WHAT'S WRONG WITH PLAYMOBIL

[Indianna]

This is a great discussion which, I think, highlights one of the best and most important features of Playmobil: it appeals to different people for different reasons.  Some people may like the klickys and don't care so much for the buildings, and vice versa.  Some are attracted to the animals or the trains or the ships or the level of detail or the high quality or the opportunity to spend time playing with their kids.  Or collecting all the sets of a theme MISB. Or the extreme coolness of a particular theme.  Or any combination of these or additional reasons.  Or all of them.

When a person discovers that aspect of Playmobil that particularly appeals to him or her, he or she is hooked for life and will probably go on to broaden his or her interest throughout the product line as time passes.  I believe, however, that some of the newer products, such as the take-along houses and castle and the supersets are not as likely to make new customers fall in love with the toy the way that we all have done, so they are less likely to buy more Playmobil in the future.

- Anne

[macgayver]

Hello, Bogro ...

I respectfully disagree with the idea that Playmobil is not a construction toy !

Playmobil IS a construction toy! It has always been a construction toy!

In 1974 Playmobil was introduced as a "KLICKY" ... Parts were "klicked" on the basic figure to change it from a Construction Worker to an Indian to a Knight. This is figure construction!

And, a mere two years later, buildings were introduced! This was the beginning of structure construction. These first Western buildings, to assemble, were later followed with the Steck System and then with SystemX.

Playmobil has ALWAYS been a construction "SYSTEM" ... The early boxes even "shouted" the word system all over them!

IMHO ... PLAYMOBIL IS A CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM!

(Even Playmobil stated in their 1974 flyer, "Das neu variable System für mobiles Spielen.")

All the best,
Richard

Lol rofl

I like the red you use , it's like steam , this is sooo much fun  

I bet Bogro now is looking up something to prove that System is not the same as Building  

But am sorry Dear Richard , I have to stick with my ex-brother in law
Playmobil never came on the market as a construction toy like Lego meccano or fischer thechnic
they never promoted it that way eighter as far as I know

It is us , the crazy collectors who started buying several castles and trying to combine them

Lego adds in there construction plans several possibilities on wot to build with wot's inside the box

I dunnot recall Playmobil doing this

@ Anne , yes indeed this is a great discussion   loved reading your contributions

the most important line I read in this whole discussion


TIME SPEND WITH DAUGHTER , PRICELESS

really made me feel good

all the best

Michael

[Indianna]

. . . . the most important line I read in this whole discussion

TIME SPEND WITH DAUGHTER , PRICELESS

I totally agree with you there, Michael! 


But I have to DIS-agree with you here:

. . . Playmobil never came on the market as a construction toy like Lego meccano or fischer thechnic
they never promoted it that way either as far as I know

It is us , the crazy collectors who started buying several castles and trying to combine them

Lego adds in there construction plans several possibilities on wot to build with wot's inside the box

I dunnot recall Playmobil doing this

What about all those dioramas in catalogs and mini-catalogs and on box-backs (such as all the great ones recently posted by LHAAP) that showed whole towns full of timber-frame houses and all those castle walls used not only in castle-like buildings, but in roadways, railways, harbors, etc?  Doesn't this wonderful timbered town picture make you want to buy the 20 or so house sets you would need to create a village like this?

[Martin Milner]

In 1974 Playmobil was introduced as a "KLICKY" ... Parts were "klicked" on the basic figure to change it from a Construction Worker to an Indian to a Knight. This is figure construction!

Reach...


ROFL! I don't put on clothes in the morning, I construct myself.

Come on Richard, it isn't figure construction, it's dressing up.

My first klickies, which I owned at the tender age of 8, had no buildings to hang out with, but I still had many wonderful adventurers with them.

Playmobil has ALWAYS been a construction "SYSTEM" ... The early boxes even "shouted" the word system all over them!

Stretch...

No, I still don't see that the word System automatically means constructing buildings, sorry!

OTOH, there were construction workers in the originl mix of three themes, and they're still there now - so Playmobil MUST be a construction system!

[CountBogro]

I bet Bogro now is looking up something to prove that System is not the same as Building 

Bugger ... am I that transparant 

OTOH, there were construction workers in the originl mix of three themes, and they're still there now - so Playmobil MUST be a construction system!

mmm - does that mean that it's a medicine as well since it's got a hospital theme as well

Anyway - I still don't see it as a construction toy. The mere fact that you can construct things with it doesn't mean it is a construction toy. It isn't it's primairy function. It's the same with with a deck of cards. I wouldn't call that a construction toy - yet you can build wonderfull towers and palaces with them.
Sorry, I'm still not convinced.

But then again; there's one side that I find more important: in the end, it all doesn't matter. It isn't what it is - it is what you want it to be  . But that's just my idea 

Bogro

[Richard]

Hello again, Bogro ... 

But then again; there's one side that I find more important: in the end, it all doesn't matter. It isn't what it is - it is what you want it to be  .

Well said, my friend, "... it is what you want it to be."

And as Anne said, "... it (Playmobil) appeals to different people for different reasons."

... it appeals to different people for different reasons.

Thanks, Michael, for the following: ...

I bet Bogro now is looking up something to prove that System is not the same as Building 

Bugger ... am I that transparant 

And, to answer your question in one word, Bogro ... YES ! ...

Reach...

Stretch...

Reach and stretch?

Thank you very much for thinking that I'm still that limber, Martin ...

All the best my friends,
Richard

[macgayver]

 


But I have to DIS-agree with you here:

What about all those dioramas in catalogs and mini-catalogs and on box-backs (such as all the great ones recently posted by LHAAP) that showed whole towns full of timber-frame houses and all those castle walls used not only in castle-like buildings, but in roadways, railways, harbors, etc?  Doesn't this wonderful timbered town picture make you want to buy the 20 or so house sets you would need to create a village like this?

errrr allways loved those pics as a kid

and I did :blush:  http://www.macgayverplaymobil.be/First%20gallery%20pages/macgayverplaymobil%20%20Stad.htm

I know ,I am a very derranged man 

but isn't it beatifull

[playmofire]

I've always assumed that "System" referred to the fact that the different parts were interchangeable one with another.  Thus, the knight's sword would also fit in the construction worker's hand, and the cowboy would sit in the fire engine just as well as the fireman, - i.e. "system" refers to compatibility, something that's still there today with 1974 and 2008 klickies and accessories being compatible with each other.

[Timotheos]

But, to defend Richard's claim further, if Steck wasn't intended as a construction toy, why is it built in such a modular fashion? Wouldn't it have been easier for Playmobil to make customized sheets (like it does now)?

It seems there was an earlier vision.  The parts are just too interchangeable to have been an unintended consequence of an economic design decision.

I mean, otherwise, System X is a complete fop-up.  Why provide us those annoying stubs if the parts are intended to be melded in place and not rearranged?

-Tim

[CountBogro]

Steck was meant to provide buildings for the little klickies. But to say they were meant as a construction toy still seems far fetched to me. It was just a easy way to cast new elements which could make up buildings. If it really was meant as a construction toy, why didn't they sell sets with just wall elements, as Lego did and does - that would have been much easier.

It seems there was an earlier vision.  The parts are just too interchangeable to have been an unintended consequence of an economic design decision.

What do you mean, Timotheos? Do you mean a earlier version of steck?

Bogro