Spread the Creator Vibes Around

[Karalora]

One of the complaints I often see about LEGO sets in the present day is that they're too specific to one purpose, as laid out in the single set of instructions. Kids may know on an intellectual level that they can rearrange the parts any way they like, but without inspiration they might have trouble getting started. The big exception, of course, is the Creator line--not the modular buildings but the regular sets, which come with instructions for three different models using most of the same parts. The obstacle there is that Creator might come across to kids as being kind of generic and less flashy than the licensed or adventure-focused themes like Disney Princess, Elves, Ninjago, and Superheroes.

So...what if every major LEGO theme included at least one Creator-style set with instructions for alternate builds? Would this even be feasible given the specialized parts often used to give these themes their visual distinctiveness? Would it at least be worth a try?

[fred67]

I like it. Castle creator would be neat.

[dr_spock]

Technic sets come with B model and the instructions can be downloaded online. (Back in the old in days the instructions for the B model were printed.)

[Iria]

I love that idea - as long the alternative build(s) are included as paper instructions. Having to use a computer and internet to download additional instructions is not that appealing when the point of building is having the physical blocks (exception being if you are into LDD of course). I think it's feasible to implement at least one alternative model every so often within a theme. I'm guessing the LEGO Creators make plenty of alternative builds during the design process anyways. A potential con could be an increase in the cost of the set, from addition printing+paper at the very least. This could be offset by more people buying the sets though, as at least one more of the builds might appeal to them, and sets with alternative builds are definitely value added.

[Lind Whisperer]

With LEGO's pricing style, it wouldn't be possible for "one-and-done" theme runs, a la Castle 2013, but for their larger themes...Yeah, I could see this happening. Bionicle had an "animals" set - I don't see why something like this couldn't theoretically work.

[fred67]

With LEGO's pricing style, it wouldn't be possible for "one-and-done" theme runs, a la Castle 2013, but for their larger themes...Yeah, I could see this happening. Bionicle had an "animals" set - I don't see why something like this couldn't theoretically work.

Interesting point, but I'd rather think a creator set would last longer, they could keep it in production longer, and keep fans from complaining there's no castle theme.

And, of course, if they were to do castle again (because I'm sure as heck not counting Nexo Knights), I would hope it would last longer anyway.

[ShaydDeGrai]

I've always been fond of the concept of 2-in-1 or 3-in-1 "B models" in Creator and Technic sets. I think it's a great reminder to kids (and parents) that they're not just building a model, they're buying into an infinitely expandable (give or take an infinite amount of money, space and resources) system for creative play. Extending this idea to other themes makes perfect sense to me. I'd love to buy a new edition of a Star Wars TIE fighter and get instructions for building a small AT-DP walker in the same kit, for example; or an Avengers Quinjet that can be rebuilt into a Jeep with SHIELD markings. Sure the B Model might mean including a few parts you might not otherwise need and not use a lot of the parts needed for the "A" model, but I think the former is a minimal expense that can be passed on to the consumer without serious complaint and the latter is just motivation for the builder to come up with something of his/her own to create something unique.

In some cases, maybe the "B" model is very similar (and not that "dumbed down" at all). I remember the way TLG marketed the train cars for the Santa Fe Super Chief model. There were two passenger car packs. One (10022-1) let you build either the Dining Car, Observation Car or Sleeping Car; the other (10025-1) had instructions for building either a Mail car or a Baggage Car. All one had to do was pick up a few copies of each kit and you had a very impressive, varied and complete train model (that the motor could barely pull, but that's a different story). I remember really liking this approach to marketing rolling stock at the time and I wish TLG had done more along these lines.

Iria's point about including printed instructions, though, is a very good and important one. I build with LEGO to get away from computers, the last thing I want is to have to go on-line to either fetch a PDF that I'll then have to print (and work in grey-scale as I don't have a color printer), or, worse yet, refer to interactively on a screen when I'm trying to build. I did that once with a technic "B" model and hated the experience so much that I vowed never to bother with on-line instructions again. For me, if the alternate build doesn't have a printed instruction book in the box, it might was well not exist at all.

[fred67]

Sure the B Model might mean including a few parts you might not otherwise need and not use a lot of the parts needed for the "A" model, but I think the former is a minimal expense that can be passed on to the consumer without serious complaint and the latter is just motivation for the builder to come up with something of his/her own to create something unique.

This should actually be motivation for TLG to do this. If the B (and possibly "C") models are actually good (like your Santa Fe example), people will buy several copies of the set, paying a little more for each set than they would if it were dedicated to a single model (and therefore having fewer pieces). TLG also saves money because they could release a single set that that encompasses two or three models in one box, saving on production and manufacturing costs, make 2 or 3 times as many of one set is more cost effective than making 2 or 3 different sets, and the buyer ends up with a nice little pile of parts they can use for other things - and look at it as a bonus, because it's far more than the few little extra bits you get in sets.

Everybody would be happy (I would think). Sounds like win-win to me.

Sure, some (parents, especially) might be inclined to just get the one because, at a whim, they could rebuild it into whatever model they wanted to play with - and parents would tell their kid that so they could save money, but I think the benefits would outweigh that possibility, and I also think you'd have more people buying because it could be a better value.

I wonder how many Ideas sets were 2 or 3 in 1s. I don't recall seeing any. An interesting concept (and challenge) for Ideas submitters.

Edited October 15, 2015 by fred67

[Andy D]

There are several very good comments here which I totall agree with...

1. Alternate model instructions should be printed... I would pay for this.

2. Alternate models should be of the same caliber as the Primary model.

3. An effort should be made to use more of the parts in the alternate models than is currently being made... In some models there are way too many parts left over after building the alternate model, maybe have more parts so there may be an equal number of left over parts from each A or B model.

4. In some cases I also would be willing to buy two sets just so as to not have to disassemble the set to make both models. This means better alternate models need to be provided.

5. As ShadDeGray pointed out, this would be an extra indication to parents (and children) that LEGO is an infinitely expandable system.

As a side note... The Creator 3 in 1 models are very important to me. Each year I purchase 15 to 20, $15 to $20 sets to be used as donations for church toy drive. I feel this gives the child more than one toy from one box and no batteries needed. More 2 in 1 sets from different themes would mean more different types of sets I could purchase for the toy drive.

We need more 2 in 1 sets.

Andy D

Edited October 16, 2015 by Andy D

[Peppermint_M]

I think that a lot of the LEGO Brickmaster Books try and fix this issue. They cover some of the flashier themes, attracting the children with an exclusive figure or set but then having many instructions that not only include the Set in the book, but alternates to try and also pictures of MOCs that use other sets from the theme.

One thing LEGO must contend with is rather boxed-minded parents. I have come across many a horror of an actual grown adult telling a child they should get the action figure or toy version of something (From police car up to an X-wing) because "That LEGO one just comes apart" or: "If you want to make a model, get some Airifx, LEGO doesn't stay together." . Alright, a lot of parents understand LEGO, but too many even ask what would be the best glue to keep the model in one piece!

[Lego Dino 500]

That's my biggest pet peeve, someone I knew glued their son's Lego sets together, and he ended up crying whenever one came apart as a result I kind of want to see a push for alternate instructions in all their non licensed sets, including action themes and the modulars because there's such a demand for more, as sets tend to get boring after a while. I personally would love to see Modulars and Ninjago alternate model instructions.

[Peppermint_M]

I think really, a few extra pages with alternate model photos and promotion of the webpage with more alternate models would suffice. More booklets are more paper things to lose.

[Lego Dino 500]

A good compromise would likely be some pictures of alternate models like the full pages that used to be in sets, and then a link to download the instructions on Lego.com to keep everybody happy. I'm definitely helping to spread the Creator vibes around, I'm getting ready to spend around $650 on Creator between my own allowance, birthday, and Christmas.

[MAB]

That's actually what they do in the basic boxes. Some instructions included, some online.

My kids prefer building the ones with paper instructions. Even with a tablet, it is annoying to have to build from screen instructions.

[Blondie-Wan]

I've always been fond of the concept of 2-in-1 or 3-in-1 "B models" in Creator and Technic sets. I think it's a great reminder to kids (and parents) that they're not just building a model, they're buying into an infinitely expandable (give or take an infinite amount of money, space and resources) system for creative play. Extending this idea to other themes makes perfect sense to me. I'd love to buy a new edition of a Star Wars TIE fighter and get instructions for building a small AT-DP walker in the same kit, for example; or an Avengers Quinjet that can be rebuilt into a Jeep with SHIELD markings. Sure the B Model might mean including a few parts you might not otherwise need and not use a lot of the parts needed for the "A" model, but I think the former is a minimal expense that can be passed on to the consumer without serious complaint and the latter is just motivation for the builder to come up with something of his/her own to create something unique.

In some cases, maybe the "B" model is very similar (and not that "dumbed down" at all). I remember the way TLG marketed the train cars for the Santa Fe Super Chief model. There were two passenger car packs. One (10022-1) let you build either the Dining Car, Observation Car or Sleeping Car; the other (10025-1) had instructions for building either a Mail car or a Baggage Car. All one had to do was pick up a few copies of each kit and you had a very impressive, varied and complete train model (that the motor could barely pull, but that's a different story). I remember really liking this approach to marketing rolling stock at the time and I wish TLG had done more along these lines.

The TIE Fighter in particular could very easily be given an alternate TIE Interceptor build along those same lines as the Santa Fe Super Chief train cars.

[Digger of Bricks]

YES! Lego should apply this concept as much as possible in nearly all original themes and some licensed themes where possible. It would help many kids literally think outside of the box. Also, for both Creator and other themes, I really would like to see a return to the Designer concept seen in Creator sets from 2003 to 2005 also, breaking the 3 in 1 mold. Designer sets were great as a concept because if a kid were to have only one Lego set, a single decent sized Designer set based upon his favorite subtheme would be all he needed.

This is a great topic to revive in light of some current discussions on the Creator theme expanding its horizons.  

[Trekkie99]

Hey @Karalora, I started a topic awhile back on the SciFi forum with the same lamentation. You can find it here.

 

in it I and others discuss the possibility of creator being a medium for classic space themed sets. It may be of interest to you.

Edited June 3, 2017 by LegoMonorailFan

[Digger of Bricks]

On 10/15/2015 at 11:35 PM, Lego Dino 500 said:

That's my biggest pet peeve, someone I knew glued their son's Lego sets together, and he ended up crying whenever one came apart as a result I kind of want to see a push for alternate instructions in all their non licensed sets, including action themes and the modulars because there's such a demand for more, as sets tend to get boring after a while. I personally would love to see Modulars and Ninjago alternate model instructions.

Designers have so much freedom with wacky big bang themes such as Ninjago that sets could be designed with alternate builds in mind, though I'd hope the alternate builds were not as small or inferior to the star build. I know alternate builds perhaps would not be featured in the theme's tie-in TV show, but still, it expands the set's playability lifespan, keeping the kids from resorting to collecting more sets from the theme (though I know that probably is the whole point ).

[Karalora]

Wow, this suddenly got picked up again.

A criterion I would add: each alternate build should use at least three individual parts in a very different way from the main build, e.g. fence railings in the main build become flagpoles in the second and the bars of a cage in the third. Give kids some insight into the versatility of the parts and they'll be off to the races.

[Digger of Bricks]

On 10/15/2015 at 11:20 AM, fred67 said:

I wonder how many Ideas sets were 2 or 3 in 1s. I don't recall seeing any. An interesting concept (and challenge) for Ideas submitters.

Neither have I, but if such a project (non licensed preferably) were to successfully pass the 10K milestone, the Ideas team would be most inclined to accept it I would think. Original projects not based on any intellectual property that encourage possibilities beyond the main construct are probably looked for by the Ideas team, but they may never reach the 10K milestone anyway. 

Though many AFOLs would perhaps support such a project, I speculate AFOLs don't make up the majority of most voters of 10K projects. Most projects seem to garner their support though social media, and many of those people are probably not AFOLs, but non-AFOL fanboys of the project's subject or theme. 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Digger of Bricks