravity, the opponent weight will be harder to move and make fall.

Hmm I'm not sure that true, the closer you push to the centre of gravity the more stable they are, (going above or below has different factors of course). I am pretty sure that if you go below the centre of gravity your unlikely to have them flying backwards through the air (but as posted above we may being have a wording issue there).

Originally Posted by Gollum

To do this technique, the attacker has to lower his body, indeed. The Shikodachi posture is the best one.

http://zhkarate.com/wp-content/uploa...Shikodachi.jpg

The strike is done with morote shotei (two shotei at the same time), one at each side of pelvis.

http://www.seishin.lt/lib/manage/upl...-%20Shotei.gif


And, of course, it has to be done against someone who has higher posture like most usual fighting posture for instance.

Furthermore, never try that when the attacker is ready to avoid it easily! Do it immediately after parrying a jodan tstuki (punch at the face) for instance. You will add a surprise effect to your technique. And don't forget that it makes go backward and fall, but that it doesn't hurt more than that. You won't ever brake any bone with this technique, unless having a lot of luck (if the opponent hurt himself while falling down). So, in most cases, a good punch or kick is a much better option for self-defense!

OK yep.

Originally Posted by Gollum

Like I tried to say it above, making someone knockback or hurting him are two very different things*. Which is quite well reflected in GURPS. Since a bare handed character rarely inflicts 8 points of damage or more, he rarely knockbacks his foe.

_____

* I would even consider that like a GURPS-"Judo"-skill technique rather than a GURPS-"Karate"-skill technique. Or, even better, a GURPS-"Sumo"-Wrestling-skill technique.

I'd recommend broadening out the push kick technique to allow specialised "push strikes" but paying attention to the rules for pushing/striking certain locations in different stances (but the technique does basically make the point it's a shove with some extra rules)

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That's knockdown due to a major wound, not knockback.

Pain has a lot of different effects ... Knockdown and stunning is one. Trampling backward because of the shock may be another one. And both can even appear simultaneously.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gollum

Pain has a lot of different effects ... Knockdown and stunning is one. Trampling backward because of the shock may be another one. And both can even appear simultaneously.

My point is, mechanically speaking that's a knockdown result from a major wound, not knockback. Knockback is not dependent on the attack causing pain or injury.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I fear it's actually the opposite I'm probably using the term stance far too loosely, I'm talking about footing, body position, angle to opponent, the whole lot.

OK. Thank you for the precision.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

But on similar point of language use, when you say "fly" are you talking about actually leaving the ground, or are we talking about stumbling a couple of steps before over balancing?

The term "fly" was inappropriate which is why I used quotation marks. A better description would have been thrown backward (part of the distance) and then sliding on the floor (for the rest of the distance). That is what happened to my Sensei when my other Sensei tried the technique on him. It is stunning how a technique can be effective when done properly ...

Just note that it was a demonstration, though, even if the former Sensei had a good footing. The technique may be less effective when done during a true combat without having all the needed time to take the best posture and to aim just before striking.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

Hmm I'm not sure that true, the closer you push to the centre of gravity the more stable they are, (going above or below has different factors of course). I am pretty sure that if you go below the centre of gravity your unlikely to have them flying backwards through the air (but as posted above we may being have a wording issue there).

Just think about football. When you shoot in the ball, where do you strike to make the ball go as far as you can?

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I'd recommend broadening out the push kick technique to allow specialised "push strikes" but paying attention to the rules for pushing/striking certain locations in different stances (but the technique does basically make the point it's a shove with some extra rules)

A good idea. Or a specific Technique could be built from the Sumo skill. Its definition sounds to correspond:

"This unarmed combat skill represents any training at grabbing, shoving, and tripping – not just the traditional Japanese sport of sumo.", Basic Set, Characters, page 223.

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Skarg

The GM can just rule, yes, but I'm still interested in having an impartial game system that can do it.

The risk is ending with very complicated rules, then. GURPS combats already require quite a lot of dice rolls ...

Originally Posted by Skarg

Sounds to me like I'd want one with more randomness, the chance for people falling back even with no damage, or of taking a lot of damage but not falling back, and some sensible rules why those things are more or less likely to happen. I'll check that houserule thread when I have more time.

A house rule could done it, indeed. Maybe a ST roll, since ST also represent bulk ... But, as said above, the risk is adding one more roll for a lot of successful attacks. Imagine: 6 strong warrior (the PC) attacking a dozen of little Kobolds (the NPC) ... Making a ST roll every time a Kobold is hit would slow the game, wouldn't it?

[Gollum]

Originally Posted by Anthony

My point is, mechanically speaking that's a knockdown result from a major wound, not knockback. Knockback is not dependent on the attack causing pain or injury.

In GURPS, yes. I do agree. But not in reality.

And in GURPS, the exact reason of the movement backward is not given. What is said is just that the opponent is knocked away one yard or more. Was he thrown? Did he trample? It is left up to the GM.

So, in my opinion, the GM can describe it as he want. And trampling backward because of shock is a quite realistic reason.

Edit: in GURPS, even a 1 point of damage injury inflicts a shock due to pain - not only major wounds.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Gollum

So, in my opinion, the GM can describe it as he want.

He can describe it as he wants within the limits of the mechanics, and the mechanics say that knockback can occur even if the target takes no injury or suffers no pain.