Playability in Technic Sets - how much do you value it?

[Kostq]

Hi,
Unpopular opinion topic here:

As a trained /4 years in/ AFOL/Technic-only user/moc-er/hobby-builder/whatever I've seen all the stuff we can improve and add and mod to a base set from technic so far.
I've seen all the criticism of the official designers and end products, added some of mine or did profit by improving upon it.

HOWEVER

1) How often do you pick up a Technic set with child's eyes?
2) How often do you see the expressions of non-afol people around you when they see a "dumb"/for you/ set and its features?
3) How often do you appreciate the mechanisms that the designers put into a model without the critical eye and "I can make it better" mentality?
4) How often do you just PLAY with a set? The way it was supposed to - like crashing pullbacks or driving around on the floor with the HoG steering.
5) How often lately do you prefer the LOOKS and not the machinery inside? /911 RSR, new Ferrari.../

The reason I'm asking is my experience set 42076 which is both horrible and lovely.
Had a guest at home who was amazed by all the stuff it does while looking the way it looks. Genuine happy feels. And childlike grins and joy.
As a machine I love its weirdness. It turns very weirdly and in the same time pretty accurate for a boat.

I just want to probe for opinion for some of my wandering thoughts as I've began to develop AFOL calluses on my mind.
I still enjoy 2AM driving my 42065 or 9398 just for the fun of RC driving. Just as my inner 6 year old self always wanted.
Writing this I currently have 3 MOCs WIP and some of them steal ideas and mechanics from official sets :D

 

[Ngoc Nguyen]

As a working adult and a busy AFOL, I don't really put much emphasis on playability. 

What I look for is mostly a good look. Good look is not the same as displayability for me. I live alone and my models will inevitably be wrapped inside plastic bags a week or two after the build to avoid dust, so I don't have a need to display a model both to me and to others. I also welcome a well-thought design. A design and some details that carry purposes will delight me.

I bought a 42076 and still haven't built it. It's been collecting dust since ever. What I don't like about it is just that it doesn't look good.

[msk6003]

I think mechanically is most important in technic serise. Thats why I don't like 42096 porsche and new ferrari. Both model don't have any mechanical function except suspension and engine driving.

And you can find those 2 function in much smaller and cheaper model.

I don't think 42067 is that bad. I don't have it but want it and like. Because that type of vehicle is rare in technic line.

And same reason, I like 42064 in model, but also don't like in mechincial.

Edited December 15, 2020 by msk6003

[Andman]

3 hours ago, GTS said:

1) How often do you pick up a Technic set with child's eyes?
2) How often do you see the expressions of non-afol people around you when they see a "dumb"/for you/ set and its features?
3) How often do you appreciate the mechanisms that the designers put into a model without the critical eye and "I can make it better" mentality?
4) How often do you just PLAY with a set? The way it was supposed to - like crashing pullbacks or driving around on the floor with the HoG steering.
5) How often lately do you prefer the LOOKS and not the machinery inside? /911 RSR, new Ferrari.../

1. Impossible for me anymore. But I wish I could see them with child eyes again.
2. Often. Seening my son looking at my Technic models with his eyes is pure joy.
3. Often. I enjoy the build ore then improving them.
4. I don't play alone. But it's a joy to play together with my son!
5. Not at all. I love to see gears, mechanics inside models and lots of (manual) functions. Manual because my son likes that more and I will definitely not put my mobil phone in his hands to play with the recent remote controlled sets.

[howitzer]

For me playability is the most important aspect of quality when considering Technic builds, whether it's an official set or a MOC.

I think the whole point of having Technic line of sets is to have mechanical functions and a build without that kind of functionality is no different from a display-only System builds like SW helmets or the Grand piano set. While in System sets playability is mostly related to minifigs and other such features, Technic doesn't have figures (yeah, there were dudes in the 90's but those times are long past and they weren't that common even then) so it's the mechanical functions which make up all the play value in a Technic set. When those functions are badly done or nonexistent, there's not much value in a Technic set, except as a parts pack. I see little point in having display-only set built from Technic parts as System is much more versatile in producing good-looking models.

Now, what separates nice sets from stellar sets are those that manage to combine great functionality to good looks. In official sets these are few and far between, usually one is compromised for the other but there are sets that manage to combine both, like 42043. Still, good functions are enough for me to consider buying a set, but good looks alone aren't - unless it's a System set.

As for the questions...

1. I might get the childlike feelings when there's something particularly great but those moments are rare.
2. Not that often but when I do, it's a sight to behold.
3. I don't really do this, I build the official sets as they are and after a while take them apart to have their parts available for MOCs.
4. With my kid sometimes, but as for myself, only rarely unless it's to show the stuff for someone else.
5. Never. I bought the 911 RSR only as a parts parts because I got it with nice discount and while I built it to see how it feels as a set, I took it apart the next day. Nothing of interest there. I probably won't buy more such sets because they don't interest me in the slightest as sets and my parts collection is almost as large as it needs to be.

[Erik Leppen]

Good topic. Thanks for starting it, I think it's good to look closely at what exactly it is that we can appreciate on Technic models. Your questions about playability can hepl a great deal with that

1) How often do you pick up a Technic set with child's eyes? Never. I don't "play" with Lego models, I build. For me personally, the build is the play. However, I do certainly appreciate play features, both in Technic and other themes.

2) How often do you see the expressions of non-afol people around you when they see a "dumb"/for you/ set and its features? None, because I don't observe people around sets I find dumb, I rather try to drag them to sets I find interesting ;)
3) How often do you appreciate the mechanisms that the designers put into a model without the critical eye and "I can make it better" mentality? As a MOC builder myself, I almost always have a "let's see how I could make this better/differently" mentality, because that's a thought process I enjoy, but I can appreciate any mechanism in a set. I appreciate the auxiliary functions of a set like 42039 for example, even if they are simple. But of course, to appreciat emechanisms, there have to be mechanisms in the first place. A set like 42077 Rally car or 42125 Ferrari just doesn't tickle my brain, as there are no mechanisms at all that we haven't seen 100 times before. They're empty shells to me.

4) How often do you just PLAY with a set? The way it was supposed to - like crashing pullbacks or driving around on the floor with the HoG steering. I build them, which is of course also "supposed to" be done, but besides that, no. That said, I appreciate if a model has features that can be used that way.

5) How often lately do you prefer the LOOKS and not the machinery inside? I can appreciate looks on all system-based themes, but in my view, Technic is that 1 (!) theme that permits not being about looks. That's what sets Technic apart from literally ALL other themes. ALL Lego themes simulate "existence", only Technic can simulate "movement"/"change". That's why I can get really upset when a technic set focuses on looks. To me, that's completely backwards. For looks, System just works way better in my view. Of course, I can appreciate looks in a technic model - provided the underlying technic-ness is solid, and provided it's done with normal parts, and not by stickers or specialized parts (both of which I consider cheating).

Personally I see Lego almost exclusively as a medium for design/sculpting, consisting of single-colored plastic pieces with generic shapes that can be used to assemble things, similarly how generic programming-language instructions can be used to assemble all kinds of software. The Lego building system has limitations, which gives it its charm. Interestingly, there is a word for systems that have a limited set of "atoms" but still very wide usage options: elegance. If too many building blocks are added, elegance suffers, because "anything goes". Art, to me, is creatively using limitations. Which is why I consider stickers cheating - they add so many different types of "atoms" - anything goes - that the elegance gets lost.

So the way I appreciate models is how they use this limited, elegant design medium, in a creative way, making interesting design choices, but still stay within those limitations. This is why I think the 42125 ferrari set is one of the worst abominations of Technic in a long time, in an already deteriorating theme. Most of the "sculpting" is done with stickers (and specialized parts for the wheel arches - at least flex axles that were used until 42056 are generic parts) and the underlying Technic core that warrants this build style in the first place, is almost nonexistent.

42076 may be ugly, but it is a genuine Technic model with fun play features and mechanisms, which is exactly what this theme is for.

[howitzer]

23 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

Personally I see Lego almost exclusively as a medium for design/sculpting, consisting of single-colored plastic pieces with generic shapes that can be used to assemble things, similarly how generic programming-language instructions can be used to assemble all kinds of software. The Lego building system has limitations, which gives it its charm. Interestingly, there is a word for systems that have a limited set of "atoms" but still very wide usage options: elegance. If too many building blocks are added, elegance suffers, because "anything goes". Art, to me, is creatively using limitations. Which is why I consider stickers cheating - they add so many different types of "atoms" - anything goes - that the elegance gets lost.

So the way I appreciate models is how they use this limited, elegant design medium, in a creative way, making interesting design choices, but still stay within those limitations. This is why I think the 42125 ferrari set is one of the worst abominations of Technic in a long time, in an already deteriorating theme. Most of the "sculpting" is done with stickers (and specialized parts for the wheel arches - at least flex axles that were used until 42056 are generic parts) and the underlying Technic core that warrants this build style in the first place, is almost nonexistent.

42076 may be ugly, but it is a genuine Technic model with fun play features and mechanisms, which is exactly what this theme is for.

You are exactly on point here. The true beauty of Lego is of course shown in the countless of MOCs out there, which show just how far beyond the official releases this thing can be taken.

I've never examined 42076 up close but I believe your assessment that it has good mechanisms and play features but I fear that looks is what determines large part of sales figures, which is a bit sad considering that it makes us get empty shell sets like the ones you mentioned instead of sets with good functionality - even in the theme that should be all about functions.

[JintaiZ]

Playability is an important factor in Technic sets, and I usually buy sets with good playability. However, if it looks great enough the lack of playability/functions is justified in my opinion.