"Tap on the Head" versus "One-Hit KO"

In its fourth paragraph, One-Hit Kill alludes to a non-lethal variant called One-Hit KO. This looks suspiciously close to Tap on the Head. The One-Hit KO variant has over 1,000 wicks. Am I missing a nuance here or is the same trope going under two names?

edited 18th Feb '18 9:35:21 AM by eroock

---

I agree that the two paragraphs seem to convey the same trope idea.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

It seems that Tap on the Head is a subtrope of One-Hit KO, with the differentiating factors being:

1. A Tap on the Head is a blow targeted at a specific weak point on the body, which can incapacitate someone with relatively little force. Meanwhile, a One-Hit KO could result from any attack, even one that simply consists of hitting someone with overwhelming brute force.

2. A Tap on the Head has no lasting health effects; the victim wakes up a few minutes later with only maybe a slight headache. A One-Hit KO could leave someone with several broken bones, a severe concussion, and needing immediate hospitalization.

Additionally, Tap on the Head is mostly used when sneaking up behind someone and catching them unaware, while One-Hit KO is more often used against a combat opponent who's well aware of your presence.

This distinction is not supported by either description. Tap on the Head allows for hits on the back or top of the head, the jaw, the abdomen, the back of the torso, or across the face. Such hits are implicitly full force.

This distinction is not supported by either description. Tap on the Head mentions injuries for Played for Laughs variants, and One-Hit KO (distinct from the One-Hit Kill) mentions nothing about injuries.

This distinction is not supported by either description. The phrase "before the target can recover and figure out what hit him" implies an attack from behind, and solar plexus attacks must be done from the front.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

I think you're completely wrong about pretty much everything.

Tap on the Head is about specific weak points. There are several of them, but they're all weak points that are commonly used for the same purpose. They're not implicitly full force. They can be, but don't need to be, and the emphasis is precise targetting rather than brute force. The trope is called Tap on the Head for a reason.

Injuries that are Played for Laughs aren't lasting health effects. They're short gags. One-Hit KO not mentioning injuries means they're not excluded.

I'm not sure how you missed the opening line, "In fictionland, anyone caught unaware..." You can get the jump on someone and hit them from the front before they can do something about it.

Also, everything in One-Hit KO has to include Tap on the Head for it to be a subtrope, so arguing that the same thing is also possible in One-Hit KO is only an argument for it being a subtrope.

But more importantly, One-Hit KO is an redirect for One-Hit Kill, which is what that trope is really about. It's about taking someone down with a single attack, lethal or not, regardless of lasting injuries. Tap on the Head is specifically about a variant which is non-lethal and doesn't give lasting injuries. If One-Hit Kill wouldn't have included the non-lethal version, then they would be sister tropes at most. However, they do, and since One-Hit Kill includes everything about Tap on the Head, and that trope is more specific, Tap on the Head is a subtrope to One-Hit Kill.

Check out my fanfiction!

If this claim is correct, then any example with "lasting injuries" is misuse.

Link to TRS threads in project mode here.

Those that say "played very seriously" are probably misuse or non-straight examples. Whenever there's a Reality Ensues variation of a trope, it means the trope isn't followed because it's deconstructed, subverted, and/or something similar.

Check out my fanfiction!

"Played very seriously" comes across as Word Cruft in any case. (Bogus Intensifier, to be precise.) The preferred usage on this wiki is Played for Drama.

edited 20th Feb '18 9:48:05 AM by Gideoncrawle

Bigotry in the name of inclusion is still bigotry.