Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I do think that Damage Per Turn might be a better Campaign benchmark than Damage Classes. Instead of setting a 12 DC limit on a 350 point game, maybe using 60 DC per Turn (12x5) limit would better simulate what we see in comics.

 

That way the Thing-like brick could have a 4 SPD & 75 STR and the faster (Beast/Spidey-like) brick could have a 6 SPD & 50 STR.

 

Of course this give power-gamers the option of making a character with a 1 SPD & 300 STR and enough levels to punch anyone. So maybe a combination of DC Max & DC per Turn is the most appropriate, say 20 DC max / 60 DC per Turn max.

 

Hmm. SPD 12 and 5 DC's sounds like a fun challenge.

 

 

Seriously though, 20 dice and a bunch of levels in Energy Blast is just sick. You can just one shot someone so easily (the Knockback is a nasty one/two punch). You really ought to factor in accuracy into the formula.

 

If a 12d6 OCV 10 SPD 5 is about what we're angling for as one option?

 

 

Against a DCV 10 target with 25/25 defenses, do no more than a mean 50 Stun/Turn. Treat the target as though they have a 10 in each exotic defense, but no Knockback Resistance.

 

So Mr 4 SPD and 75 STR maxes out at an OCV of 10; with an OCV of 6 he could have some HUGE diceage (but have trouble delivering the payload).

[nexus]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Which is one of the reasons I don't use DC limits as such. I like a good spread of damage potential in my groups' date=' and I want the heavy hitting Thing tribute to do far more damage when he connects than the Mister Fantastic or Invisible Girl tributes.[/quote']

 

I agree here. I've found that campaign sheets tend to create a bland sameness in the characters. Its a race for max so everyone has the same CV, Spd, DC ,or very close to it. I like variety. It seems to create more interesting (and sometimes tactical) fights.

 

Weird part is, I can't break myself of the habit of doing campaign sheet.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

This is untrue in the HERO system. Campaigns have DC limits and most characters have attacks at the limit or maybe a die below. Bricks don't usually hit any harder than any other charcter.

 

1: Your statement about Campaigns having DC limits is your claim. Last I checked, you don't speak for every GM in existence.

 

2: Bricks have been nerfed as noted in my original post. In the days before 5th ed, Bricks tended to hit considerably harder than non-bricks.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Actually, what people tend to forget is how many characters are "Bricks" in one regard or another because their schtick does involve graceful movements. Bricks with this kind of graceful movement are often referred to as Martial Bricks.

 

Spiderman is as much a Brick as the Beast. Neither of them have the kind of defenses that are normally associated with the pure Brick concept though, nor do they have quite the level of Strength that one usually associates with a Brick. (Granted, I don't know how that last mutation further augmented the Beast's strength, but I doubt he is throwing around tanks.)

 

I also think that a lot of our perception is based on that when we think of strong humans we think of big beefy people: Bodybuilders and Powerlifters. We do not think of gymnists, martial artists and dancers. Yes, we know these athletes are strong, but we also know that they have not necessarily trained themselves for the kind of strength that we associate with raw lifting power, because beyond a certain point the training one does for rqw lifting power interferes with the kind of training they have to do for their sport.

 

Now, the reason that women are rarely protrayed in the comics as big and beefy, is a matter of pure asthetics. There is a certain point where a lack of body fat and large amounts of muscle mass are found unattractive in women by the general taste of this time. Comic book creators are generally catering to the general tastes, so She-Hulk, who given how her cousin looks should look like an extreme female body builder is often drawn as more like a tennis pro or a track and field athlete.

True but Doc Samson looks like a male model. I think that the Gamma Radiation mutations were at least in someways self developed Abomination and the Hulk had poor self images (maybe) where as Samson thought himself somewhat heroic, same as Shehulk. The leader, obviously wanted to be a big head intellectual.

 

a theory.

[OddHat]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

The leader' date=' obviously wanted to be a big head intellectual.[/quote']

 

"Hey! Who's that guy with the Big Head?"

[massey]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Probably came from Real life. Generally the bigger and stronger you are the slower you are.

 

Completely untrue. Professional football players are huge, and they're frequently extremely quick, as well. The stereotype of the "musclebound" jock is incredibly inaccurate.

[caris]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

True but Doc Samson looks like a male model. I think that the Gamma Radiation mutations were at least in someways self developed Abomination and the Hulk had poor self images (maybe) where as Samson thought himself somewhat heroic, same as Shehulk. The leader, obviously wanted to be a big head intellectual.

 

a theory.

 

Usually, Doc Samson has way more muscle size than is typical for a male model. Particularly, to be working in the field of fashion. He might make a go of it on the covers of romance novels, but they have a long tradition of using guys just under competitive body building status for about 2 decades now.

 

Also Samson spent most of his career, in the Hulks book. So Samson ran into a problem that Beast expressed one time back in the Avengers, when he was a regular team member, not a reservist. Beast either commented out loud or was thinking to himself, how odd it was, back on the original X-Men team he was the strong guy, but here in the Avengers he wasn't. Yeah, Samson is immensely strong, but he is constantly trying to fight The Hulk, and generally Samson doesn't want to hurt The Hulk. It doesn't make sense for Samson to attempt to out muscle The Hulk in that situation, so he is constantly trying to out manuver him.

[gregghelmberger]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I agree here. I've found that campaign sheets tend to create a bland sameness in the characters. Its a race for max so everyone has the same CV, Spd, DC ,or very close to it. I like variety. It seems to create more interesting (and sometimes tactical) fights.

 

Weird part is, I can't break myself of the habit of doing campaign sheet.

 

I agree with this. It's a dilemma. In my upcoming game I plan to do a campaign sheet, just because I don't want people going all whack-a-do with their builds and giving me characters that are so minimaxed as to be impossible to set up adventures for. On the other hand, there's nothing worse than all the PCs having the same darned stats. I almost want to suggest that everyone pick an archetype they intend to build and give a separate campaign sheet for each archetype, but that stifles creativity as well. I'm not sure how to address the problem.

[Karmakaze]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Wasn't there a house rule making the rounds a while ago to the effect that if you had more than X amount of defenses, then you could not have a higher attack than Y, etc...

[Chimpira]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I agree with this. It's a dilemma. In my upcoming game I plan to do a campaign sheet' date=' just because I don't want people going all whack-a-do with their builds and giving me characters that are so minimaxed as to be impossible to set up adventures for. On the other hand, there's nothing worse than all the PCs having the same darned stats. I almost want to suggest that everyone pick an archetype they intend to build and give a separate campaign sheet for each archetype, but that stifles creativity as well. I'm not sure how to address the problem.[/quote']

Although it comes with it's share of flaws, I find that I eliminated the sameness factor right out of my game with using the rule of X. Out of five players I do not think anyone of them do the same amount of damage or have the same ocv. (Including levels) Two characters have the same dcv, though. I played with Active point caps for years and could not stand them, but I felt I needed to monitor the game. Then came along Fuzion Champions and the only thing I did like out of the whole system was the rule of X. I was happy to see that it was included as a sidebar in Champions. I am happy with it and for the first time my players are happy with something that I use as a rule to balance out the game.

[austenandrews]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

What exactly is the "Rule of X?"

[Starlord]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

What exactly is the "Rule of X?"

 

A rule where you add certain factors of a character together (such as OCV, DCV, AP of your best attack/power, SPD, etc) to get an 'X' number that can't exceed another set number or must fall in between a certain set of numbers. Also used to measure the combat effectiveness of one character or team against another character or team. For example, if Doctor Destroyer has an 'X' of 50 and Foxbat has an 'X' of 10 then obviously Foxbat is no match for DD. This is an extreme example obviously. It is normally used between two characters or teams where, at first and second glances, you can't really tell if they would make a competitive contest.

[Chimpira]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

What exactly is the "Rule of X?"

The Rule of X

"Some GMs like to combine point and effectiveness ceilings into a single formula called the Rule Of X. Basically what the Rule of X says is that the character's various abilities-attacks, defenses, SPD, and so on- cannot, when added together, total more than X. Each GM defines "X" based on how powerful he wants character to be in his game. A typical Standard Superheroic Champions Campaign probably sets X at around 30-40."

 

That is from the sidebar on page 131 of the Champions book. (There is more and it explains the rule further. So if you have the book I suggest giving that page a quick glance but if not here is a little bit more albeit paraphrased badly.) You generally come up with two rules. One for offense and one for defense. It is up to the GM to figure out what elements he would like to include under the guidelines of X like the number of active points divided by 5 of the characters most powerful attack, his highest OCV with his most powerful attack and the characters SPD. All these numbers added together should not go over X, but the players can arrange how they want to do this. If they want quite a bit of power then spd and accuracy might suffer or if they want to be fast and accurate then they might have to lower the damage a bit. The point is that they get to juggle the numbers. If you want to allow people to munchkin the guideline (Hey area effects only have to target a number of 3 right? Woo Hoo!)then it will work against you.

[Mike W]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Bricks in the comics are not exactly slow, in the sense that they are still top athletes, faster than normals. But an average brick is still slower than the average super. Thing is slow; Hulk is slow compared to most supers, Blob, Thor, and the like, same thing. In DC, it's a little different because the most noteworthy brick is Superman, who is definitely not slow. But then DC tends to be higher powered anyway. Even still, a lot of the "brick" type villains like Giganta and Doomsday are a bit slower than the average super. Of course, there are always exceptions(Champion,Wonder Woman), but on average bricks don't go quite as fast.

 

There is also the game balance issue. If the bricks don't have to sacrifice something for all that damage dealing capability and all those defenses, it reduces the desirability of other templates. In short, why play anything else if you don't get anything for it?

[Mike W]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I've tried using the "Rule of X" as both a GM and a player. I don't care for it though because it creates problems sometimes when you put advantages on. And more than anything else, you need to factor in "overall effectiveness". Power isn't just based on how much damage you do but the type of damage you do as well. a 5D6 EGO blast does as much or more damage to the average hero than 12D6 of EB even though the EB is more points, most heroes have no defense against the EGO Blast. Plus, there are CVs, DEF, movement and all sorts of other things to factor in. Some of the toughest characters I ever made didn't have a single attack over the campaign average - and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that. My power armor guy for instance didn't have any attack over 12D6, but he had above average DEF, all the dink defenses, and a MP with lots of funky attacks. He could take on almost anyone in the CU one on one because he could take a ton of damage, had good CVs and somewhere in that MP was an attack that could rip through almost anyone's defenses; it was just a matter of finding the right one.

[austenandrews]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Thanks Jeff T. & Chimpira!

 

I don't have the new Champions book. I'll consider using the rule in the next combat-heavy game I run.

[levi]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by levi

This is untrue in the HERO system. Campaigns have DC limits and most characters have attacks at the limit or maybe a die below. Bricks don't usually hit any harder than any other charcter.

 

 

1: Your statement about Campaigns having DC limits is your claim. Last I checked, you don't speak for every GM in existence.

 

2: Bricks have been nerfed as noted in my original post. In the days before 5th ed, Bricks tended to hit considerably harder than non-bricks.

 

 

I apologize if my responce came off as condesending, my comment was made to address the general concepts I have seen in this thread about the use of campaign DC limits.

 

As to your second point, I have been playing Champions since the second edition, as maybe you have too. I do not recall there ever being a huge difference in the damage dice of bricks compared to other characters. Now an arguement could be made that the highest damage dealing character in 4th Edition was a brick (Grond), but IIRC Starseer, Plasmoid and Charger were all capable of dealing as much or more damage DCs as Grond. Going back to 3rd & 2nd Edition I'm sure there are more examples that could be made, but I will leave that to the hardore researches of these boards.

 

Again I apologize if any of this has been taken in a negative / dismissive manner, I am only attempting to present another point of view.

[Chimpira]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

I've tried using the "Rule of X" as both a GM and a player. I don't care for it though because it creates problems sometimes when you put advantages on. And more than anything else' date=' you need to factor in "overall effectiveness". Power isn't just based on how much damage you do but the type of damage you do as well. a 5D6 EGO blast does as much or more damage to the average hero than 12D6 of EB even though the EB is more points, most heroes have no defense against the EGO Blast. Plus, there are CVs, DEF, movement and all sorts of other things to factor in. Some of the toughest characters I ever made didn't have a single attack over the campaign average - and I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that. My power armor guy for instance didn't have any attack over 12D6, but he had above average DEF, all the dink defenses, and a MP with lots of funky attacks. He could take on almost anyone in the CU one on one because he could take a ton of damage, had good CVs and somewhere in that MP was an attack that could rip through almost anyone's defenses; it was just a matter of finding the right one.[/quote']

Well I am sorry to hear that. I have faced no such problem and have run my players vs mentalists (NND's, and AVLD's generally go through many defenses as well, although it is relatively easier to hit the players with an ego attack.) You do use active points divided by 5 when calculating X for your attack, right? If you calculated it just based off of dice then their would be considerable problems.

 

I find that some of my players more than match up against some of the characters in the CU. The martial arts specialist in my game would take apart the majority of martial arts characters in the CU.

 

As for your multipower the rule is supposed to be used against your strongest attack not all your attacks. You can easily use a mulitpower using the rule and have very good defenses. Although personally I feel that if you are playing a 350 game if you have a high PD and ED you should have a medium to low Speed and DCV. If you do not feel that way, then the rule is not for you.

 

Of course how you implement the rule of X depends on your game and what you decide the rule will encompass. In my game I do not count power Defense, Mental Defense, Flash Defense or Lack of weakness versus X as long as they do not go over a certain limit and fits into the character concept. If you found the rule to be clunky because of advantages, chuck it and do not count advantages in. Personally I would never ever do that as I find that advantages make all the differences in the world.

 

If you want to deal a lot of damage something has to give in my game. Usually it is OCV. I worked out my rule so that I knew what the average character would have. I found it flexible enough, that I had a character in one of my earlier games doing 15d6 with every punch and none of the players cared even though their attacks ranged from 9d6 to 12d6. Both the Defenses and the Offensives are set up within the levels I wanted and I told the players how much XP they must earn before it raises to the next level.

 

Special exception can always be made for heavily limited powers that would far out reach the rule of X and not just a power that is heavily limited, points wise, (Sorry no munchkins) but something you KNOW the player would only use if it was chips are down, last man standing time and even then, he might think about it.

 

Also, bear in mind this rule does not count against pushing or Haymakers or a number of ways one can increase their damage or raise their DCV.

 

Of course having said that, the rule is not perfect and can not simply manage itself. It is more of a guideline than a rule, really. I like to use it but everyone is more in their right to dislike it because it simply does not work for them. As long as you can find a way to make yourself and the players happy that is what is most important.

[Mike W]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Chimpira,

 

I understand perfectly how the Rule of X is supposed to work, I just think that it has too many exceptions to be useful. In fact, your argument just helps to prove my point. According to "Rule of X" a 12D6 EB and a 6D6 EGO attack count the same - except that since the average super has around 24 DEF but 0 Mental DEF, the EGO Blast will do more damage to the average super. And again, a person's effectiveness on the battlefield is not based just on their biggest attack, it's a combination of factors that includes attack dice, Defenses, Dex and SPD, overall skill level and the number and type of attacks the character has access to, and all sorts of talents such as Defense Maneuver and Find Weakness. And having those dink defenses like Mental DEF and Power DEF is an advantage - which you said yourself you don't count.

 

Again, my Power armor guy easily would make the Rule of X qualifications. Decidedly average SPD and DEX, average DCs on all of his attacks, only slightly above average DEF - but it was hardened. Good movement, but again not much above average. But a couple of 8 point levels, Hardened DEF, all those dink defenses and an MP full of attacks gave him FAR above average survivability. Heck, I probably could have mopped the floor with the whole group(especially given their awful tactics which usually started with pulling back to the far side of the battlefield to leave me 1 on 2 or even 1 on 3 - yet I still went down less than any character in the game).

[Chimpira]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Chimpira,

 

I understand perfectly how the Rule of X is supposed to work, I just think that it has too many exceptions to be useful. In fact, your argument just helps to prove my point. According to "Rule of X" a 12D6 EB and a 6D6 EGO attack count the same - except that since the average super has around 24 DEF but 0 Mental DEF, the EGO Blast will do more damage to the average super. And again, a person's effectiveness on the battlefield is not based just on their biggest attack, it's a combination of factors that includes attack dice, Defenses, Dex and SPD, overall skill level and the number and type of attacks the character has access to, and all sorts of talents such as Defense Maneuver and Find Weakness. And having those dink defenses like Mental DEF and Power DEF is an advantage - which you said yourself you don't count.

 

Again, my Power armor guy easily would make the Rule of X qualifications. Decidedly average SPD and DEX, average DCs on all of his attacks, only slightly above average DEF - but it was hardened. Good movement, but again not much above average. But a couple of 8 point levels, Hardened DEF, all those dink defenses and an MP full of attacks gave him FAR above average survivability. Heck, I probably could have mopped the floor with the whole group(especially given their awful tactics which usually started with pulling back to the far side of the battlefield to leave me 1 on 2 or even 1 on 3 - yet I still went down less than any character in the game).

What I said was that I do not count them up to a point and only if they fit into the concept. I do not mind allowing a little protection but an over whelming amount is quite another mater.I have never felt that a player should be defensible versus all attacks. (Why exactly would Nightwing have Power Defense?)

 

Actually no amount of number crunching will account for how effective a really good player is on the battle field. I do happen to factor in OCV, DCV, Speed and attacks, but this is only to help gauge the characters and establish a measure of control. Not to have full control. This does not factor in Teamwork or improvising on the scene or taking cover and quite a few things else.I do not sit down and add up points as to what villian team should challenge my players, I look at their capabilities and backgrounds and tastics. The rule of X is a measuring tool and like most things it comes with its flaws. The major flaw would be to think that this fixes any and all problems that would pop up in a game. There is no such animal.

 

Also since we are talking about different factors, I will assume that you have factored in that the majority of battles that your character will run into, will have them encountering more EB's than Ego blasts on the average. Also, the fact that although a Ego attack may have no range, the EB causes Knockback which can at times be very critical. Also if you are very lucky you have a GM that will allow you to affect unlike minds for a penalty as opposed to not letting you effect them at all. You rarely can use Ego attacks on walls and entangles. Energy blasts generally do not have to worry about this. Actually using the CU as a model, it would appear that the amount of mentalists are far outweighed by everything else. As a matter of fact using most comic universes as a model this holds true as well. However, mentalist make an impact on any game they are introduced in and if the only thing that I had to worry about is the fact that they had an Ego attack I would be a happy GM indeed.

 

I find that the amount of attacks that a player may have is also dependent on how many points one have given the player to build the character as well as how lenient one is to the amount and quality of disadvantages that they have. Futhermore, if the player has options that allow for versatility he still has to to use these options one at a time, if he simply loaded it into a multipower. If the player did research before the encounter to know what he should try first, well the more power to him/her. I would rather have smart players than ones that blindly run into an area.

 

 

 

If you felt insulted by my previous post this was not my intent nor am I trying to persuade you to come to my line of thinking. You have very valid points. What you use for your game is perfect for you and your group as what I use for my game is good for mine. As an aside what do you use?

[stmichaeldet]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

The idea that Bricks are slow exists in order to preserve one of the Great Comic Book Cliches - during any combat with a big, beefy villain, every hero is required to realize, "He's faster than I expected!"

[Mike W]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Yes, EGO Blasts are less common than EBs. That's part of why they do more damage for the same points - since they are less common, fewer people try to buy defense against it(plus, not everyone can justify buying Mental Defense or a high EGO). That's exactly the point. I find that there isn't one handy formula that works because there are too many things the formula does not cover. So rather than that, I try to gauge overall effectiveness. To that end, I look at characters through what I call the "Rule of Four", which you may have seen me refer to on other threads. Essentially, the Rule of Four states that in any campaign, for any stat, the overwhelming majority of characters should fall within a range of 4 magnitudes. 1 magnatude generally equals 1 DC, 1 CV(base), 3 points of DEF(about enough to soak 1 DC of damage), 1 SPD, and about 3" of Move. I mostly concern myself with DC, CV, SPD,and DEF though. For a typical campaign then, let's say that that equals 9-12 DC of damage, 6-9 CVs, 4-7 SPD, 20-30 DEF(ok, it should be 19-31 but who buys 19 or 31?), and 9-18" of move. Then I see how each character fits into the range. No one should be above average in more than about half. The more things you are above average in, the fewer "cookies" you generally get in terms of Talents and Combat Skills(Defense Maneuver or Find Weakness,for example), depth of powers and the like. If you want to be outside any of the ranges, you need to talk fast to convince me why you need to be or should be outside the range. The reason for this is simple - beyond 4 magnatudes you're basically "buying against penalties for CVs(an advantage of 3 CVs gives you a 90% chance to hit and puts your opponents base chance at 38% or 3 in 8 ), and other powers see a similar fate. If the average super has 40 STUN, 12 DC against the minimum DEF will drop that person in two hits - so extra damage dice will increase your chance of CON stunning someone, but will not seriously affect the number of times you have to hit them to drop them. And so on. Essentially, once you get outside of a 4 magnatude range you're in some senses getting vastly diminishing returns, but you're also quickly approaching an overwhelming advantage - one that no amount of lucky dice rolling has a chance to overcome. So only people who are very under or overpowered should fall outside that range. People like Superman, Thor, and the Hulk have stats that fall outside the ranges. In Superman's case, he has several. Wonder Woman doesn't. But she IS at the high end of most of the campaign norms, which is enough to make her significantly more powerful than almost anyone else because unless you top out above the norms in something(again a rare case), she's going to have some kind of advantage on you. Finally, the rule of four also lets you apply powers with unusual point costs or effects(including Mental Powers) more readily because, having set the campaign base lines already, you can very easily see about how much damage/effect a power will have and compare that to more mundane powers like EB.

[Chimpira]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Well Mike, I do believe that we are in agreement that there is no one formula that will solve all the problems that may develop in the game. However this rule of four sounds a lot like a formula. (a customary or set form or method.)

 

The point that I was trying to make about Ego Attacks was just not about their frequency but their overall usefulness in comparison to an Energy Blast. I tend not just to look at damage vs defense when I think of powers. When I think of combat, yes, but my game is a lot more than just combat. There is a lot more to consider than any one method or formula will be able to encompass. Now the formula I use is to modulate the players but to allow them to feel that they have variety and to figure out what is important to the individual player. If someone likes to cause a lot of damage then they build that way. If someone wants to be speedier and more accurate then they build that way. As I said before: a measure of control, not complete control.

 

But a formula does not take away your role as a GM for the purpose of making sure that the game is balanced. I do not use it for that. Some characters will be more effective than other ones. Sometimes it's the powers but I find that most times it is the player behind the powers.

 

Thank you for sharing your Rule of Four.

[austenandrews]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

Bricks in the comics are not exactly slow' date=' in the sense that they are still top athletes, faster than normals. But an average brick is still slower than the average super.[/quote']

And look at top athletes in the real world. Who are the quickest basketball players? Usually the smaller guys. That's not to say every little guy is quicker than every big guy, but on average it's true. Same with football players. You'd be hard pressed to call the nimble guys (like runnings backs and wide receivers) "small," but compared to linebackers, they are.

 

Same thing among supers.

[Mike W]

Re: Where did the idea that Bricks are usually slow come from?

 

And look at top athletes in the real world. Who are the quickest basketball players? Usually the smaller guys. That's not to say every little guy is quicker than every big guy, but on average it's true. Same with football players. You'd be hard pressed to call the nimble guys (like runnings backs and wide receivers) "small," but compared to linebackers, they are.

 

Same thing among supers.

 

Exactly.