Developing System X - or "Don't bring back Steck..."

[Hadoque]

Magnificent designs Sir Pleamo! Looking forward to the rest of your project!!!

I'll second that!! 
I also agree now that System-X offers many possibilities, which you mostly discovered SirPleaymo and are teaching us!

[Sir Pleamo]

Wow! All of you are posting so quickly, and most of what you post are serious points… So I have to hurry to reply to all of you! I am quite glad that this thread seems to hold some relevance to you, so THANK YOU, maybe in keeping this brilliant discussion on, we will get  some interesting results in the end!
I just try to catch all the points that you have made, because there are a lot and even now it turns out that there are some aspects, that I had not realized yet. Let us try to sort what issues are mentioned. When I get you all right we could make three main topics:

1. Steck vs. SysX

2. Analysing and designing SysX
     2.1 Possibilities and impossibilities of SysX - Designing
     2.2 Developing and improving SysX

3. PM politics
     3.1 Construction toy or not
     3.2 SysX set design by Geobra
     3.3 DS and marketing

1. Steck vs. SysX
As I have mentioned already (and some second me), I do not want to talk about this issue any longer… use Steck or leave it, love SysX or leave it, that’s not the focus of this thread!

2. Analysing and designing SysX
2.1 Possibilities and impossibilities of SysX - Designing

[…] But as we know, some system x parts leave little or no room for customizing.  The 3268 castle, for example, can be expanded with extra walls and towers, but cannot be built upwards (vertically) in different configurations.

Sorry BlackPearl2006, I can not follow your two points. As I already have mentioned, I know really a huge number of System X parts, but I really know a very (very, very) little amount of parts which are limited or which leave little or no room for customizing. Maybe you could give an example of these parts…
Especially your example do not hold. I have attached a very quick version of building vertically for castle designs… (believe me, less than 5 minutes thinking about your problem… if you like this kind of solution will be a different story…).
But you are right in showing us, that SysX is only strong if we get a feeling for how it works… in the beginning of my 3D project I was thinking of walls, columns, conectors etc. It turns out that I was wrong… at this stage of my SysX knowledge I am thinking in 90/30, 60/120, 60/165, light grey not speceled… what I want to say is, I have realized that nearly all categories that we know from Steck are no longer true in SysX! There is no top side, no bottom, no left no right… there are only size, number of conecting holes and colour, the rest is imagination!

I also agree now that System-X offers many possibilities, which you mostly discovered SirPleaymo and are teaching us!

Very kind words, Hadoque, so if I made some discoveries and you want to hear them… Yes, I would love to join something like a „System X – Workshop“-thread. In fact I had in mind not only to start a thread form y Port Pleamo but also a „behind the scene – making of“-thread. I mentioned that, because my Port ist he result of nearly all what I might have „discovered“ within System X…

Playmobil should explore the whole building toy concept further.  I mean, it pretty much already is a building toy....perhaps they just don't realize it yet.

So if they do not do it, let’s do it for them!

2.2 Developing and improving SysX
Very interesting, this was my first and main idea for this thread but it seems it gets to be a minor point in the discussion by now. But I guess we will get very deep into this issue again soon. But yes, BB has made a real point by talking about colours and aesthetics… we will keep this point in mind!

I think the main reason system x has not been more popular with collectors is the aesthetics of it.... mostly plain white walls, rather than the variety of framework walls, stone walls, wood plank walls that are available with steck. If system x were more developed in more pleasing colors and textures, it would open up so many possibilities for creating structures other than just modern ones.

My wants, wishes and forthcoming ideas (yes, the framework gable is just one of a lot „new designed parts“ that I want to discuss with you) in this aspect are some development in solutions for roofs and gables (ONE MAJOR WEAKNESS OF SYSX at the moment!), the hole-problem (don’t even think I was not talking about SysX!), terrain and rock integration… and many more…

3. PM politics
…but  what was very surprisingly for me but very clear in its importance, was what Baron Marshall mentioned:

I think the biggest "problem" with system x has been that there is currently no reliable mechanism for getting the parts you need to finish a project. […]
Making parts available in moderately toned neutral colors would also help, as would classic look medieval buildings as that seems to be a major sticking point for steckers (myself included).

So yes we have to talk about PM politics too!
Yes, if it is a problem to get the parts that has to be a major issue. The aspect that Steck-sets are much easier for customizing NOT because Steck is best, but because the different parts you will need to build a SysX construction are in fact not to get by having one or two System X sets! That’s so very true! I was so ignorant because I live in the PM-paradise Germany and nearly every week I get a delivery from Geobra with hundert and hundret parts via DS, nearly every part I need! You are right, if this would not be any longer, I would get really serious problems with SysX! So we have to talk about SysX set design on the one hand and DS and marketing on the other! Yes, I have to repeat it, you are so right in pointing out this fact! Both aspects (3.2 SysX set design by Geobra and 3.3 DS and marketing) we should discuss in more detail and should take some contact to Geobra (maybe via PCC or in other forms).

3.1Construction toy or not

 

Maybe Geobra wants exactly that, to avoid that PM is seen as a "building toy".

That’s exactly what Geobra is saying: They don’t want tob e a construction toy! But I guess we all second the formulations of BB, me too do not think that PM itself is a construction toy BUT SysX gives us some constructive possibilities! These possiblilities I have worked out systematically in my 3D-Library project (yes, if you want or not, this just happens when you remodel over 500 parts – it is hard to believe but THEY ARE ALL IN MY HEAD AND THEY DO CONSTRUCTIONS THERE EVEN WHEN I AM SLEEPING… so HELP ME!!!!!)) and this analysis are still ongoing. (Compare Socrates white paper and the respond to it)

There is so much more I want to add but I guess this post is even know badly long… so sorry

[Ds dad]

Absolutely incredible work Sir Pleamo. I'm with you on Sys-X. We currently have some small Sys-X sets (PlaymoDB List - Your Set List )and the only limitation I can see is that I simply don't have enough parts to get very creative.

The only drwback I can see is the holes which while annoying for most people don't bother me in the least.

[playmogal]

SP: Nice summary and synthesis of what has been said!

Many of us think in terms of what Sys X parts can I combine to do what, so my Klickies can do something specific there. Example: my girls'garage band....I needed a garage. So I pulled a barn/farm building that was an add on I found at the FL FP, and my make believe garage is done. I don't have enough roof parts to build this from my parts collection. So roofs are a real weakness at this point with Sys X, Pgal

[cachalote]

thank you so much for this system-x "help" sir pleamo.
  like you i prefer it to steck.
  i am so sad that playmobil seems to be going in such a non-buildable path lately.
turning everything easy and quick to assemble is just what their competition is doing for so many years.
if "building" is something that disappears from the playmobil concept maybe there will be nothing to separate them from other (cheaper) toy-makers.
they will regret it in the future - i have no doubts on that.
i still feel that hans beck was the only one who understood this.
he must be rolling over in his grave (a free translation from the portuguese expression "dar voltas na campa") when he sees the new tunning car with sound.
sometimes i feel that maybe i am just getting old and "closed" to the new design trends playmobil is offering.
but, after some thought, i don't think this is the case.
the newer so-much-easier-and-simpler-even-a-very-stupid-child-with-little-or-no-help-from-his-very-stupid-parent is a wrong concept.
playmobil is a "special" toy - if it looses its buildable capabilities it will kill some of its wonder.
and system-x should be turned into its full potential.
like you so well demonstrate with the medieval add-on frames (although their orientation could be a little better from a purely engineering pojnt of view) there is nothing )or almost nothing) that can't be achieved with system-x.
the medievel houses were up untill now a steck-system feud.
  not any longer, it seems.

[Indianna]

I wouldn't call playmobil a building toy. I think we would all be playing with legos if we just wanted a building system. Most of us choose playmobil instead because klickys are so much cooler and more appealing than little yellow lego dudes. So IMO playmobil is not primarily a buiding toy, but rather the main focus is the people, and everything else is secondary... we are building worlds for the little people, as opposed to lego which provides little people as an afterthought to stick in the worlds you build.

  I am laughing only because we have had this very discussion so many times before.  Different aspects of Playmobil appeal to different people.  Many Playmobil fans are also LEGO fans.  Personally, I prefer the non-klicky aspects of Playmobil - in fact, at the risk of causing mass spit-takes, I will tell you that I don't like klickys very much at all and certainly not as much as I like the buildings and all of those fantastic little details (such as individual feathers for the American Indians that are to die for.)  Until they started producing klickys with different facial expressions I could barely stand those relentlessly smiling faces - now that they hang with a more diverse group, expression-wise, I am better able to tolerate these "Candides" of the toy world.

If there truly are people who think that those "little yellow dudes" are not so cool, I advise you to check out this amazing animation, one of my all-time faves: A Wasted Journey. The film-maker, Chris Salt, also has a whole bunch of other great LEGO animations on his website. 

[bonniebeth]

I did not intend to start a debate over whether klickys or lego men are cooler, as that is not the purpose of this topic. Sorry about that, Sir Pleamo.

I was simply stating that even if they do not want to look at building as their main focus, which it arguably is not, they could still make it a strong secondary focus.

[playmogal]

NOTE: Skip if you are a PM purist: (Hahaha! Loved "A Wasted Journey" on YouTube! So did over 314,000 others! Thanks for the link!!!
Please don't ever underestimate the attraction of the unbelievable wide range of minifigs one can make with L. Billions of possibilities due to all of the heads, hair, hats, torsos, hip/legs, arms and accessories. I have built over 20,000 different gals, and adore them. And less than 100 of my gals have yellow skin tones.)

The reason I build Sys X buildings is to house my collection of Klickies. And it is fine if some folks don't care for Klickies....I am still turned off by the old, plainer ones. If you search the 480 or so "female Klickies" on PlaymoDB, you will see how the newer ones bring the old girls to life. The new facial expressions and hair make a huge difference.

Klicky Issues: Now if we could just buy those heads and hair and plain as well as printed torsos, arms and legs, it would be so much easier to build custom Klickies. Last week I submitted a US DS order just for PM hair....guess what, PM does not sell hair by itself! Aaarggh!

And it is so difficult to dissemble the darn figures. Why not make them all easy to take apart like the new PM collectibles? The kids and babies, too. Keep the fixed version for gifts to very young children and give the rest of us a different version that comes apart. The choking problem has never prevented L from selling very small parts in the US.

Sys X issues: So let's keep discussing how to develop Sys X (how about calling it SX?) so that we can more easily buy those parts needed to customize our buildings. While we discuss what new parts are needed to replicate older castle and Victorian designs, please don't forget that we also need specific parts for those of us who prefer Frank Lloyd Wright (check out the Guggenheim in NYC) or other modern designers' work. In the larger school building, we got a glimpse of what can be done with curves and large clear windows; we need lots of options as to curves and clear windows.

It would wonderful to be able to easily build SX Moorish type buildings like those so well maintained in Spain...how about some sets along that design because the arches are so flexible and are found in many architectural styles. Ten sizes/styles of arches would make life much easier as a builder. Same for roof-top minarets, etc..

Thanks for the SX discussions because PM needs to retain its buildability to keep us adult fans and provide children with a way to develop their imagination. Cheers, Pgal

[Indianna]

I did not intend to start a debate over whether klickys or lego men are cooler, as that is not the purpose of this topic. Sorry about that, Sir Pleamo.

I was simply stating that even if they do not want to look at building as their main focus, which it arguably is not, they could still make it a strong secondary focus.

No debate started.  My main point (on the topic) was simply that Playmobil is, indeed, a building system in the opinion of many fans.  Playmobil used to promote the building system aspect but have moved away from that focus in recent years.  I like the idea of expanding SystemX as a building system.  But I also think that there should be a few new Steck pieces (like a gray 4-way connector) and the ability to order replacement pieces. 

[Sir Pleamo]

I did not intend to start a debate over whether klickys or lego men are cooler, as that is not the purpose of this topic. Sorry about that, Sir Pleamo.

I was simply stating that even if they do not want to look at building as their main focus, which it arguably is not, they could still make it a strong secondary focus.

You are right, BB, please let us concentrate on the SysX – topic, surly we have to look at some sideeffects but let us not discuss about Klickies or LEGO… but just one word in that contect: I have realized, that some people like LEGO but still object SysX because of some holes… that’s a really strange position, isn’t it? (Just a retorical question, no need to discuss it…)

No debate started.  My main point (on the topic) was simply that Playmobil is, indeed, a building system in the opinion of many fans.  Playmobil used to promote the building system aspect but have moved away from that focus in recent years.  I like the idea of expanding SystemX as a building system.  But I also think that there should be a few new Steck pieces (like a gray 4-way connector) and the ability to order replacement pieces. 

You are right, many people see PM as a construction toy, but as you have mentioned: Geobra has moved away from that focus! So it is a historical debate what would be if they still focused on it.

Sys X issues: So let's keep discussing how to develop Sys X (how about calling it SX?) so that we can more easily buy those parts needed to customize our buildings.

Right! So again that’s set design (see below) and DS-problems (an important but minor point in the sense of set design issue like discussed below.

While we discuss what new parts are needed to replicate older castle and Victorian designs, please don't forget that we also need specific parts for those of us who prefer Frank Lloyd Wright (check out the Guggenheim in NYC) or other modern designers' work. In the larger school building, we got a glimpse of what can be done with curves and large clear windows; we need lots of options as to curves and clear windows.

Keep it low! You are so right, there are many nice architecture which is not possible at the moment (Sydney Opera, Eifel-Tower, …) but I guess we should do one step to another. I guess (and that’s for what I want to advocate), the best is to see PM what it is and how Geobra want it to have: first and simply a toy! In my oppinion there are some very realistic chances to influence the set/ part design at Geobra if and only if we talk their language, not just spill out our dreams, of which we know that they are not possible in short times… Believe me, I am totally with you, but if I would tell you of what parts I am dreaming… no it is irrational to think Geobra will follow…
In my view (Set design and PM politics aside) a very big and first step would be to, to integrate SysX in every play theme adequately and to be able to rebuilt all sets that was made by PM which were not SysX. In short, first SysX has to be the standard system in all set design and themes. From this point of view I have started first to remodel all possibilities of the older Steck framework parts. That’s not enough? I am not sure if we can see the result from today, because, after just remodelling the Steck to SysX I have realized that solely this will bring much more possibilities that the original Steck parts have had. So, yes I am a great fan of designing new parts, but again, let’s try to get a maximum out of a minimum of changes. I really do not want to have just nice ideas in some thread that will be forgotten in let’s say half a year! No, I really want to have realistic (that means small stepped) solutions that we can and will present to Geobra (we or just me, if no one will follow).

It would wonderful to be able to easily build SX Moorish type buildings like those so well maintained in Spain...how about some sets along that design because the arches are so flexible and are found in many architectural styles. Ten sizes/styles of arches would make life much easier as a builder. Same for roof-top minarets, etc..
 

Yes, here is another realistic point, and yes, I second you! It does not matter whether it should be Moorish or not, but curved parts and arches are some very serious aspects for the future.
But for all what is said until now, let’s have a closer look to the set design by Geobra. I guess we can make some very interesting observations. Often when a new catalogue or a new set is released, I am thinking “Why they kill SysX with their new boxes?”. There are so many sets that are very nice in concept but it is a pity how they NOT integrate them in SysX (e.g. 5139, 4294, etc). Even those that are SysX are often not very fruitful by having more and more highly specific and very large parts (e.g. 5120, 4826, nearly all castle sets especially 4865, 4866, 4835, 4836, etc.). All these sets are very nice but of only a minor value from a “builders view”. But if you have a closer look you will always find one or two PURLY SysX sets with a lot of HIGHLY USEFULL parts (the latest example will be 5119 and in some aspects 5302, with 5142 I am not sure, I have not seen the partlist of it…). That is, thinking about the construction toy issue, what we should accept (and for me I can say I can). Those set will stay just a  minority in their program, but anyway, SysX is going forward! I guess here is our chance! Only some new parts here and there in some sets (even if the whole set will be mainly non SysX as mentioned above), that is what we should achieve!
For children and ordinary collectors (and most important for Geobra) nothing will change, but there will be some, even if only a very small amount, of important new let’s call them “key-parts” (in my view the presented framework parts would be such type of parts.). Once there is only one part of this type in only one set IT IS AVAILABLE! Surely, now the DS-issue is of most importance, but that will be a very minor problem compared to the EXISTANCE of a part!