When to SNOT and when to NOT

[WesternOutlaw]

S.N.O.T.

Studs not on top. Yes, you all know the term now. Some of us are basic builders who stack our bricks, one-by-one, placing them in standard wall formation with "studs on top". Don't feel bad if this is how you build for many of us (AKA Classic Town Builders) practice this building methodology routinely, never drifting into the fourth dimension in LEGO spacial building known as SNOT.

But there exists an expert side of LEGO that we can find in large bodies of water within Pirate creations, or the walls, bridges, and bases of Castles, and even in the side panels of a LEGO Train boxcar or spaceship. SNOT, not the most attractive word but a simple word that denotes a clever and ingenious way of building with LEGO, probably never imagined in LEGO's early history. Now SNOT is a practice, an artform, and one more commonly found in the creation of a more advanced builder. The thought of SNOT brings me to the million dollar question, and that is...

When do you SNOT and when do you NOT?

As a builder that struggles with even the most basic of building techniques, I would like to improve my building with some hard work and a little SNOT. My personal dillema is when to use SNOT.

Are there certain things that look better with SNOT? i.e. water, a base/lanscape for a castle creation, or a wall?

or is SNOT simply something that helps create detail or design to any creation?

Do you find yourself SNOTing for the hell of it, or is your SNOT deliberate and methodical?

Why do you use SNOT?

Share your thoughts on the subject of SNOT.

[mo123567]

I'm a pretty unskilled builder. I've mostly been trying to build Cafe Corner style buildings and trying to find ways to make my buildings as interesting to look at as the official LEGO releases.. you know, so I can put them next to eachother without cringing in disapointment. Being fresh out of my darkages I started with stacking, stud side up, even thinking I was clever using slopes and inverted slopes, to give my buildings some depth. It just wasn't cutting it so I started using SNOT to add a more detail. Most of what I do though is just for decoration and not well planned. I find myself leaving open studs on the sides of my buildings for future use before I even know exactly what I'm goint to use them for. Basically, I see a part that looks boring and I toss some SNOT bricks there so I have more options to experiment with later.

Some of the SNOT work I've seen, like on rocks at the base of some castles, looks very well planned and I can't even imagine where to begin when building something like that.

[Brickdoctor]

My view is that SNOT is the single most important tool in all of LEGO building. I use it everywhere. It has a certain aesthetic appeal in it's shiny smoothness. Want to make a flat surface better? Do it in SNOT. Actually, in some cases, it ends up being traditional studs-up, but what it boils down to for me is the use of bricks rather than plates because bricks don't have a ton of studs scattered across them when made into a flat surface.

I find SNOT most useful for the combination of angles of bricks. LEGO is a limited medium, with only a certain number of angles and shapes available through only one building technique. The combination of SNOT with traditional building opens the door for so many more shapes.

As I've said, it's more of the use of bricks rather than plates morso than the use of SNOT rather than studs-up. For that castle wall, you don't go out and SNOT a bunch of plates and tiles. You build it studs-up, with bricks. But with a spacecraft's wing, for the same look, you don't go studs-up with plates and tiles. You SNOT with bricks.

[Ralph_S]

Interesting topic.

I don't particularly mind studs showing, certainly not if they are on top of the model I build. I really like the aesthetic of the models built for the LEGOland parks and their builders often deliberately show studs. My models are realistically shaped and detailed, but are obviously made out of LEGO and I actually prefer them that way.

Generally, SNOT building for me is a not a way to hide studs. For me it's a way of creating shapes or working features that I can't really do otherwise. Take my DAF truck and my Chinook helicopter, for instance. At a first glance it may look as though I only used 'old-school' studs up building, but if you look more closely you'll see that both are full of SNOT techniques.

DAF XF105 (5) by Mad physicist, on Flickr

CH-47D Chinook by Mad physicist, on Flickr

The same applies to most of my MOCs. For me it's all about the shape.

I actually get asked fairly frequently whether I do SNOT building, which strongly suggests that whoever asks the question doesn't know the difference between a SNOT technique and studless building.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Peppermint_M]

Use it for aesthetic effect.

There are far to many MOCs that are simply over-the-top use of a certain building technique and as such look terrible. However when used artisticly it looks great.

I use it for details and shapes that regular building cannot achieve, like a decorated or molded wall section can be created by placing the parts on a correctly sized plate and SNOT-ing it into place.

I also think that some SNOT methods are so close to "regular" building that it is incidental to your MOCing.

Just experiment a little and see what happens.

[Ralph_S]

Use it for aesthetic effect.

There are far to many MOCs that are simply over-the-top use of a certain building technique and as such look terrible. However when used artisticly it looks great.

I use it for details and shapes that regular building cannot achieve, like a decorated or molded wall section can be created by placing the parts on a correctly sized plate and SNOT-ing it into place.

I also think that some SNOT methods are so close to "regular" building that it is incidental to your MOCing.

Just experiment a little and see what happens.

I very much agree. Sometimes getting things to look good may require fancy build techniques, but what matters most is whether the end product looks good and not how 'clever' the build techniques are. I've seen really ugly MOCs full of clever SNOT techniques and I've seen fantastic MOCs built largely studs up.

Cheers,

Ralph

[richthelegodude]

I have unintentionally snotted a few times (damn flu haha, bad joke I know ) but for system sets I have no problem with studs on top as that was what was normal in Legoland/town/space sets when I was young, in fact I really like the old system look

[blueandwhite]

I think Ralph_S sums up what I feel about SNOT techniques perfectly. It's certainly one of the reasons I find Ralph's MOCs so impressive. SNOT techniques really give the builder opportunities to create shapes that one wouldn't normally associate with LEGO bricks. I think that the best builders I've seen have a good instinct for when to use SNOT and when a standard studs up approach will suffice. I've seen a number of dull MOCs that really try to up their worth by using SNOT techniques. The technique isn't used to good effect; rather it's used to impress upon others that the builder knows what SNOT is. It's similar to many builders who have tried to emulate the studless designs of others but have failed to capture the personality needed to make the MOC exciting. At the end of the day, a good technique is only as good as the builder using it.

[Siegfried]

I very much agree. Sometimes getting things to look good may require fancy build techniques, but what matters most is whether the end product looks good and not how 'clever' the build techniques are. I've seen really ugly MOCs full of clever SNOT techniques and I've seen fantastic MOCs built largely studs up.

Cheers,

Ralph

Yeah, I'm 100% with you. I use SNOT if I need to for a certain shape, but it's rare when I use it to achieve the studless look. Also, I don't build anything that can't be "handled", and that means many of the SNOT techniques are off limit to me.

[Cecilie]

I think of SNOT as a way to achieve a look I'm not able to without. And I don't really give that much thought into using SNOT or not, I just think about how I can achieve the look I want in my MOCs. If it means using SNOT, I'll use SNOT. It's a very useful technique in a lot of ways. Here's an example of a MOC where I have no idea how I could have achieved that look at that scale without using SNOT:

When using SNOT for water and such that comes down to taste I guess. If one likes the look of a smooth surface, then SNOT can be more cost-effective than tiling a large surface. But I haven't tried creating large smooth surfaces yet. I don't have the space in my current place .

[Dreamweb]

Do you find yourself SNOTing for the hell of it, or is your SNOT deliberate and methodical?

Why do you use SNOT?

Share your thoughts on the subject of SNOT.

Using SNOT for it just to be there is lame IMO.

SNOT, like everything else, should be used when it is required to achieve a certain desired effect.

For example, when I want to make a flat surface, like water, it's easier to use SNOT cause you only need bricks or plates for that. Without SNOT, you'd need a hell lot of tiles, and you just may do not have enough, especially for a MOC of decent size.

But when I see a wall or something that could have been just as well built studs up, but was built with SNOT instead, because, you know, SNOTing is cool and all that, I can't help but ask myself "Why get into all this trouble?".

Some very cool things can be made with SNOT, it's just important to keep in mind that it's the way your MOC looks like that matters, not what fancy techniques you used to build it.

I see a good analogy with popular music here. 95 % of people who listen to a certain song don't give a crap whether the guy who plays the guitar is a virtuoso or not, and whether he uses fancy and hard-to-learn tricks or just plays two simple chords throughout the whole tune. For them all that matters is whether they like the song and find it catchy, or not.

Just my two pennies' worth...

Edited January 21, 2011 by Dreamweb

[mikey]

...

Also, I don't build anything that can't be "handled", and that means many of the SNOT techniques are off limit to me.

I to like to have my MOC nicely connected, even if I don't play that much once I've finished it, I still want to know that it has the potential to be playable!

...

I see a good analogy with popular music here. 95 % of people who listen to a certain song don't give a crap whether the guy who plays the guitar is a virtuoso or not, and whether he uses fancy and hard-to-learn tricks or just plays two simple chords throughout the whole tune. For them all that matters is whether they like the song and find it catchy, or not.

...

This really sums up my feelings about using this technique, what really matters at the end of the day is your enjoyment and satisfaction from building. If you need to use SNOT to achieve a certain shape, then that is your only option, if you don't need it then you don't have to use it! For me the enjoyment is finishing something I'm happy with.

Also, but this is not really related to building a MOC (more just playing with tablescrap), it can be fun to figure different SNOT technique out, just as a little diversion. So instead of properly building you are playing with a 3D puzzle, trying to get everything to line up and connect.