Can we write the unwritten rules?

[allanp]

Yes I think it's a personal matter, build in whatever way gives you the most pleasure. As with any hobby the most important thing is the enjoyment you get out of it. Obviously we will not all agree on how best to achieve that because we are all different. However I think the question this topic is trying to answer is what conditions does a MOC have to satisfy in order to be called a "pure" technic MOC. I think that is something that we can agree on aside from some tiny details. However i'm not sure that it's all that important anyway. I have posted my conditions above. Like I said, feel free to ignore them

BTW, on the issue of limitations, I can see how limitations can force someone to be more creative, however I can see how having no limitations can lead to the finished product being more creative.

Edited September 23, 2012 by allanp

[AndyC]

By definition:

Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others.

But which is more creative?

1) Being given a box of Lego bricks and being asked to make something that resembles the Statue of Liberty

2) Taking an existing 3D model and printing a one piece, near perfect, replica.

You'd be hard pressed to find many people (AFOL or otherwise) who'd argue the latter. Sometimes placing constraints on how you do something is exactly what makes the end result more creative (and that applies across the board).

The question the non-purists argument ignores is, where is the cut-off point? When does the model stop being a Lego model? How would you feel if you went to a Lego convention, only to find that all the "Technic" models were actually just off-the-shelf RC models with a single Lego liftarm glued on the back? Would you still argue that it was simply creative solutions to problems?

Personally I don't like the idea of modifying or painting parts, because I never know when I might want to use them as they originally were. I wouldn't lose sleep over using a bit of non-Lego string or a rubber band however. I wouldn't hold it against those who do, though there is a point (defined mostly by gut feeling) when I'd think they'd gone too far for it to feel within the spirit of Lego building, to me at least.

[agrof]

For me personally one decides: if a custom part added, it should be part of the creation, must have the Lego feeling, that doesn't stick out. It works very well with Bricksonwheels's chrome parts, with the Brickforge Vespa, Brickarmy weapons, Ansmann tires on 9398, etc... Same for purist MOCs, if i find one beautiful, i will also spend minutes for enjoying just to looking at, and discover the details.

But for me f.e.: an excavator loses it's lego magic, if it is made with pro modelling linear actuators - it is another hobby, where the RC hobby uses Lego parts. Still can be impressing, but not more. Or using home made low quality handpainted paper glued on minifigures, which just hurts my eyes. I appretiate the idea, but not the result. And yes, there are many, who can paint minifigs or create body and head decals in beautifully way, and make me think: i want one!

Well, these don't help further in the discussion.

I am really really not interested in competitions, so for me the rules don't count. I want to see good MOCs, and i respect if someone says it is not Lego, because it is not built in purist way. I still can have a smile in my soul.

[Ralph_S]

But which is more creative?

1) Being given a box of Lego bricks and being asked to make something that resembles the Statue of Liberty

2) Taking an existing 3D model and printing a one piece, near perfect, replica.

You'd be hard pressed to find many people (AFOL or otherwise) who'd argue the latter. Sometimes placing constraints on how you do something is exactly what makes the end result more creative (and that applies across the board).

That's a strawman argument. The relevant question is whether it is more creative to build with existing parts or to modify a part here and there to suit one's purposes. Chrome bricks or not, Bricksonwheels' models are still LEGO models and so are my aircraft with custom canopies. The printed 3D model is not.

The question the non-purists argument ignores is, where is the cut-off point? When does the model stop being a Lego model? How would you feel if you went to a Lego convention, only to find that all the "Technic" models were actually just off-the-shelf RC models with a single Lego liftarm glued on the back? Would you still argue that it was simply creative solutions to problems?

And that is a slippery slope argument. Nobody is arguing that an RC car with a single Technic element glued to it is still a LEGO model. I also think that the point where a LEGO model with customised parts stops being a LEGO model is very far away from modifying a few bits or changing tyres.

Cheers,

Ralph

[DLuders]

If The Lego Group is following this topic, would they conclude that SOME use of non-Lego parts is acceptable to SOME? Brickarms minifigs at Lego AFOL conventions, Bricksonwheels' use of chromed parts, etc. are generally accepted by most AFOLs, so PERHAPS The Lego Group should consider offering those kinds of parts too.

If all of the AFOLs drove their 9398 4x4 Crawlers with the stock Balloon Tires that came with the set (and never experimented with 3rd-party tires), TLG may conclude that there is NO DEMAND for better tire designs. When Efferman and others proved that 1.9" RC tires perform better on a Lego "crawler", TLG may have taken notice. What's to say that the 2013 set won't have new tires? Using non-Lego parts now MAY alter the trajectory of new Lego parts in future sets....

[allanp]

I knew philosophy wasn't dead, anyone who says it is is ignorant of philosophy

Edited September 23, 2012 by allanp

[jorgeopesi]

If all of the AFOLs drove their 9398 4x4 Crawlers with the stock Balloon Tires that came with the set (and never experimented with 3rd-party tires), TLG may conclude that there is NO DEMAND for better tire designs. When Efferman and others proved that 1.9" RC tires perform better on a Lego "crawler", TLG may have taken notice. What's to say that the 2013 set won't have new tires? Using non-Lego parts now MAY alter the trajectory of new Lego parts in future sets....

Well... now is time to use internal combustion engines in order to Lego will see that theirs are not so good and they will design new motors...

Edited September 23, 2012 by jorgeopesi

[Erik Leppen]

AFOLs on this forum who DISMISS creative uses of compatible, non-Lego parts are being just as close-minded. Waiting (year after year) for The Lego Group to meter-out a handful of new parts is not going to meet the hopes (and expectations) of many builders. By dismissing other possibilities you are LIMITING YOURSELF.

LIMITING YOURSELF, for me, is the whole point. That's the whole idea behind using Lego, instead of whatever metaterials hobby RC model builders use.

We are creating MODELS -- there are no written rules that you MUST use 100% Lego.

Exactly - there are no written rules. So every fan is free to define his or her own rules, and live by those rules. And many happen to have a personal rule that says "Lego only". It's an acceptable rule to give a boundary to what you can do. And boundaries make things interesting. If there were no boundaries, then there wouldn't be problems. And without problems there wouldn't be problem-solving.

And yes - having rules means that some things can't be done. So? Is that a bad thing? If everything was possible, wouldn't it become boring? I like - no, I love - the challenge of trying to build whatever I have in my mind, while keeping with the "Lego only" rule. I very much see playing with Lego as a game or a puzzle, and games and puzzles have rules that say what moves are allowed and what moves aren't. It's trying to come up with new ideas while staying within the rules that makes the whole Lego hobby interesting to me.

Inventors "think outside of the box". Lego Technic and Mindstorms are arguably THE MOST CREATIVE and challenging Lego themes, where INNOVATION is key to long-term success. Consider what Thomas Edison (inventor of the Light Bulb and many other inventions) said:

We do not invent. We play with Lego.

For me, the whole game is about "what is possible with Lego". I answer that question by showing things that are possible... with Lego. If I use non-Lego anywhere, it's not anymore an example of what's "possible with Lego", it's merely an example of what's "possible". But that's not where the charm of Lego lies, for me.

How can limitation increase creativity?... that is just a narrow minded perspective. I love those who come with new stuff and walk new paths.

...with existing shoes.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Erik Leppen

[KEvron]

That wasn't science fiction, but the way they actually did it.

who'da thunk it?! lol!

That's just a cop-out.

shame on me! look, the original quote was "requires creativity", not "increases creativity", so your smug stridency in the matter is unfounded and, quite frankly, unnecessary and unwelcome.

KEvron

Edited September 23, 2012 by KEvron

[KEvron]

I knew philosophy wasn't dead

nah, it just constantly borders there, in a state of decrepitude!

We do not invent. We play with Lego.

i agree wholeheartedly with everything you say except that line. personally, i don't play with the stuff, i build with it, and i have witnessed invention made possible by the system (both

and

have invented solutions to a problem intrinsic to the arnfield escapement).

KEvron

Edited September 23, 2012 by KEvron

[matias bendtsen]

No, you cant write the unwritten rules, but i have my own:

1: i only cut the different types of tube.

2: i use unofficial string and zip-ties to keep wires and pneumatic hose in place.

3: never cut or glue parts, i find another solution.

ofcourse the can all be broken if i really need to, but i have only cut one part in my entire life. i cut a single 2L axle in half, because there was only room enough for a 1L axle.

[jorgeopesi]

When I was joung I cut an 12 studs axle to make a 2 studs axle that I lost, it was for the 8848 set long long time ago I steel keep it.

[Erik Leppen]

We do not invent. We play with Lego.

i agree wholeheartedly with everything you say except that line. personally, i don't play with the stuff, i build with it, and i have witnessed invention made possible by the system (both

and

have invented solutions to a problem intrinsic to the arnfield escapement).

You're right, there are exceptions. I was more talking "on the whole". (But I didn't know of these inventions, so thanks for the links!). Also you're right that there are inventors out there. There has been a Technic competition, I thought it was it TechnicBricks (?) that asked to create Lego device to "solve a real-world problem" that got some cool entries like a curtain-shutter or a cradle rocker.

About the other half of your quote: we play with Lego ... by building with it. The build is the play, at least, for me. I do not "play" with a finished model in the sense usually meant, but I do play with the bricks, by building a model with them. It's not the role-play kind of play, but it's still play ;) (I use the word "play" in a very broad sense). I'm sure many AFOLs do the same.

but i have only cut one part in my entire life. i cut a single 2L axle in half, because there was only room enough for a 1L axle.

I also have only cut one part in my entire life. It was a Technic 1 x 8 plate with 6 studs with 2 holes at the ends. One of the rings that form the holes had broken off, so the part was unusable as a steering arm in that state. So I thought "well, I sure won't use it like this, so maybe if I make a 1 x 7 plate out of it, maybe it's of any use then.

I never used the modified part. ;)

[dhc6twinotter]

How can limitation increase creativity?... that is just a narrow minded perspective. I love those who come with new stuff and walk new paths.

Whatever that is, and how genuine or however, i don't care, there might be many who like it. I have said it before, if a creative mind would build something awesome, but too far from Lego in the eyes of many here, then it would be a self cleaning mechanism and the style would dissapear from the forums again, but the opposite might also happen... that is being open for new things and cherish true creativity within self regulating borders.

And I agree with all that, as long as whatever is being built is from 100% LEGO and has no modified parts. When I say "limitations increase creativity", the limitations I'm referring to are just to build from nothing but LEGO and to have no modified parts.

When working within the limitation of using just LEGO with no modified parts, it does take creativity to accomplish the amazing creations that I've seen posted by many LEGO builders.

A few examples:

When Igor built his green John Deere tractor, he was very limited by the amount of green pieces that are available. He had to be very creative to build the tractor using the very limited number of green parts available. The rear wheels on that tractor are another example. LEGO didn't build wheels large enough, but Igor figured out a way to make larger wheels using unmodified LEGO parts.

Paul's transmissions are another example. LEGO's gear assortment is fairly limited, but Paul figured out a way to build a transmission with realistic gear ratios and shift pattern. That takes creativity.

When building remote control mocs, we are limited by the 8 RC commands. Some of us have built complex gearboxes to allow us to have more than 8 RC functions. Gearboxes are complex and require creativity.

LEGO doesn't make really long LA's, but builders like Mahja have figured out ways to build long LA's from LEGO parts. That takes creativity.

LEGO hasn't made any return-to-center steering, but builders like efferman and others have come up with creative ways to build return-to-center steering.

Even LEGO themselves have come up with some really creative solutions. Take a look at the rotor assembly on the 852 Helicopter. Back then, LEGO had a very limited parts inventory, but they were still able to come up with a creative way to have collective pitch. This is probably the most realistic rotor head that LEGO has ever built, imho, even more so than the current helicopter that is for sale.

The above are examples of how LEGO builders have used creativity to find solutions to various problems, all while still staying within the limitation of using 100% unmodified LEGO parts.

It doesn't matter what we build, whether it be LEGO, a house, a tall building, a car, or an airplane; limitations will always exist in the world around us. Limitations could include available materials, strength of materials, engineering knowledge, deadlines, environment, cost, technology, or any other factor. Even though we are bound by limitations, it is creativity that helps us push those limitations further and further away. That is how we advance.

I'm not sure what is "narrow-minded" about that, but maybe I'm just not explaining myself well.

[Bricksonwheels]

Today a modded tank made it to TBB

Cutted tracks and aftermarket parts. A true sinner, but looks very good.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Bricksonwheels

[efferman]

this sherman is very cute. it is RC?

[mahjqa]

It's not. From the looks of things, it seems it cain't even roll properly.

dhc6twinotter, I love your post.

Edited September 24, 2012 by mahjqa

[jorgeopesi]

From my technic point of view I agree with the horse... It would have been better to use two rows of little Technic Link Chains.

[DLuders]

I like the tank -- it is a realistic MODEL of the real thing (that TLG will never offer as a set anyway).

Perhaps this whole topic is a matter of perspective. I'm a Civil Engineer, trained to use all available materials and options for the best, economical solution. To an engineer, it doesn't make sense to buy a rare Lego part when one can SUBSTITUTE another part or alter it in some way. There are no "purist" engineers in my business -- PRACTICALITY and common sense rule.

[jorgeopesi]

Perhaps this whole topic is a matter of perspective.

I agree, I just tried to achieve a some rules but it seems to be imposible and it is not a bad thing.

[AndyC]

Perhaps this whole topic is a matter of perspective. I'm a Civil Engineer, trained to use all available materials and options for the best, economical solution. To an engineer, it doesn't make sense to buy a rare Lego part when one can SUBSTITUTE another part or alter it in some way. There are no "purist" engineers in my business -- PRACTICALITY and common sense rule.

But from an engineering perspective it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to build things out of Lego at all. It doesn't really make much sense to worry about using Technic pins when various glues are available that would probably provide a cheaper, more flexible solution. There's something that makes each and every one of us (mostly) stick to the system, even if we chose to deviate slightly, that goes beyond mere practicality and common sense.

You'll never get everyone to agree where the line is, but it surely exists for all of us somewhere. There is a point when somebody's construction just becomes a model and not a LEGO model.

[kibosh]

It makes me sad that some people need rules for everything to be comfortable. It's sad that they have to be so rigid all the time.

Watch children when they play. They get together, and just start playing. They play with what they have on hand. Maybe it's Lego. Maybe it's a ball. Maybe it's just them. They just start playing alike. They have fun. Inevitably, the one one kid starts introducing rules. "No, you can't go over there." "No, it can't touch the ground." Simple at first, and might even make the game better. More challenging. Then they add more rules. "You can only touch it with your left hand." "It can't touch the ground, or you're out." This continues to progress. Sound kids start to grumble about it. Soon, the play has ended with fighting and such. It got too rigid.

Just have fun with whatever you do. If you have your own rules, that's great. Why should everyone else have to follow them. Lighten up, Francis.

[Paul Boratko]

Just have fun with whatever you do. If you have your own rules, that's great. Why should everyone else have to follow them. Lighten up, Francis.

I agree that everyone should be able to build a model however they want and do what they want, I mean after all, it is their money that is being spent...

However, you can't expect to present that model to the world and have it accepted with open arms...

Many people may want to rebuild your MOC, but not so many people may be willing to alter and modify parts, which could be a turn off to most...

[Balrog]

Wow this topic brought up so many opinions. But I think we will never get to a true consense that fits everyone.

I personally think, that Lego is all about building with Lego. MOCers want to build stuff that looks like fantasy or like real things like cars. The challenge - to me - is, that reproducing something from the real world with Lego. There are great possibilities, building techniques and problems to solve. With Lego. The rules are given by the bricks. What you can build with them, should be allowed. The limit is, how far you can bend the rules of connecting bricks. Though bending bricks is generally no so good, but as long as the connection is stable and nothing breaks it should be ok.

Glueing or modifying bricks is not bending the rules, but breaking them, thus shouldn't be allowed. Whereas coloring bricks (as long as reversable or purchased) should be ok. Some people have limited colors and need some bricks in a special color. Why not paint them. The same goes for chrome bricks, which are basically just colored. I think they are ok and add to the MOC in terms of feel and realistic looks. Cutting hoses or string is of course ok, as they are designed to be cut.

Third-party bricks is another topic. I don't like them. It's really like cheating if another producer of brick toys has a brick that is not produced by Lego, yet compatible, and that is used by a MOC. But why not use some MegaBloks for a base landscape under-structure, as long as these are basic bricks? Where do you draw the line here?!

As for wheels on Technic MOCs, I guess for your own use and internet presentation (like Crawlers), using different tyres should be totally allowed. Because you want to drive the thing through the wilderness, thus good performance is everything, as long as it is compatible to Lego rims. Other RC components are not compatible, thus shouldn't be allowed. For presentations on conventions, if it is just for display and for looks - chrome rims and 3rd party tyres should be ok. If you want to enter a contest, stay with Lego tyres. And one more thought on tyres. If the tyres are turning on the rims, why not glue them. Could be a rare case to allow it. I find it somewhat pervert, that people are willing to use a 3rd party part over strengthening the connection between official parts.

Now my thoughts on some special things. Pneumatic hoses first. As you cannot get them bulk stocks of those hoses from Lego, using a 3rd party substitute should be allowed. Many MOCs require long distances of hose and they cannot be provided by Lego sets I think. The same goes with string. You cannot brickbuild it of course. Allowing string should be totally legal. Building a metal stand like for that huge Venator MOC, should be allowed too, though, there it supports the structure of the MOC. It's a rare case though. One more thing I thought off: Imagine you have build a really cool pirate ship. You will need sails for that. Using Lego sails is somewhat cheasy, as they are probably too small or whatever. Brickbuilt sails look strange, but it would be a possibility. So you still have the choice to make your own sails from a fabric, that is somewhat similar to that of Lego. It would definately add to the detail. Still, I would say that the MOC is completely from Lego. With rubber bands it is somewhat the same as with string here.

So these are just some of my thoughts on this topic. I will stay with my own rules. Thus, going with hoses, string and rubber bands as I need them, but elsewhere keep my MOCs as pure Lego as possible. If I may ever be taking part in a contest, the contest makes the rules.

[Erik Leppen]

It makes me sad that some people need rules for everything to be comfortable. It's sad that they have to be so rigid all the time.

Watch children when they play. They get together, and just start playing. They play with what they have on hand. Maybe it's Lego. Maybe it's a ball. Maybe it's just them. They just start playing alike. They have fun. Inevitably, the one one kid starts introducing rules. "No, you can't go over there." "No, it can't touch the ground." Simple at first, and might even make the game better. More challenging. Then they add more rules. "You can only touch it with your left hand." "It can't touch the ground, or you're out." This continues to progress. Sound kids start to grumble about it. Soon, the play has ended with fighting and such. It got too rigid.

This is a very valuable learning experience for children - finding out when they start finding something "too rigid". Or, in a border sense, finding out what they find fun. If you're speaking from experience of your own children, cherish it when it happens ;)

By the way, I think that even the fight itself is a valuable learning experience. I'm sure none of the children actually wants to hurt any of his mates - after all he just had fun with them, so he likely wants to keep them his friends so he can have fun with them in the future. The fighting sounds like a regulation mechanism.

If noone gets injured, let them fight their way out of it. They gotta learn that too. ;)

It's not. From the looks of things, it seems it cain't even roll properly.

If "rolling properly" was not one of the goals of the builder, that is not a problem. Let's look at a model to see what it can do, instead of focussing of what it can't. I think it's a beautiful model.

Of course, it doesn't justify the broken links, which I find to be a horrible decision as well. But I don't like the idea of "it can't do X, and I personally consider X important, therefore it isn't good".

Perhaps this whole topic is a matter of perspective.

Of course this whole topic is a matter of perspective. I think part of what makes this topic interesting is seeing all the different perspectives.

But I think we will never get to a true consense that fits everyone.

I think getting to a consensus isn't the goal (or at least, shouldn't be).