In my day,... Lego had only big, green, thick baseplates the height of bricks and could connect with each other vertically and horizontally. I don't think I got a 'wafer' baseplate for years.

As to the pertinent discussion, I prefer bricks for elevation.

Also,10228 is a reminder to get it down and build it. Halloween will be here before you know it.

Nice article.

I think the new Eldorado fortress just showed us, with enough creativity how good can be a brick built baseplate.

@StyleCounselor said:
"In my day,... Lego had only big, green, thick baseplates the height of bricks and could connect with each other vertically and horizontally. I don't think I got a 'wafer' baseplate for years.

As to the pertinent discussion, I prefer bricks for elevation.

Also, 10288 is a reminder to get it down and build it. Halloween will be here before you know it.

Nice article. "

Do you mean 10228?

Now give me enough courage to open my MISB one and discover all the brittle brown bricks inside...

The issue with brick-built baseplates is that they lose modularity, which is the property that probably attracts people the most in the modulars. We get amazing sets like Eldorado Fortress, but they're stand-alone and difficult to pair with others.

That being said, on my modulars, I've replaced the baseplates with 16x16 plates, and I do not regret it. I now try to have stocks of the 16x16s before getting any new modular. The compatibility with the road plates is so much better. I strongly suggest for people to look into this, or even MILS systems if they have the budget. There's even a new 16x16 technic plate that is quite promising for similar effects!

I like the baseplates better. This goes with the BURP pieces as both of them helped make the foundation of the building more than the brick built ones today. This is one of the many reasons that lego has gone up in price, every little thing is brick built. Another note is that baseplates would break, but that can easily be fixed with glue.

A lot of Lego sets these days are just a bunch of randon mini builds lacking cohesion. A good example is 75098 Attack on Hoth that would have been a lot better with a couple of reliefed baseplates.

@vzarmo said:
"I think the new Eldorado fortress just showed us, with enough creativity how good can be a brick built baseplate. "

Yes, but the price point for El Dorado Fortress is $214.99 compared to the modern equivalent of $169.99 ($66.00 in 1989). That extra cost is almost all in the baseplate replacement, and it's a lot of money for a relatively small set. I was never a huge fan of baseplates and obviously building with brick is better, but baseplates were an affordable replacement with what could be hundreds of lego bricks.

One thing I never understood, and the article unfortunately doesn’t explain: why weren’t baseplates one plate thick? I understand that there was different manufacturing process, but does anyone know why weren’t they made in “system” height?

@fy222 said:
" @Patrik78 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"In my day,... Lego had only big, green, thick baseplates the height of bricks and could connect with each other vertically and horizontally. I don't think I got a 'wafer' baseplate for years.

As to the pertinent discussion, I prefer bricks for elevation.

Also, 10288 is a reminder to get it down and build it. Halloween will be here before you know it.

Nice article. "

Do you mean 10228?

Now give me enough courage to open my MISB one and discover all the brittle brown bricks inside..."

Has the brown brick issue not fixed by 2012?!

I thought it was only plaguing Cafe Corner and Green Grocer!!!"

I can only report from my own findings:

I have all of the 2012-2014 LOTR and Hobbit sets, and some have brittle light and dark brown pieces, while others are fine (gold and dark red are fragile too).

The only issue I had with the 2012 Haunted House was that the old pearl gold pieces broke, all the brown ones were fine. It's hit and miss...

It was far easier to construct a fairly impressive looking city when I was kid in the 80s. The baseplates quickly bringing the builds together. I notice with my kids sets, that there are just too many elements. There’s the primary structure and a whole host of smaller assemblies that invariably get lost, broken or forgotten about. These is just too much management required with modern setup.

On the topic of raised baseplates, I absolutely love them in old Adventurers sets (5978 and 5986), they really do "elevate" their greatness!

Also, it weird to hear of economies of scale working against baseplates. Seems counter intuitive. I suppose that puts to bed the theory that TLG outsourced the manufacturing of baseplates to another company using the dark times.

Seriously? No mention of 4990 Rock Raiders HQ (and the best use of a baseplate ever?)

@EtudeTheBadger said:
"Seriously? No mention of 4990 Rock Raiders HQ (and the best use of a baseplate ever?)"

You meant to say 6090 Royal Knight's Castle, right? ;-)

So far, my thesis that the answer to every "what's up with that" will be "cost cutting" holds strong.

(Half joking. I did read the full article and appreciate the insights relating to imagination and how kids play, etc.)

I was never particularly fond of the Crummy Ramp And Pit Plate used in models like 6276, because it wasn't always easy to get a good fit between the baseplate and the bricks on top of it - as if either the dimensions weren't quite right, or it flexed too much in use. And there weren't enough studs on the raised section; there was a rounded rim meaning they didn't go all the way to the edge. Later shaped baseplates like the one in 6090 seemed to handle both issues better.

Certainly when it came to space bases, I thought bases built on mainly flat plates (like 6987) worked better than those built on shaped baseplates (like 6988), because the design felt like it was being constrained by the shape of the baseplate.

And another anime reference. As a fellow weeaboo, I hope those continue, On the actual subject of the article, I both do and don't miss baseplates. Do largely to nostalgia (6396, which I loved, wouldn't have been nearly as cool without the runway), and don't, because they aren't in System. Although if you attach a plate and a tile to the top of one, you get something that's as tall as a 1xn brick or plate is wide, if memory serves. I always thought it would be cool to use the clear 16x16 baseplate in 6162 to make a stained-glass window using that technique and some tiles in transparent tiles.

@DBMartin said:
" @fy222 said:
" @Patrik78 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"In my day,... Lego had only big, green, thick baseplates the height of bricks and could connect with each other vertically and horizontally. I don't think I got a 'wafer' baseplate for years.

As to the pertinent discussion, I prefer bricks for elevation.

Also, 10288 is a reminder to get it down and build it. Halloween will be here before you know it.

Nice article. "

Do you mean 10228?

Now give me enough courage to open my MISB one and discover all the brittle brown bricks inside..."

Has the brown brick issue not fixed by 2012?!

I thought it was only plaguing Cafe Corner and Green Grocer!!!"

I can only report from my own findings:

I have all of the 2012-2014 LOTR and Hobbit sets, and some have brittle light and dark brown pieces, while others are fine (gold and dark red are fragile too).

The only issue I had with the 2012 Haunted House was that the old pearl gold pieces broke, all the brown ones were fine. It's hit and miss..."

I've rarely had an issue with old pearl gold. Most of my issues have been with dark red and red brown.

I agree that Lord of the Rings sets definitely can have issues. Early Hobbits sets as well. It seems to me that the issue with red brown appeared to be solved around 2014, perhaps 2013.

Yet, Dark red was definitely still having some issues as late as 2013 Galaxy Squad. Mind, it's not all pieces. It's a very sporadic affliction. Most pieces are easy and cheap to replace.

However, the most expensive parts that I've encountered because of fragility are cannon bases for Pirates of the Caribbean ships and the large curved pieces for 7662 : Trade Federation MTT.

Back in 2016 I got a statement from LEGO Community Manager that I published at HispaBrick Magazine

"The Service Station, for the first time, is not placed on a baseplate. We have seen over the last years that baseplates have disappeared from the LEGO CITY sets. Kim E. Thomsen, from the LCE Team, explained that baseplates are produced by a 3rd party and LEGO prefers to put the models on plates, which are produced by LEGO."

I miss road baseplates....baseplate....

Edit: I try to buy baseplates and build the sets on them, it helps to build a city that way.

neat article, could do without the "like & subscribe" stuff though

I have just built 76403-1 : The Ministry of Magic, and here's a set that cries out for a baseplate!

I was very disappointed that a crater base plate was not part of 10497

@iamkevinwill said:
"I have just built 76403-1 : The Ministry of Magic, and here's a set that cries out for a baseplate!"

Yes, it's quite fragile.

I would really like to know a more exact calculation of the cost difference between let's say the Eldorado Fortress baseplate and its brickbuilt alternative from a manufacturing standpoint.

I got a used copy of a baseplate of the same mold as Eldorado for around 20€, that was cheap so let's say maybe 30 is a regular going price. Looking at sets like 75334 with their horrendous pricing of 50$ I can not imagine the 1 piece plate could really be offset with the bricks. These structures would at least need double the cost when made out of bricks.

To me it seems like a bunch of excuses. I'm from the era where the baseplates were on their way out, but I've gone back to the sets of earlier eras and every set with a baseplate feels so much more premium than what we get now. Sure, sets can have more 'imaginary space' to be filled in, don't require as much 'counting' for small childeren and brick-built everythings can be more detailed. But guess what?

Sets like Eldorado Fortress are not in the price range for kids anymore. Sure, rich parents could give them, but most of the time sets either have to use a lot of burps to increase height or not bother with elevation underneath the building. And as a kid who experienced baseplates first and plate bases second, I still feel like baseplates were easier to work with, not to mention more robust when lifting the model. Instructions showed overhead views of the first few parts to be placed for a reason.
Not to mention the advantage of models being more coherent. A set like 6755 Sheriff's Lock-Up wouldn't feel as 'whole' if the jail cell was just a 'side build', not to mention that the color of the plate is crucial to the set's color scheme.
Sets like 7419 Dragon Fortress wouldn't have been remotely affordable anymore if it hadn't been for the baseplate (and as a kid it still was out of my reach at the time. The set is that big even if it hadn't had a baseplate!).
Finally, Lego now seems to forget sometimes that having a 'sea of studs' might actually be... you know, good? Kids can build what they want on it, minifigures can actually stand 'somewhere' and overall it can make a model feel like it has more room than it actually might have had if you cut all of that out so the consumer would have to use their own table for that space.

Want to know a good example? 7985 City of Atlantis. Look at the set image. Tell me that it's fun that everything on the ground is literally held in place with 2 wide plates except for a bit of the rock work. There is nothing underneath the temple, the gate leads to nowhere. The courtyard has nowhere to actually put the minifigures to stand on except on the sides. When I first built that set I felt that it just lacked a floor. The floor is just holes. Not to mention that the whole thing can be fragile if you pick it up because it's just a bunch of 2 wide plates! The bottom feels incomplete.

So overall... I mean... the points made here are sensible, but I can't help but feel that it comes down to two things in reality: 1) Lego's now more profit-driven than ever finances (compared to the 2000s anyway) and 2) Lego's insistence on having everything be brick-built to a fault. If they're trying to stay in budget you get sets like 7985 City of Atlantis (notice the skimpy rockwork. All other sides of the base have holes between the pillars). If you throw budget to the wind you either get set 18+ sizes sets or the most expensive flagship set of a theme, such as 71722 Skull Sorcerer's Dungeon.

@whaleyland said:
" @vzarmo said:
"I think the new Eldorado fortress just showed us, with enough creativity how good can be a brick built baseplate. "

Yes, but the price point for El Dorado Fortress is $214.99 compared to the modern equivalent of $169.99 ($66.00 in 1989). That extra cost is almost all in the baseplate replacement, and it's a lot of money for a relatively small set. I was never a huge fan of baseplates and obviously building with brick is better, but baseplates were an affordable replacement with what could be hundreds of lego bricks."

Yes, but the old El Dorado Fortress did not contain the larger ship included in the new one. That was included in 6277 and would probably have cost 15-20 USD on its own back in the day. If I include that and adjust for inflation the values are remarkably similar.

On the topic of baseplates: I have no real affinity or nostalgia for them. Then again, I never built a LEGO city due to lack of space. But if I would build one now, I would use the new roadplates, which seem more modular to me and allow more different layouts, and raise all my modulars by putting them loosely on random selections of plates that are two pates high. There are plenty of videos on Youtube on how to do that.

I adore baseplates, especially raised baseplates. I’m actually typing this?

Well I found a 48x32 raised green castle baseplate in a charity shop and had to have it. It’s now a raised fantasy gothic chapel with crypt!!

@Pitmonster said:
"I was very disappointed that a crater base plate was not part of 10497"

I have an interesting anecdote about that set which maybe could act as a slight indication that what AFOLs love is not always what the general public loves. It was lauded by most AFOLs as an awesome set and predicted to be a massive hit. To the surprise of many it was retired quite quickly, at the end of last year.

I just went to two Smyths stores here in Switzerland: one of them still had three on the shelf, another one had more than six. This, a three full months after retirement, almost never happens at Smyths. They might have a few sets remaining after retirement, but these will mostly be gone a month after retirement. From what I understood the set did not sell at all, partially because it only really appealed to nostalgics. For the casual adult LEGO builder, it seemed too basic and ugly. And kids just couldn't care less because it looks... basic, ugly and oldfashioned to them.

So, maybe, just maybe, the general public also could not care less about the disappearance of baseplates, and what James is saying in this article about baseplates actually restricting creativity and the space of the set, is actually correct. I mean, he was a toy designer and is a designer, and probably has a teensy bit more experience with this than most of us.

Everyone’s preferences aside……

This about one thing : $$$ in the bank

Also, so now that kids are “incapable” of deciphering multiple instruction steps …. They are also unable to count studs on baseplates ?!?!?!?! How did we survive the late 70s thru 00s?

@MrBedhead said:
" @Pitmonster said:
"I was very disappointed that a crater base plate was not part of 10497"

I have an interesting anecdote about that set which maybe could act as a slight indication that what AFOLs love is not always what the general public loves. It was lauded by most AFOLs as an awesome set and predicted to be a massive hit. To the surprise of many it was retired quite quickly, at the end of last year.

I just went to two Smyths stores here in Switzerland: one of them still had three on the shelf, another one had more than six. This, a three full months after retirement, almost never happens at Smyths. They might have a few sets remaining after retirement, but these will mostly be gone a month after retirement. From what I understood the set did not sell at all, partially because it only really appealed to nostalgics. For the casual adult LEGO builder, it seemed too basic and ugly. And kids just couldn't care less because it looks... basic, ugly and oldfashioned to them.

So, maybe, just maybe, the general public also could not care less about the disappearance of baseplates, and what James is saying in this article about baseplates actually restricting creativity and the space of the set, is actually correct. I mean, he was a toy designer and is a designer, and probably has a teensy bit more experience with this than most of us."

Interesting test case to re-release it with modern packaging design to see if it makes a difference. It will never happen, but would be nice to know.

@illennium said:
"So far, my thesis that the answer to every "what's up with that" will be "cost cutting" holds strong.

(Half joking. I did read the full article and appreciate the insights relating to imagination and how kids play, etc.)"
No need to call it joking.
The main reason for everything LEGO does is maximizing profit. They may throw some marketing BS hollow phrases at us about "creativity" and whatnot. Bla bla bla.
Bottom line is, baseplates cost more and eat into LEGO's profit margins. End of story.

Needless to say, I prefer baseplates over the crap we get for roads nowadays. Would also love to see current space sets with the awesome crater baseplates we had.

I pity the kids who have to grow up with LEGO nowadays. Can't see them growing up into AFOLs to be honest. I see this around me all the time with my kids, and those from family, friends and colleagues, that kids aren't as much into LEGO as we used to be. Plus they lose interest at a far earlier age than we did. Then again we didn't have as much choice as they have nowadays when it comes to how to spend our free time.

@xurotaryrocket said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Pitmonster said:
"I was very disappointed that a crater base plate was not part of 10497"

I have an interesting anecdote about that set which maybe could act as a slight indication that what AFOLs love is not always what the general public loves. It was lauded by most AFOLs as an awesome set and predicted to be a massive hit. To the surprise of many it was retired quite quickly, at the end of last year.

I just went to two Smyths stores here in Switzerland: one of them still had three on the shelf, another one had more than six. This, a three full months after retirement, almost never happens at Smyths. They might have a few sets remaining after retirement, but these will mostly be gone a month after retirement. From what I understood the set did not sell at all, partially because it only really appealed to nostalgics. For the casual adult LEGO builder, it seemed too basic and ugly. And kids just couldn't care less because it looks... basic, ugly and oldfashioned to them.

So, maybe, just maybe, the general public also could not care less about the disappearance of baseplates, and what James is saying in this article about baseplates actually restricting creativity and the space of the set, is actually correct. I mean, he was a toy designer and is a designer, and probably has a teensy bit more experience with this than most of us."

Interesting test case to re-release it with modern packaging design to see if it makes a difference. It will never happen, but would be nice to know.

"

True. Maybe that could have made a difference. Of if they would have released it on a smaller scale, as a toy for kids, and part of a new Space line. Wait, isn't that what they are doing now with the new Space sets? :)

For what it's worth: this is not the only set that they still had on the shelves after retirement. They still had a few of the Harry Potter housebanners, and the Grimwauld place (which does have a cool mechanism, but is not very interesting otherwise and waaaaay too expensive), for example.

But, this one struck me in particular, since it was so loved by AFOLs and made multiple "set of the year" lists. Seems like AFOLs do not always know better was what I was trying to say, I guess....

I LOVE the old raised baseplates!!
Particularly for Classic Space & the Space Monorail, and all Castles! Such character!
Check Bricklink - you’d be amazed how many different raised baseplates there were, and in so many different themes!
I wish LEGO would bring them back at some stage, but I realise it’s highly unlikely.

@Anonym said:
"I would really like to know a more exact calculation of the cost difference between let's say the Eldorado Fortress baseplate and its brickbuilt alternative from a manufacturing standpoint.

I got a used copy of a baseplate of the same mold as Eldorado for around 20€, that was cheap so let's say maybe 30 is a regular going price. Looking at sets like 75334 with their horrendous pricing of 50$ I can not imagine the 1 piece plate could really be offset with the bricks. These structures would at least need double the cost when made out of bricks."

Using bricks certainly would increase the cost. More steps added to manufacturing and packaging.

But on the other hand, it also inflates the piece count and helps TLG justify higher prices for sets.

In general, given how cheap plastic can be manufactured, using bricks instead of baseplates surely helps TLG's bottom line.

@AustinPowers said:
" @illennium said:
"So far, my thesis that the answer to every "what's up with that" will be "cost cutting" holds strong.

(Half joking. I did read the full article and appreciate the insights relating to imagination and how kids play, etc.)"
No need to call it joking.
The main reason for everything LEGO does is maximizing profit. They may throw some marketing BS hollow phrases at us about "creativity" and whatnot. Bla bla bla.
Bottom line is, baseplates cost more and eat into LEGO's profit margins. End of story.

Needless to say, I prefer baseplates over the crap we get for roads nowadays. Would also love to see current space sets with the awesome crater baseplates we had.

I pity the kids who have to grow up with LEGO nowadays. Can't see them growing up into AFOLs to be honest. I see this around me all the time with my kids, and those from family, friends and colleagues, that kids aren't as much into LEGO as we used to be. Plus they lose interest at a far earlier age than we did. Then again we didn't have as much choice as they have nowadays when it comes to how to spend our free time. "

Aaaaaaaand, as usual, @Austinpowers knows best. I have said it before, and I will say it again, you must be one of the single most arrogant AFOLs out there. First, you start from your own assumption, do not listen to any arguments to the contrary. From that you deduce that your opinion somehow is the only true one, and that everybody else must agree. Those that somehow do not agree, either turn out to be either sad, ignorant, stupid or a combination of those three. And then, somehow, based on your limited experience, you deduce that kids don't care about LEGO, because LEGO does not know what it is doing. If LEGO would listen to @Austinpowers, kids of course would have way more fun when playing with LEGO.

Daaaaaang, LEGO should hire you and all their worries would go away!

PS My sister's kids love building and playing with modern LEGO and could not care less about baseplates
PS2 The LEGO community is bigger and stronger than ever. Not really a fact that can be proven, but I just thought I would throw this out there since apparently that is what people love to do on forums. Complain and then back their complaints up with some more baseless complaining

Personally, I feel LEGO sets nowadays are too lose. I understand the importance of giving the kids free will about how to play between these parts, but baseplates were not the enemy to imagination the author implies they can be. On the contrary, they made the sets - specially the narrative ones, such as Castle and Pirates sets - look more like what was depicted on the boxes. They gave a frame where we could build our adventures. Okay, one could argue following the boxes' illustrations is akin to hindering that person's creativity, but when you have a themed set, that is already a framework in itself. Thus, considering most LEGO sets are themed since, well, since forever, removing baseplates from the sets felt much more like a monetary thing than a creativity thing.

@xurotaryrocket said:
"Everyone’s preferences aside……

This about one thing : $$$ in the bank

Also, so now that kids are “incapable” of deciphering multiple instruction steps …. They are also unable to count studs on baseplates ?!?!?!?! How did we survive the late 70s thru 00s?"

We made lots of mistakes, and in the pre-brick separator era, we damaged a lot of parts trying to get them yanked up. This is not about being able to count, it's about creating a pleasant build experience. Even the modulars don't rely on you to count; instead the instructions have you place parts of different shapes and lengths working from one end to the other so that you make a virtual grid as you go. The old ways weren't better or for more sophisticated builders, they just required more effort to do correctly.

When I was a kid, raised baseplates and BURPs (and other large bricks such as castle walls) were extremely attractive because they allowed one to build more impressive structures with the limited bricks that you had available (unlike AFOLs, kids can only play with whatever they can convince their parents to purchase). When I first saw pictures taken at some Lego convention (early 2000s), I was amazed not just by the size and complexity of the builds, but also by the fact that those people had SO MANY bricks available that they could afford to build their own raised baseplates and BURPs.

On the topic of empty spaces, I had the 6769: Fort Legoredo set as a kid and I found the empty center definitely annoying. I used to build the set with the baseplates turned inward (to the extent possible) to get some usable surfaces inside. Even then, my friends group regarded empty spaces like that as cheating on the part of Lego. But the set was big and had four large baseplates, so it was still the coolest thing ever :D

@MrBedhead said:
" @Pitmonster said:
"I was very disappointed that a crater base plate was not part of 10497"

I have an interesting anecdote about that set which maybe could act as a slight indication that what AFOLs love is not always what the general public loves. It was lauded by most AFOLs as an awesome set and predicted to be a massive hit. To the surprise of many it was retired quite quickly, at the end of last year.

I just went to two Smyths stores here in Switzerland: one of them still had three on the shelf, another one had more than six. This, a three full months after retirement, almost never happens at Smyths. They might have a few sets remaining after retirement, but these will mostly be gone a month after retirement. From what I understood the set did not sell at all, partially because it only really appealed to nostalgics. For the casual adult LEGO builder, it seemed too basic and ugly. And kids just couldn't care less because it looks... basic, ugly and oldfashioned to them.

So, maybe, just maybe, the general public also could not care less about the disappearance of baseplates, and what James is saying in this article about baseplates actually restricting creativity and the space of the set, is actually correct. I mean, he was a toy designer and is a designer, and probably has a teensy bit more experience with this than most of us."

This is a realisation that anyone who gets into an adult dominated hobby will realise very quickly. The adults will rant endlessly, and yet be completely out of touch with what the youth are actually interested in. I saw when when I first started browsing AFOL communities as a youngster, again when I became interested in Star Wars action figures as a teen (I mean who the heck even knows who Sim Aloo is???), and now once more as a young adult who enjoys a spot of model making from time to time. It just seems to be a constant in these sorts of communities.

@fy222 said:
" @Patrik78 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"In my day,... Lego had only big, green, thick baseplates the height of bricks and could connect with each other vertically and horizontally. I don't think I got a 'wafer' baseplate for years.

As to the pertinent discussion, I prefer bricks for elevation.

Also, 10288 is a reminder to get it down and build it. Halloween will be here before you know it.

Nice article. "

Do you mean 10228?

Now give me enough courage to open my MISB one and discover all the brittle brown bricks inside..."

Has the brown brick issue not fixed by 2012?!

I thought it was only plaguing Cafe Corner and Green Grocer!!!"

No, it wasn't fully delt with until 2018 or 2019. My copy of 75095 had almost all of the reddish brown plates inside the wings snap when I tried to take it apart.

See I grew up with the like of 6081 and 5978 so I’ll agree that when used right a shaped basleplate can be a lot of fun, but I don’t think they’re 100% necessary or essential. They add a fun extra dimension to a build but don’t really achieve anything that couldn’t be accomplished by just building something

@myth said:
"One thing I never understood, and the article unfortunately doesn’t explain: why weren’t baseplates one plate thick? I understand that there was different manufacturing process, but does anyone know why weren’t they made in “system” height?"

I can throw some hypothesis, but I'm far from a specialist and my lessons on the topic are quite old.

First idea, doing it by having a thicker plastic sheet at the start of the process. It would be more expensive due to the excessive matter and maybe more difficult to produce with the Lego precision (needs more sucking power for instance). I can't think of a this much thick plastic piece in my house that wasn't produced by moulding, or they are done by other process which can't make studs.

Second idea, using the same plastic sheet thickness as now but forming it to be one plate high. The problem is that you wouldn't have a support under the plate, so it will at least deform or worse, break. Adding support under can't be done with vacuum forming. This is the reason why you have pits in the raised baseplate of Eldorado fortress for instance.

I can't find it, but on eurobricks pirate forum there was a post quoting the original pirate theme designer, talking about how difficult it had been to design and make the baseplates. If I recall correctly, he said that Lego was losing money on those sets.

On my end, I have mixed feeling. The raised plates were nice to have a nice scene without using too many parts. On the other end, they were a bit fragile (so many second hand one are broken), and difficult to store. I'm really happy with the modularity of the eldorado fortress because I have been able to plate in my bookcase, which wouldn't have been possible with a baseplate.

@MrBedhead said:
" @xurotaryrocket said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Pitmonster said:
"I was very disappointed that a crater base plate was not part of 10497"

I have an interesting anecdote about that set which maybe could act as a slight indication that what AFOLs love is not always what the general public loves. It was lauded by most AFOLs as an awesome set and predicted to be a massive hit. To the surprise of many it was retired quite quickly, at the end of last year.

I just went to two Smyths stores here in Switzerland: one of them still had three on the shelf, another one had more than six. This, a three full months after retirement, almost never happens at Smyths. They might have a few sets remaining after retirement, but these will mostly be gone a month after retirement. From what I understood the set did not sell at all, partially because it only really appealed to nostalgics. For the casual adult LEGO builder, it seemed too basic and ugly. And kids just couldn't care less because it looks... basic, ugly and oldfashioned to them.

So, maybe, just maybe, the general public also could not care less about the disappearance of baseplates, and what James is saying in this article about baseplates actually restricting creativity and the space of the set, is actually correct. I mean, he was a toy designer and is a designer, and probably has a teensy bit more experience with this than most of us."

Interesting test case to re-release it with modern packaging design to see if it makes a difference. It will never happen, but would be nice to know.

"

True. Maybe that could have made a difference. Of if they would have released it on a smaller scale, as a toy for kids, and part of a new Space line. Wait, isn't that what they are doing now with the new Space sets? :)

For what it's worth: this is not the only set that they still had on the shelves after retirement. They still had a few of the Harry Potter housebanners, and the Grimwauld place (which does have a cool mechanism, but is not very interesting otherwise and waaaaay too expensive), for example.

But, this one struck me in particular, since it was so loved by AFOLs and made multiple "set of the year" lists. Seems like AFOLs do not always know better was what I was trying to say, I guess...."

Appeal to kids was not a major issue with this set as it was branded as 18+ and explicitly marketed to adults. The issue here is that "AFOLS" is often used as shorthand for Lego adults, but it's a specific fandom subset of Lego adults. As OP mentioned, this set has limited appeal to a wider adult marketplace. It may also show that theme-specific nostalgia is risky as themes change over time, and only certain generational segments will be interested in a particular representation.

I think there's another part of this premise that I take issue with. The mistake of AFOLs dubbing it a set of the year was not a mistake. It's a great set, even if it's not for everyone. The mistake was Lego's in producing it in mass quantities instead of saving it as a D2C exclusive. The set wasn't successful, but that's not an inherent quality of the set itself.

I loved the base plates for quickly putting a road or town layout together. Making a race track was easy, and I liked the way they anchored the layout, and the combinations and juxtapositions of different buildings and routes.

And for Space, I really enjoyed putting together the launchpads and crater plates: depending on the combination, the crater plates could make one large crater, a slalom path bordered by craters, or a narrow path between craters. Super stuff!

Gonna have to respectfully disagree. Adding a tangible floor to otherwise empty space between builds actually sparks more imagination than the "void" method, at least to me. The Sheriff's office from Western springs to mind. The sand coloured Baseplate helps to set the scene and enhances the builds that sit upon it.

I'm of the age where I grew up when baseplates were common in sets, but I don't feel any nostalgia towards them (with the possible exception of crater plates.) As I grew older and became an adult, I acquired more sets that contained baseplates. That was not because LEGO was putting baseplates in more sets. It was because when I was a kid I could usually only afford to buy smaller sets. As I got older, I had more money, so I could buy bigger sets, so even though LEGO was putting fewer baseplates in sets, I was getting more sets that had them.

I think many AFOLs today find the usefulness of baseplates to be tied to their community involvement, specifically displaying at LEGO shows. When you want to build a large layout for display, baseplates can often be essential. For example, a couple of weeks ago at Brickworld Indy, me and 2 other AFOLs displayed a castle layout that was 16 tables in size. The entire thing was covered in baseplates, even the water area.

There are many builders who make a MOC that's meant to be a stand-alone item; it doesn't transition to another MOC in any way. Therefore there's little to no need for a baseplate. When people make MOCs that are meant to be a smaller piece of a whole, however, using baseplates becomes a much more handy way to unify everyone's stuff.

Aside from reducing costs from the moulding process, there's also modern packaging to consider. LEGO has reduced the size of their boxes and raised baseplates would be harder to fit compared to more bagged pieces.

Even with the current reduced box sizes, some sets are still like bags of chips: half full of air.

@xurotaryrocket said:
"Everyone’s preferences aside……

This about one thing : $$$ in the bank

Also, so now that kids are “incapable” of deciphering multiple instruction steps …. They are also unable to count studs on baseplates ?!?!?!?! How did we survive the late 70s thru 00s?"

Funny you should mention that... in some old (~1970s) sets with baseplates, they actually relied on printing on the studs themselves to help establish where parts needed to go. In other sets (including current ones as well as older ones), parts like tiles are used as "spacers" to help build inwards from the edges of the base so that kids don't have to count out a large number of studs to establish where the building starts. So the challenges younger kids have with counting out unused studs aren't new at all—Lego has just gotten better at working with those limitations.

I am seldom one of those "IT WAS BETTER BACK IN THE DAY" types... but including baseplates in sets WAS better. I am not swayed by the arguments that empty space is better for firing kids' imaginations - I was a kid, and I LOVED the extra stud space to add my own builds, pose figures, or connect buildings together.

I had all of the WILD WEST sets and being able to connect all the buildings together into a town-sized configuration was a DREAM. I lived in a small house growing up with two siblings, and yet just a few baseplates across a theme allowed me to feel like I'd built up a whole city. It was great.

Specialized baseplates were even more exciting, and gave sets a sense of size and grandeur that is lacking among sets for kids today. Poolside Paradise is a particular favorite of mine.

So yeah, I miss baseplates. A lot. And I honestly think I'd be more open to buying LEGO City sets if they had them. I am sure the decision was made for economic reasons, and the "It's better for play to NOT have them!" argument feels like added rationalization.

@myth said:
"One thing I never understood, and the article unfortunately doesn’t explain: why weren’t baseplates one plate thick? I understand that there was different manufacturing process, but does anyone know why weren’t they made in “system” height?"
According to the excellent Secret Life of LEGO Bricks book by Daniel Konstanski is was "purely [for] economic reasons: areas that are 32×32 and 48×48 studs-square require a lot of plastic, so casting baseplates at minimal thickness kept them affordable."

Back in the days LEGO was struggling to create big impressive builds that were quick and easy to build and didn't cost a fortune, so they started using a lot of large and thin parts that minimised the amount of bricks and so plastic needed, like BURPs, castle walls, or city windows, etc.

Highly recommend this book.

For kids, baseplates are definitely beneficial for creativity. When I went to the thrift store as a kid, I remember I found the left baseplate that came from the set 6278 Enchanted Island (by itself, not with the set), which I had to have. It gave me a whole template - a starting point - to build on and imagine what I could build on it. I built many things on it, including different towers, buildings, and landscapes to tell stories and have fun.

I believe even if they were sold individually, bringing back the raised baseplates gives a great starting point for kids who don't know how to deviate from the instructions. I think the junior sets would be a good entry point for more baseplates as well; they are already priced for it.

@Ridgeheart said:
"The weird offset of the baseplates never sat that well with me, but - given that the baseplates are half a plate thick, the offset can be offset by... putting another baseplate underneath. I guess the die-hard baseplate-lovers can still integrate plate and baseplate by using this Secret Technique.

You're welcome.
"

I'm trying to understand how your Secret Technique actually works. What is holding the two baseplates together? How can the addition of a baseplate under a baseplate possibly give you only the addition of a half plate in height?

"one of the quirks of the vac-form baseplate is that the vertical height is not "in system". It is around half a plate high, so it is a pain trying to connect something from a baseplate to a regular plate."

As a kid I ran into this issue with a baseplate from a Spongebob set. I came up with this wacky system of clip elements, a bar, and a cone to try and link the two together. It was flimsy, but worked!

"The new El Dorado Fortress is a perfect example of this with the added detail and play space in the new brick-built base section."

I second this! I initially wasn't too fussed about this remake when it was first announced, but I took a closer look at it a few weeks ago and was blown away by how they remastered the part. That cobbled ramp is a beauty, and you can actually have people stand on it!

When I was a kid the only raised baseplates I was lucky enough to get where those square ones in the '06 BIONICLE playsets and that island in that one '09 Pirate castaway set. Even those though gave me a love for the little hollow space created under an easily removable model. You could cast someone into the pit, or hide a little treasure in there, or raise skeleton army from the depths. I'd always oggle over the raised baseplates in history books and archives (especially the ones with ramps!)

The Eldorado Fortress is too much of an edge case to use as an example for any pro or anti-baseplate position. It's a nostalgia set with a brick-built baseplate that matches the original. A typical set it would not be designed that way, there’s way too many parts used for that big ramp.

@fy222
The Old Fishing Store from 2017 has brown pieces that break. Not sure if the brittle issue had left and returned, or was always around to some extent.

Thanks @poshhammer for your insights on how a toy company and designers think these things.

First of all, I'm an old one born in the very late 70s and I have no nostalgia for raised baseplates.

Sure, the first iteration (space hills and craters!) was pretty cool, but I believe it eventually became a design shortcut by creating height or shapes without truly - as James pointed out - giving you a bang for your buck, as you ended up with very few parts in what first appeared to be a substantial build. It also reduced the creative side of it all (something that was always important to me) on how you could build other things out of the set or use the baseplates in other creations (the ones seen in the last years they were available were particularly limited in their use).

As for flat baseplates, I also believe that they are a good basic canvas to start building; one that is not easily replaced by smaller plates for younger builders and that might come as a cheaper base point for kids and families who don't want to dedicate too much space and money to a toy.

That being said, I am phasing them out of my own layout as even my Modular sets and MOCs have been switched to 16x16 (and occasionally 8x16) plates, allowing for a lot more flexibility (including in topography, as my town is not as flat as it was usually - or easily - possible with baseplates), especially as my roads are now also completely brick (and tile) built. Of course, it's much more expensive, but the results works better for my needs.

But I do wonder if Lego will eventually just flat out stop creating baseplates. On the one hand, it would indeed be an issue with integrating builds, especially for the Modular line. On the other, Lego has done these wholesale changes in the past, despite fans' outrage (Examples: Old browns and old greys or anything pertaining to minifigs heads). Sure, they have apologized at times about the way it was executed and/or communicated, but in the end, it remains a business and they will make decisions, however unpopular, if they believe they make business sense.

Completely passed by the era of raised baseplates. For me, all my memories are of white dots, and how awkward they made building something different!

I dislike baseplates. They're handy as a quick and temporary surface to build upon but their single purpose and almost out-of-system nature makes them ultimately frustrating to build with.

Don't get me wrong: there is something nice in having a continuous LEGO surface, it makes the world feel more complete, and those raised baseplate looked seriously cool in those catalogues back when I was a kid.

But as a kid I had one (non-LEGO) raised baseplate, which was annoying to build with because of its awkward shape, and I had one 16x32 baseplate, which snapped in half, and I couldn't really do much with either because I simply didn't have enough raw bricks.

Baseplates are background filler. Background filler can be provided by other means, like a play mat, or an old favorite of mine, sheets over boxes, etc.

Have to provide lots of bricks first so that lots of stuff can be built, that's what LEGO is about. Baseplates can come later, but they really really should be in system, like the current road system, so that you can build with them rather than just on top of them.

I don't buy any of these arguments (aside from the cost cutting, which is obvious).

I too was too poor to have any sets with raised baseplates, but I did have some flat ones and I always wondered how cool it would be to have a raised baseplate when I was looking at the catalogues. I had 7240 and 7993 and I loved how it made the sets clean and contained while providing a scenery for the minifigures to play in. I remember I had every Medical set from 2006 City except for the 7892 Hospital and I wanted this set so much. I liked the raised garage and helipad, I liked that it had some greenery and a shaped landscape that would make me imagine what else I could build on it.

I would love for baseplates to make a comeback. At least they should sell flat baseplates in more colors than just green, blue and white. I'd like yellow to make a beach, or red to make a surface of Mars, or well anything, there's a lot of potential in making sceneries.

For my part, I definitely prefer the modern approach over old-school baseplates. On a basic level, having the plate thickness "in system" and having connection points both above and below implicitly makes standard plates more versatile for MOCs — this way, you can use the same plates for the ground as for the upper floors of a building, the roof of a building or cave, the decks of a ship, the base of a spaceship, or even SNOTted walls or cliff faces.

Moreover, standard plates are a lot more conducive to "off-grid" building that helps to create complex and dynamic layouts, like in 10305, and can be coupled with round plates or wedge plates to further change the appearance of a model's footprint. By contrast, baseplates often tend to constrain sets and MOCs to a very repetitive, squarish composition. Raised baseplates in particular go even further, constraining models onto a foundation with a highly specific three-dimensional form — whereas even at a KFOL building level, you can reshape a model's foundation a lot more freely using a combination of standard building elements and BURPS/mountain bricks.

Even before the current LEGO City road system came out, I'd spent years contemplating the possibility for a road system more compatible with standard plates/tiles. In addition to freeing up road layouts from the prescriptive 32x32 grid layout and fixed-width margins of road baseplates, I realized that would open up new possibilities for roads with more than two lanes, inclined or elevated roads (with below street level features like subway tunnels or sewers), bridges and overpasses, parking lots and above-ground parking decks, driveways and garages, optional bike paths, etc.

I'm still hopeful that we'll see more of these possibilities explored in sets — we've been too long without a bridge/overpass set in Town/City — but already the varied applications we've seen in sets give me a lot of confidence for the road system's future potential. And I know that potential will only grow if LEGO adds new parts to the system like dedicated inclined or curved elements for stuff like bridges and racetracks!

Sets like 21335 and 10320 have elaborate bases using a lot of bricks. The bases aren't terribly interesting to build and I still think both would be better with a raised baseplate or BURP pieces.

@merman said:
"A lot of Lego sets these days are just a bunch of randon mini builds lacking cohesion. A good example is 75098 Attack on Hoth that would have been a lot better with a couple of reliefed baseplates. "

Not true for all sets, but definitely a lot. I have bever been a fan of loose 'filler' builds. I get it that they're supposed to hit a certain price point, so it's surely not the designer's fault here, but still a strange decision.

Also never really liked the idea of having the need to add a 'rival faction' for 'conflict' in the same set as is often said. This feels to me the same as the absolutely necessity to add projectiles to every set since they invented those flick fire missiles in 2008. Play-features back then were much more focused on secret doors, detachable mini-ships (that were perfectly integrated into the main build), places to store accessories and so on.

I guess what I am missing most about the raised baseplates is the cohesive feel it gave across multiple castles, space stations etc. You somehow knew they belong to each other despite having different color-schemes and design approaches. Whenever they try to revive one of the classic themes as a full line rather than a one-off deluxe set, they feel very disconnected to their previous line, due to the rapid change in building techniques (it does not help that they usely stick to the same base concepts each time).

They also had this odd kind of 'Lego identity', that is more and more waning away to me. Nowadays everything Lego does seems to be a slowly losing arms-race with some of their main competitors by either focusing to much on specialized one-time licence stuff for minifigures on one hand or the 'everything needs to get bigger and have more bricks' approach on the other. Neither really helps in creating a cohesive aesthetic if you want to own more than one set in the long term.

@Anorak719 said:
"This isn't so much about design-specific decisions, but down the line in What's Up With That...? I'd be interested in you all exploring why Lego moved away from releasing individual minifigures as GWPs or for yearly events like Bricktober"

If we are offering up suggestions for articles, I’d be interested in knowing the reason for the move away from the old boxed Impulse sets (they were cute!) towards polybags instead.

Commenting here is tricky, as it's almost automatically labelled as stuck in the past, not open to new ideas etc. I'm not the demographic these sets aims for, and I'm sure TLG did their research and knows what they're doing.

Only thing I don't agree with fully is "young kids find it hard to count studs in a grid", we were young kids and we managed. I don't like it when things are dumbed down for kids. Kids need to fail, to struggle and to get frustrated sometimes. Just like the almost insulting instructions these days. (To be fair, it's not just with Lego. Video games are also hand holding and dumbed down these days).

I can understand the raised baseplates elimination due to cost, but I don't get the road plates. The new system looks like a MOC, in a bad way (MOCs are known for over detail and complex things). Easy to see with El Dorado, the simplicity is sometimes part of the charm.

But, I'm sure the new plate system is a huge hit, so I'm not negative about it, just personally don't like it. Luckily Bricklink/Aliexpress sells tons of old style plates so we're good.

My main take away from this article is: "...young kids find it hard to count studs in a grid, so shrinking the surface area reduces the potential for error."

So it was true. I've suggested this sorry state of affair on a few previous posts. I guess, it is now confirmed by the research department of Lego: today's kids are dumber. Again, stop the hate - I am not saying this - it was in the article and it was said by the research Lego did.

This would also explain the phone-book (remember those?) size instruction and also why people cannot distinguish almost look-alike parts in the same colour. With that 'confirmed' information, everything is falling into place and it all make sense now why we have rainbow coloured parts and 479 steps instructions book for a 305 pieces set (some steps are just pictures showing that the model was rotated a bit).

Baseplates: very useful in some settings, very limiting in others (very few street patterns are grid-like). Basically it is cost cutting. Even recent classic space is suffering from cost cutting: instead of building full size models, Lego is now building some sort of diorama with space babies - smaller, less parts and not quite usable but has an 'awww' factor.

I can buy some of these explanations for sets with actual brick built environments. However, tons of modern sets have no "soul" to them precisely because of that. It's a building...and...that's it. You had so much more playability and options to expand compared to now.

It's cost cutting. That's it. lul

@fy222 I recently went trough my Niece and Nephews Lego (since they are entering their dark ages) to sort all the mixed Lego into the various sets they own. There are sets between 2010 to 2018 where even with using a brick separator to disassemble partial builds Reddish Brown and Dark Red pieces would crack and partially break.

Would be interesting to know what the science behind the brittleness for these colours (light wave lengths) is.

The baseplates being half a plate high... I built a two story building one time where the second floor is a baseplate. It's "sandwiched" or "clamped" between plates in the perimeter walls. Okay, I'm having a hard time describing this. Basically, if you rest a baseplate on top of bricks with their studs, the baseplate obviously can't attach to the studs underneath it because it has no anti-studs, but if it's rested on top of studs it'll be higher, at the level of a normal plate so other plates can come in from the sides and clamp it into place. This might make no sense, and I apologize.

@MrBedhead : of course I know it best. I know everything and my opinion is the only one that counts. Thank you for finally realizing the inevitable.

What I find the funniest is that you still haven't blocked me, even though I apparently am so horrible, so arrogant, so intolerant.

And yes, it would be interesting indeed to see what would happen if LEGO hired me as an advisor. (and listened to my suggestions).
Not that I would ever want to take such a job. Back when I was a kid I would have dreamed about working for LEGO. Nowadays I wouldn't want to work for them even if it was the last job available on Earth.

*Warning: this post might have contained traces of sarcasm.

@HOBBES said:
"Even recent classic space is suffering from cost cutting: instead of building full size models, Lego is now building some sort of diorama with space babies - smaller, less parts and not quite usable but has an 'awww' factor."

You wanted Lego to offer a full size Classic Space rocket, base and vehicle as a GWP?

All things considered, good riddance.
Baseplates are completely out of system, something that already irked me as a kid, and if you want consistency in a city or other layout, commit you to putting either everything or nothing on baseplates. For any practical purposes (i.e. everything except some AFOLs' Modular-based layouts), the new road plates are a much better solution.

And while I know raised baseplates especially are held in high regard, and I have personal nostalgia for some like 7419... man, they were an absolute crutch in some builds.
Take a set like 6983: It has fun functions, but the only reason it looks like anything is the baseplate. The actual build is a couple pieces vaguely strewn across that, it manages to SUGGEST quite a lot, but when you have it in hand, you realise there's not much there.
As the article indicates, Lego has moved to denser and more substantial builds, and I much prefer that.

@Pitmonster said:
"I was very disappointed that a crater base plate was not part of 10497"

I get that, and from a standpoint of displaying the set, I'd agree. But: Consider how much size and cost that would add to the set vs how much utility it adds. To accommodate the scaled-up ship, the baseplates would probably need to be stepped up from 32x32 to 48x48. A whole new moulded crater baseplate in that size, for this one set would be quite the expense. Alternatively, we could spend a bunch of bricks to build up the craters. All to make... a plain grey moonscape we can park the ship on. As it is, 10497 is a very neat, slick set at a fine price point, and I don't think it would benefit that much from adding the landing pad or little station the original came with.
Now, not using the leftover pieces from the medium-sized ship to recreate the forklift in 487, THAT was a missed chance! :P

@MrBedhead: Damn, you've got him figured out good. Won't help, of course, but needs to be said.

Please allow me to apologize at the outset as I feel I’m going to come across as overly negative here and that’s never my goal. That’s assuming anyone even reads this as TLDR is often in play with my posts.

The topic here is wonderful.
The article not so much.

I was very excited to see an AFOL holy grail topic broached but then was surprisingly disappointed how little substance was included. Outside of a vacuum forming link and reference to void space creativity, I got very little out of it beyond being consistently “hammered” to like and subscribe. Not unsurprisingly, it’s been the commentary from this great community that has informed me the most.

And since I’m being critical right now, I would recommend new articles go through more of a review process internally to help tighten up the narrative. I had to jump back and reread more than once when some new random aspect was dropped in cold but as if it had been segued in the paragraph before.

Lastly (and unfortunately still negatively), this is a Brickset article. Engage with this community. Don’t just try and drive us back to your own site. You’ve responded one time here to over 80 comments so far and that was with the tongue in cheek “like and subscribe.” While there was more interaction on the last article, it was still sparse and so many interesting questions were left open ended. Not trying to hold anyone to bars set by others, but Mark amazingly continues to engage on even the toughest of questions when he comments or runs a Reddit.

/diatribe

I hope LEGO continues to leverage baseplates, even if only sporadically. I’m okay with them having to be bought separately in order to minimize box sizes and not affect the budget. It as many have pointed out above, this always felt to me as LEGO just trying to further squeeze out more profit.

I, unlike my notorious (but very appreciated by me) community mate @AustinPowers , do not generally support competing brands or mix anything with LEGO. But I finally gave up on baseplates after struggling with LEGO’s inability/unwillingness to support my layout needs. I finally started picking up off brand baseplates and feel no shame. And guess what, they are cheaper than LEGO, just as formidable, and at times even leverage wonderful, interesting prints for which I’m actively looking for ways to incorporate.

I agree that baseplates can be limiting in a build. But they also helped and still do help drive my imagination. But once you go baseplate, you do get kinda stuck. I luckily found a way to incorporate the new road plates into kind of a Rue Cler side street for my baseplate city.

Lastly, how can we have a baseplate discussion without even mentioning the most innovative/apocryphal/amazing baseplate use ever via Gringotts Bank 76417 . :o)

@chrisaw said:
" @HOBBES said:
"Even recent classic space is suffering from cost cutting: instead of building full size models, Lego is now building some sort of diorama with space babies - smaller, less parts and not quite usable but has an 'awww' factor."

You wanted Lego to offer a full size Classic Space rocket, base and vehicle as a GWP?
"

Yes.

For starter: 920-2 / 483 : 186 pieces, 40712 : 325 pieces.

Now, let's see what is feasible:
40681 310 pieces 2 minifigs
40603 163 pieces 3 minifigs 1 horse
40598 212 pieces 1 minifg IP:HP
40588 292 pieces 0 minifig
40595 307 pieces 1 minifig
40586 301 pieces 2 minifigs
40597 214 pieces 1 minifig
40600 226 pieces 1 minifg IP:Disney
40601 365 pieces 2 minifigs
40602 271 pieces 2 minifigs
40530 275 pieces 1 minifig 3 chimpanzees
40532 163 pieces 1 minifig
40533 203 pieces 1 minifig
40565 329 pieces 2 minifigs
(I could go on and on)

So, again, yes. I'd like to have a 225-ish parts set (we can see that much more is feasible see 40601 ) with one or two (full minifig size) spacemen/women just like they do for other themes.
( 40580 356 pieces 1 minifig). I prefer Classic Space but it does not have to be. 40580 was Blacktron. M-Tron would be nice; insectoid would also do for a nice remake.

@myth said:
"One thing I never understood, and the article unfortunately doesn’t explain: why weren’t baseplates one plate thick? I understand that there was different manufacturing process, but does anyone know why weren’t they made in “system” height?"

So, funny thing is, technically baseplates _are_ "in system". You just have to know the trick. Lay one baseplate on top of another, and it will be essentially the same height as a baseplate covered in a layer of plates. Or, you can stack two plates, and they'll be the same height as a baseplate laid over a bed of regular plates. There are tricks that can be accomplished due to this quirk of geometry that might not work as well if the baseplate were fully one plate thick.

As for why it's thinner, flip one over. Look inside the studs and see how little space is left. Basic rule of thumb is that the material should be no more than 1/3 the width of any cavity you want it to fill, or it might not make a crisp impression.

@Anonym:
I guarantee you it takes less time to mold and print one of the old raised baseplates than it does to manufacture all the unprinted parts necessary to replicate the shape of one. But the former only counts as "+1" on the piece count, while the latter can bump the piece count 10% or more. Use baseplates, and people will complain about price per piece. Use parts to replicate one, and they complain that the pieces aren't chunky enough.

@AustinPowers:
On the contrary, my LUG has been recruiting quite a few younger people. We're well into double digits now with members who joined as minors (and some of them still are), and a large portion of our membership these days is in their 20's and 30's. Two key differences for us are that the extant themes appeal to kids in the US, and we've already got four public displays under our belt this year (not counting tearing down last year's Henry Ford Museum display). So, there are sets that spark their interest, and then they see what adults are capable of building with adult-sized collections.

I always thought the out-of-system thickness was the only reason they were being phased out, so it's interesting to learn there's more than that to it.

I think for both are a time and place. As an AFOL, while I generally don't do buildings, I would probably prefer a brick built base. But for kids, especially those raised base plates help a lot to quickly build a pretty sizable structure. And while we adults gush over such huge builds, the attention span of kids is usually a lot shorten, and they don't want to spend hours just on the base.

And when it comes to building an actual city, the road plates still seem a rather poor alternative for the old road plates. My nephews and niece have both, but only one system gets actually used. Well, the road plates do get used....but mostly like a roof or so, just a big plate.

As for the half plate difference....Cobi has the solution! They have tons of thin inverted tiles in a variety of shapes and sizes, just as thick as a base plate. Which are great for nicely hiding antistuds or adding structural integrity without adding too much bulk. I think Lego could very well use such pieces too.

@yellowcastle said:
"Please allow me to apologize at the outset as I feel I’m going to come across as overly negative here and that’s never my goal. That’s assuming anyone even reads this as TLDR is often in play with my posts.

The topic here is wonderful.
The article not so much.

I was very excited to see an AFOL holy grail topic broached but then was surprisingly disappointed how little substance was included. Outside of a vacuum forming link and reference to void space creativity, I got very little out of it beyond being consistently “hammered” to like and subscribe. Not unsurprisingly, it’s been the commentary from this great community that has informed me the most.

And since I’m being critical right now, I would recommend new articles go through more of a review process internally to help tighten up the narrative. I had to jump back and reread more than once when some new random aspect was dropped in cold but as if it had been segued in the paragraph before.

Lastly (and unfortunately still negatively), this is a Brickset article. Engage with this community. Don’t just try and drive us back to your own site. You’ve responded one time here to over 80 comments so far and that was with the tongue in cheek “like and subscribe.” "

You're not the only one. I gave up reading the article after the second like and subscribe. I know you can opt in/out of seeing articles in specific news topics. I think now is the time to opt in/out based on author too.

@AcademyofDrX:
My best friend said he got big into building the more premium sets during the pandemic, and even told me that he "gets it" now vs constantly being frustrated as a kid. I had to explain to him that they've figured out how to make more user-friendly instructions. Back in the day, they painted dots on the baseplates to show you where to place parts because otherwise kids would get frustrated and quit. Now, they use the model itself, and the build order, to help guide you to correct placement without even realizing it. The irony is, you'll see people here who don't recognize that it was bad instruction design complain that the modern instructions are "too dumb". I wonder if they expect their tech manuals to be legible, or if they feel it's better to be challenged by one that looks like it was translated by someone who had a one-weekend course on the language it's translated into.

@CaptainMoore:
I spent nearly six years working for a short-run, thick-gauge thermoformer (aka vacuforming). We primarily ran 3/16" sheet, and one customer needed 1/4" sheet (so, just shy of being one stud thick). You absolutely can mold parts in really thick material this way, but there are tradeoffs. You can heat sheet up from below, or (less efficiently) from above, but the heat has to fully penetrate the entire thickness before you can mold a part, so thicker gauges take a lot longer to heat up. They also take longer to cool before you can safely remove them from the mold. Injection molding can cheat this by using smaller pellets that can be heated up very quickly, and they use in-line mixing to make sure the heat is spread evenly through the material before it's injected. They can also have material used for the next several shots heated up in advance, where this is a lot harder to pull off with sheet stock. You're also limited to 1 atmosphere of pressure to force material into the mold, where injection molding can use as much pressure as the mold will handle.

@Gataka:
I really need to unwrap my copy of that book one of these days, but I have to disagree with whoever his source was on that. In vacuforming, there are two types of molds. The company I used to work for used molds that projected through the sheet plane to form parts. Baseplates need high precision on the studded surface, so they work the other way. The studs are formed in cavities, rather than over bumps. There's a finite limit to how thick you can make the sheet before it will stop forming a crisp stud. However, the thinner you make it, the more likely it is to crease or break. Baseplates happen to be made at the upper end of the gauges that will easily form crisp studs, and the lower end of what will be rigid enough to handle being assembled and disassembled repeatedly.

@Tupperfan:
Besides the Modulars kinda forcing them to retain at least the 32x32 and 16x32 sizes, there's also the fact that single-packed baseplates are the cheapest way to put a blank canvas on the market. I can walk into the store where I buy my groceries and get a 32x32 baseplate in at least 2-3 colors for $8. If I try to do the same with 16x16 plates, they cost closer to $9 on PAB, and I have to wait for them to ship. Baseplates are in paper bags now, where 16x16 plates would need to ship in a box, plus they might need to get creative about making sure the plates don't end up nesting, as stacked plates that large would be incredibly difficult to pry apart.

@Arnoldos:
They've done tan, which works better for beaches. The problem is, for a long time they only sold three baseplates at a time, and one of those was the light-grey/light-bley XL 48x48. So, they never sold tan (beach) and blue (water) at the same time that I'm aware of. I remember the uproar when they ditched green and blue in favor of bright-green and tan. I'd favor retaining the current range of baseplates and adding tan and reddish-brown to the mix as that would allow one to aproximate all of the major terrain types on Earth.

@elangab:
Kids need challenges that they are capable of overcoming. You don't throw them in the ring with a heavyweight boxer and tell them to learn how to fight. That's what the old instructions were like for many kids. Rather than encouraging these kids to learn spatial geometry, critical thinking, and all the other things that can come with the LEGO hobby, they learned that they should just give up.

@HOBBES:
I think you're getting the wrong message. Yesterday's LEGO sets were more difficult to assemble, and therefore appealed to a tiny fraction of the number of kids. Today's LEGO sets have more user-friendly designs, and they've now reached the point where they're no longer fighting other toy companies for market share, but other entertainment companies.

Regarding street patterns, that's true, but grids are easier to manage with a system that's very gridlike in nature. Going off-grid with an entire road system requires a much more invested parts pallet than most kids can manage, and even a better knowledge of geometry than many AFOLs probably have.

@Crushmaster:
It's less about cost-cutting, in my view, than it is about cost-focusing. Instead of sinking a lot of the expense of producing a set into the baseplates, they eliminate them and make the rest of the model bigger. Not a lot bigger, because losing the baseplate means they need to be stronger models, but the end result is a building that's larger than you would get in a similarly priced set with a baseplate.

@8BrickMario:
A baseplate floats on the studs. A plate nests over them. As long as the layer of studs are at the same height, the baseplate and plate you place on top of them are close enough in height that you can build across them like they're the same part.

@yellowcastle:
As long as you can think in terms of years rather than days, LUGBulk is a way to build up large collections of baseplates. My club has managed to put every color of 32x32 baseplate on at least one order, except possibly bright-green. And if I'm remembering that currectly, it was mostly because nobody wants them.

@Ridgeheart:
I know what you're trying to say. I've even built a MOC that incorporated a raised baseplate into a Moonbase module that stayed perfectly in alignment with Moonbase spec. I just think you're describing it wrong. It sounds like you're saying if I stack one baseplate on top of another baseplate, the result will be the same height as a plate sitting by itself, which is not true.

@PurpleDave said:
"
@8BrickMario :
A baseplate floats on the studs. A plate nests over them. As long as the layer of studs are at the same height, the baseplate and plate you place on top of them are close enough in height that you can build across them like they're the same part."

Okay, I think I understand better now. It doesn't sound like something I'd choose to do, but the phrase "stack them" with my knowledge of the baseplates gave me an impression of speculation without proven technique. I was wrong to read those suggestions as uninformed and untested. I haven't bent the rules of baseplates myself to have realized they could be worked that way.

I apologize for being curt to @Ridgeheart and assuming naivete in their comments where there wasn't any, but the condescension wasn't appreciated.

@PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers :
Two key differences for us are that the extant themes appeal to kids in the US, and we've already got four public displays under our belt this year (not counting tearing down last year's Henry Ford Museum display). So, there are sets that spark their interest, and then they see what adults are capable of building with adult-sized collections."
As always I can only draw conclusions from the anecdotal evidence I see, and some seem to doubt that it is actually what I witness, but it's absolutely true.

And that means that with the kids I know:

a) many of the current themes don't resonate with them the way themes during my childhood did with my friends and myself - neither do they watch the accompanying TV shows like Friends or Ninjago (if these are on these days at all anyway)
b) we don't have LEGO clubs or exhibitions nearby, so no way to see impressive displays other than perhaps when spending a holiday at LEGOLAND
c) most of the kids I know get/got their first smartphone at about age 10 to 12, at which point all their previous toys (Playmobil, LEGO, dolls, etc.) suddenly get/got relegated to the background and after not so long they get sold off or in the best case put into storage in the attic/cellar

Add to that the fact that LEGO prices have risen far more than the general inflation rate over the past decade or so, which means a lot of people can't/won't buy LEGO anymore.
There's a reason after all why alternative brands have seen such a huge rise over the past couple of years over here. I mean, you even get them at discounters like Lidl regularly nowadays. In my childhood such a thing would have been unthinkable. And LEGO wasn't cheap by any means back then either, but it was at least still affordable for many people, even larger sets. Then again, back then there weren't sets with thousands of tiny pieces like today, nor were there any sets aimed specifically at adults. And no adult would have been seen dead playing with LEGO, at least not as openly and regularly as today.

@8BrickMario:
https://www.maskofdestiny.com/news/super-tiny-paradise

This is the Moonbase module I built over two decades ago, using this trick. At the base is a 48x48 light-grey baseplate, with a pedestal built up in the center 40x40 space, with a top that's 34x34. On top of that is a raised 32x32 baseplate from one of the underwater themes, and it's pinned down along the edge by a row of mostly 2x plates on top of a row of 1x plates and the outer edge of the raised baseplate. So, it's a time-tested technique for sure, but it's also one which maaaaaaany AFOLS, both old and new, are fully unaware of.

@AustinPowers:
Fully aware of all of that. And I'm also aware, that you're aware, that this is largely not the case outside of Germany.

@poshhammer - thank you for jumping back in. It is greatly appreciated, I think many of us picked up the irony on the repetitive like and subscribes. However, coupled with the last article and you being on holiday when this dropped fueled my concerns that we might be once again stirring the pot and then leaving us all to our own. I guess I just miss the old days when we had a more robust and engaging staff here. Nowadays, it’s more and more petty member squabbles and folks blocking each other. I’m thankful for these articles and for the differing opinions we all have, even those from @StyleCounselor when he’s not drinking. ;o)

@PurpleDave - I didn’t much enjoy my local LUG and our relationship with the local stores always seemed to be changing before I finally just gave up on it. I guess I’m not as much of a team person as I used to be. :o). Thank you, though, for all you contribute here. It is very much appreciated.

@yellowcastle said:
" @poshhammer - thank you for jumping back in. It is greatly appreciated, I think many of us picked up the irony on the repetitive like and subscribes. However, coupled with the last article and you being on holiday when this dropped fueled my concerns that we might be once again stirring the pot and then leaving us all to our own. I guess I just miss the old days when we had a more robust and engaging staff here. Nowadays, it’s more and more petty member squabbles and folks blocking each other. I’m thankful for these articles and for the differing opinions we all have, even those from @StyleCounselor when he’s not drinking. ;o)

@PurpleDave - I didn’t much enjoy my local LUG and our relationship with the local stores always seemed to be changing before I finally just gave up on it. I guess I’m not as much of a team person as I used to be. :o). Thank you, though, for all you contribute here. It is very much appreciated."

What??!! (burp, hic, belch) I luvz youz too.

Great article!

I was born in the 80s, so I had sets with baseplates, but I never loved them the way others here do. I find the depth of opinions in the comments interesting reading, I didn't realize passions ran so high....

As so many comments have been posted, I doubt many people will read this far, but I'll add two anecdotal points from my own experience.

Third party baseplates are widely available and though most are almost identical to official ones, I have one that came with a Chinese modular (original design, not a copy) that is the thickness of a plate and much sturdier (and black). It still has no anti studs, but the height lets you place it next to plates with no adjustment needed. Generally the quality of Lego-compatible pieces is worse than Lego sets, but in the case of baseplates, I'd recommend looking at third party alternatives.

Secondly my daughter is getting into Lego at the age of 4,and doesn't really build on baseplates, she'd rather build things she can hold and carry around to show us, or small rooms on a 8x plate where she can sit minifigs and mini dolls. Watching her I realize just how many more small pieces sets have these days, and how much more creative she can be in a small area vs me with bricks and large pieces. I wonder if we needed baseplates because we had Lego collections that were relatively small with more large bricks vs kids today? The comparison that struck me is 6720 vs 41754. 180 vs 200 pieces, and without the baseplate that would have been a bit of a sad island. Whereas 41754, a fairly typical friends set, is brimming with features and small details, and would in no way be improved by spacing things out on a 32x32 baseplate....

The space sets are similar, I think maybe we needed bases on baseplates because our bases just weren't as good as what you can get nowadays!

@PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers:
Fully aware of all of that. And I'm also aware, that you're aware, that this is largely not the case outside of Germany."
True, but I sometimes seem to have to reiterate where I'm coming from with my comments, because some other people always seem to think that I'm always negative just for the sake of being negative.
Which simply isn't true.
What I find strange is that this phenomenon apparently only exists in Germany, or so it would seem.
I mean, don't for example kids all over the world lose interest in LEGO once they get a smartphone? It can't be just a German phenomenon, can it?

Thanks for taking on such a hot topic!

Anyone who still thinks giant raised baseplates are a great idea has surely never tried to store them away. Huge, fragile, and all different shapes!

The rudeness of a person bothering to comment to say they didn’t finish reading the article, lulwut, why?!

Regarding Galaxy Explorer sales, in the UK it had one exclusive retailer, if it ever went on discount then I missed it and they definitely had no stock after retirement as I checked.

As far as “kids used to be able to count studs” goes, others have said similar, but check your knowledge. Some early baseplates have ugly white dots all over them guiding you like tracing paper.

Modern well written instructions are easier to follow yes, to be more accessible for more people, but for modern kids who want a challenge, they’ll just moc the same way you and I did.

Parents definitely want baseplates; they must be the best selling fake item out there. Whether kids prefer baseplates, who can tell. I can tell you that they get bent and damaged just as often by modern kids, and that they’re as poor and wobbly as ever for trying to pick up your creation. I watched a 4 year old turn a 16x16 plate into a giant vehicle, with wheels and every minifig he could find. Try doing that with a baseplate.

Someone mentioned Lego would never do anything like mils. Have a look at what Rivendell is built on, and many larger Friends sets. That’s the future of bases, and the better way to do mils. You too can escape baseplates forever!

@poshhammer said:
" @fy222 I should probably make an article about this, but I can tell you that designers don't care about the piece count. It is either they want more detail in or for build flow reasons, but never "to justify the cost". PPP is overwhelmingly an AFOL thing, THe LEGO Group dont need to have a high piece count to justify a price, look at The Hoopty. "

I want an Article all about the Hoopty and maybe the new X-Men Jet because that is just the strangest thing that they cost twice as much as any sane person would expect.

Thanks for the effort of explanation, but the conclusion isn't satisfying. Comes down to: TLC is cheap weile kids are dumb.
You may not be restricted to a square base, but you miss out on additional building space. You lose a layout grid. Also, this article implies that the new road plates should be WAY cheaper than the old ones, but on the contrary, the offer less surface (and road width!!!) for a higher price. They aren't bad pieces, but they also aren't a replacement.

@Anonym said:
" @poshhammer said:
" @fy222 I should probably make an article about this, but I can tell you that designers don't care about the piece count. It is either they want more detail in or for build flow reasons, but never "to justify the cost". PPP is overwhelmingly an AFOL thing, THe LEGO Group dont need to have a high piece count to justify a price, look at The Hoopty. "

I want an Article all about the Hoopty and maybe the new X-Men Jet because that is just the strangest thing that they cost twice as much as any sane person would expect."
A member (or in this case ex-member) of the design team might not have as much insight into that topic as say someone from the marketing or accounting team, but I would also really appreciate an article about pricing.
Because like you say, some sets have such outlandishly ridiculous RRPs (even if those sets don't appear to have a special reason for their exorbitant price) that one wonders if there actually is a reason we just don't understand, or whether those RRPs simply are a test in order to see how far LEGO can go before people stop buying a set.
The new Ninjago off-road Buggy is another example of such a set.

@AustinPowers said:
" @illennium said:
"So far, my thesis that the answer to every "what's up with that" will be "cost cutting" holds strong.

(Half joking. I did read the full article and appreciate the insights relating to imagination and how kids play, etc.)"
No need to call it joking.
The main reason for everything LEGO does is maximizing profit. They may throw some marketing BS hollow phrases at us about "creativity" and whatnot. Bla bla bla.
Bottom line is, baseplates cost more and eat into LEGO's profit margins. End of story.

Needless to say, I prefer baseplates over the crap we get for roads nowadays. Would also love to see current space sets with the awesome crater baseplates we had.

I pity the kids who have to grow up with LEGO nowadays. Can't see them growing up into AFOLs to be honest. I see this around me all the time with my kids, and those from family, friends and colleagues, that kids aren't as much into LEGO as we used to be. Plus they lose interest at a far earlier age than we did. Then again we didn't have as much choice as they have nowadays when it comes to how to spend our free time. "

Maybe kids nowadays don't want to be an AFOL snob who likes things from their childhood over anything else and complains about it online all the time...? Just saying. Kids will pick and choose what they like, and they likely aren't things their parents grew up with. Good for them. And if they do, that's cool as well. They might look at your old LEGO sets and pity you for not having what they have.

Also weird to suggest kids today aren't or won't be as creative as kids in the olden days, since raised baseplates in particular were created so you had a quick start with building without having to care for things like structural integrity or building a sold base. They were cool for what they were, but also quite inconvenient for playing and expanding, and as such not that far removed from Playmobil.

On topic: if you had LEGO castle sets, like I had and still have, baseplates didn't work particularly well. A lot of small sets were build on plates and the larger castles couldn't be attached, especially not when opened up. Unless you were building a modern LEGO City with a proper city plan and roads, baseplates weren't that useful.

I do use baseplates nowadays, mostly to indicate grass and water, but the 80s and 90s castles are just placed put on top of them, unconnected, simply because you can't attach them. Ironically, the newer buildings are quite a bit easier to connect to baseplates, even despite their more interesting, more organic footprint. I do like using white baseplates for my winter village.

@WemWem said:
"I am seldom one of those "IT WAS BETTER BACK IN THE DAY" types... but including baseplates in sets WAS better. I am not swayed by the arguments that empty space is better for firing kids' imaginations - I was a kid, and I LOVED the extra stud space to add my own builds, pose figures, or connect buildings together.

I had all of the WILD WEST sets and being able to connect all the buildings together into a town-sized configuration was a DREAM. I lived in a small house growing up with two siblings, and yet just a few baseplates across a theme allowed me to feel like I'd built up a whole city. It was great.

Specialized baseplates were even more exciting, and gave sets a sense of size and grandeur that is lacking among sets for kids today. Poolside Paradise is a particular favorite of mine.

So yeah, I miss baseplates. A lot. And I honestly think I'd be more open to buying LEGO City sets if they had them. I am sure the decision was made for economic reasons, and the "It's better for play to NOT have them!" argument feels like added rationalization."

Yep. Same. Not buying the anti-baseplate rationalizations at all. LEGO tables are COVERED in them !!!!

@PurpleDave: I'd forgotten about that Moonbase module! Nice to see it again.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @socal_bricks said:
" @fy222 said:
" @Patrik78 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"In my day,... Lego had only big, green, thick baseplates the height of bricks and could connect with each other vertically and horizontally. I don't think I got a 'wafer' baseplate for years.

As to the pertinent discussion, I prefer bricks for elevation.

Also, 10288 is a reminder to get it down and build it. Halloween will be here before you know it.

Nice article. "

Do you mean 10228?

Now give me enough courage to open my MISB one and discover all the brittle brown bricks inside..."

Has the brown brick issue not fixed by 2012?!

I thought it was only plaguing Cafe Corner and Green Grocer!!!"

It was certainly an issue at least until 2014 or 2015. I know a guy who recently bought a sealed 75059 Sandcrawler and had 20 pieces break on him as he was building it."

Ugh, I don't want to hear that! I have two still sealed. "

Just sell them on Bricklink or eBay. You'll probably make a tidy profit and someone else can be paranoid.

@Brick_Master said: "The comparison that struck me is 6720 vs 41754. 180 vs 200 pieces, and without the baseplate that would have been a bit of a sad island. Whereas 41754, a fairly typical friends set, is brimming with features and small details, and would in no way be improved by spacing things out on a 32x32 baseplate.... "
I... think you linked to the wrong set, there. 6720 doesn't have 180 pieces, and the closest thing it has to a baseplate is the top of the canister.

@AustinPowers< said:"I mean, don't for example kids all over the world lose interest in LEGO once they get a smartphone? It can't be just a German phenomenon, can it?"

My ten-year-old nephew doesn't have a smartphone, but he does have a tablet. Yes, he does spend a lot of time on it, but he has in no way lost interest in Lego; I still get him a set or two every birthday and Christmas. It really depends on the kid.

@AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead : of course I know it best. I know everything and my opinion is the only one that counts. Thank you for finally realizing the inevitable.

What I find the funniest is that you still haven't blocked me, even though I apparently am so horrible, so arrogant, so intolerant.

And yes, it would be interesting indeed to see what would happen if LEGO hired me as an advisor. (and listened to my suggestions).
Not that I would ever want to take such a job. Back when I was a kid I would have dreamed about working for LEGO. Nowadays I wouldn't want to work for them even if it was the last job available on Earth.

*Warning: this post might have contained traces of sarcasm. "

Why would I block you? The only person I have ever blocked here insisted on using insults to back up his fairly baseless arguments.

From all your comments I deduce that you are a fairly negative, nostalgic person that is a tad disappointed in LEGO because they do not release the things that you loved as a kid anymore (pirates, castle, classic space, baseplates (preferably raised ones),...).

I have no real issue with your opinions. I do have an issue with how you word them. You love voicing your opinion in a slightly exaggerated matter, not shying away from using words like hideous, crap, rubbish, ridiculous, etc.... You also you call other people out, calling their opinions ridiculous, and you just insist on backing up your arguments with your own limited experience, and when someone comes with strong counter-arguments, you just stick with your own opinion, which seems to be mainly driven by your nostalgia and your disappointment in LEGO.

Just a small piece of advice: maybe you could just say that you think a set is disappointing, and tell us why (colour choice, looks, size...), instead of just calling it hideous and crap. I think that would help.

Finally, I am still looking for the sarcasm in your post ;). I actually do believe you would never touch a LEGO job with a ten-foot pole.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @AustinPowers < said:"I mean, don't for example kids all over the world lose interest in LEGO once they get a smartphone? It can't be just a German phenomenon, can it?"

My ten-year-old nephew doesn't have a smartphone, but he does have a tablet. Yes, he does spend a lot of time on it, but he has in no way lost interest in Lego; I still get him a set or two every birthday and Christmas. It really depends on the kid."

My sister's kids, and some friends kids do have smartphones. And they do love sitting in a corner looking at that screen. But they also love playing with LEGO, or playing outside, or playing a board game. And the parents are actually smart enough to restrict the smartphone usage of their kids. Just like TV, one hour per day, and then it gets put away and they have to find another way to have fun. Surprisingly effective.

@AustinPowers said:
"What I find strange is that this phenomenon apparently only exists in Germany, or so it would seem.
I mean, don't for example kids all over the world lose interest in LEGO once they get a smartphone? It can't be just a German phenomenon, can it? "
Not sure if it's a smartphone thing, my nephews and niece all have had a tablet for years and the oldest one (11) now also has a smartphone, but they haven't lost interest in Lego. Not yet.

But looking back at my own youth (80s, early 90s), there was a distinct point where every kid stopped playing with Lego: When they switched from elementary to secondary education. When you stopped being a child, being hyper-aware of how others might look at you, and no one could ever know you still played with toys. So uncool, you'd probably stay a virgin forever! And this was in the era when you needed to go to a shop to get stuff, and what if someone saw you?

While it didn't immediately stopped me from building with Lego (mostly Technic at the time), interests shifted and slowly but surely I entered my dark ages...
(at least I kept everything, most would get rid of the stuff entirely)

It would be interesting to know if the "Adults welcome"-approach also changed how kids look at this. I mean, if your dad still plays with Lego, why can't you as a kid?

I myself am still a fan of baseplates/roadplates for my LEGO town/city Now that that LEGO has ceased making roadplates and they can only be purchased on the secondary market, I was surprised to find at my local Wal-Mart a pack of 4 roadplates manufactured from another company. The design and price point was identical to what LEGO was selling their roadplates for before they ceased production.

@WizardOfOss: I stopped buying LEGO during secondary education but that was primarily due to my dislike of the sets LEGO was releasing at the time (this was the late 90s/early 2000s). With recent access to the internet allowing me to view older LEGO catalogs, I concluded that LEGO's glory years were behind it as those discontinued sets from the 80s and early 90s looked much better than what was currently being sold in stores. I don't think being seen as uncool was really a huge factor for me - I remember being excited about the Legends rereleases when I was in high school.

@Ridgeheart: I keep hearing about discounts over in Europe but in the USA, discounts seem to be extremely rare (maybe I just don't know when/where to find them).

@AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers:
Fully aware of all of that. And I'm also aware, that you're aware, that this is largely not the case outside of Germany."
True, but I sometimes seem to have to reiterate where I'm coming from with my comments, because some other people always seem to think that I'm always negative just for the sake of being negative.
Which simply isn't true.
What I find strange is that this phenomenon apparently only exists in Germany, or so it would seem.
I mean, don't for example kids all over the world lose interest in LEGO once they get a smartphone? It can't be just a German phenomenon, can it? "

No, its is way worse than that. It is observable that a large portion of the human race lose interest in live human interactions when they get a smartphone. They may be interacting with some other humans on a keyboard far far away but they totally ignore the humans in the flesh which are right in front of them. A whole horde of zombies glued to their screen - to me, the biggest plague of the 21st century.

@MrBedhead said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @LordDunsany said:
" @Ridgeheart : I keep hearing about discounts over in Europe but in the USA, discounts seem to be extremely rare (maybe I just don't know when/where to find them)."

https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Marvel-Hulkbuster-Building-Adults/dp/B0BGQJV9HW

25% off at the moment. Still a big discount. Still a big pricetag. Still not sure you should buy it, but still, you still do you."

At 25% off I do not think it is massively overpriced for what you get. Agreed, it is not the best design, but there are a few awesome updated versions available on Rebrickable that use basically the pieces in the set, and vastly improve its looks.

Like this one:
https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-149429/Ransom_Fern/76210-iron-man-mark-44-hulkbuster-alternate-build/ "

"Dear TLG.

I am willing to give you money for your ugly, faulty, overpriced product. Don't worry, I will take it up on myself to fix things in post, so you don't have to. I hope this message finds you well, and you make take it as an endorsement to keep cranking out even uglier, more expensive sets.

Hugs and kisses,

Faceless Consumer."

Something like that?"

This is such a childish comment. Why should you follow the instructions LEGO gives to the letter? You could also get sets just for the pieces, or as a blank canvas to build something they prefer. One is not better than the other.
"It’s not childish to expect LEGO to put a little more effort into the design of a $400+ set. Some of us collect for what’s designed as much as if not more so than creating something ourselves. UCS Hoth similarly suffered, not due to a singular lackluster design but to a multitude of smaller regurgitated lackluster designs.

My kids love the raised baseplates but I agree with many here that they often complicate the build, especially the ones like in the 2006 hospital 7892.

Regular baseplates, however, are foundational…. to me …in my opinion ….outside of Germany.

@lluisgib said:
"Back in 2016 I got a statement from LEGO Community Manager that I published at HispaBrick Magazine

"The Service Station, for the first time, is not placed on a baseplate. We have seen over the last years that baseplates have disappeared from the LEGO CITY sets. Kim E. Thomsen, from the LCE Team, explained that baseplates are produced by a 3rd party and LEGO prefers to put the models on plates, which are produced by LEGO.""

LEGO used that reasoning for why they were moving away from 9Volt system for train as well. However, their reasoning is a bit flawed in the sense of: We do not want to use a 3rd party for this, so we will change it, and let third parties make money off of building 'compatible' base plates (or other parts we no longer make) instead. I mean I get that there is reportedly a cost in manufacturing as well, but still sound more like greed in the sense its costs too much to share with other companies to get quality parts made for system pieces that work.
What is also frustrating is hearing 'cost' concerns and 'hardship' increases from a company who reports record profits for the past 4 (or more) years. I get it if they were publically traded those companies legally have to make profits for the shareholders, but to all accounts I do not believe LEGO is such a company, if so then it mostly breaks down to greed (especially when the CEO is bragging about his Ferrari collection in almost the same breath as announcing their 'hardship' increases.
I mean it is what it is, they are free to do that, and Im free to stop buying, which I have mostly done, with only about three sets that I really want and Im planning on buying this year as apposed to getting 10-12 (mostly higher price points) each year or buying extras to get things like GWP (which have also 'gone up' in the sense that its takes a LOT to get those sets via LEGO).

I will always feel baseplates a necessary for a city layout… I want the ground to feel like it’s part of the LEGO world, too, and I like the cohesion they provide.

@Ridgeheart said:
"This is a corporation, @MrBedhead . You are merely a source of income, and a corporation is always going to try to cut corners as long as you let them. Have some self-respect. Dry your tears and demand quality, rather than apologising for a company that will never love you back."
I couldn't have said it better.
You often find a way to perfectly get across what I try to say but fail at - or it results in me insulting people because I get carried away by my emotions.

I sometimes agree with @MrBedhead (more often than he would probably believe), but sometimes I am of the complete opposite opinion, especially when he makes comments that make it seem as if he was working for LEGO or at least was overly apologetic for everything they do.

But his description of me some posts above is not too far off. I often see the negative aspects before the positives. And yes, I do prefer baseplates (though not necessarily those raised ones many are talking about). I especially like the old space crater baseplates and the first edition of road plates I had as a kid in the early Eighties. Of the raised baseplates I only have very few. The Paradisa Poolside Paradise one (6416) is a nice one, as are the two in the Aquazone Headquarter (6195).
One main advantage I saw in baseplates as a kid was that it was much easier to clean up after play. I set up my City and Space layouts in the living room, because my own room was too small for them. But my parents made me put away all my creations every evening. With the baseplates I could just lift everything up easily and put it away on a shelf or in the cupboard. With modern disjointed sets there are so many more bits and pieces and everything is much less stable. When we put away our Christmas layout these days more often than not sets break up when lifting them and/or trying to put them into storage.

I get that not having a baseplates can be liberating in terms of creative use of space. It's just I'm so conditioned by the old system and happy with it that I have a hard time adjusting to the new paradigm. I guess I never will. It's no ill will either, just the way I function.
Sorry for the load of personal gibberish. Ever since my dad died last year I feel like I'm not the same person anymore. Hard to describe.

@HOBBES said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers :
Fully aware of all of that. And I'm also aware, that you're aware, that this is largely not the case outside of Germany."
True, but I sometimes seem to have to reiterate where I'm coming from with my comments, because some other people always seem to think that I'm always negative just for the sake of being negative.
Which simply isn't true.
What I find strange is that this phenomenon apparently only exists in Germany, or so it would seem.
I mean, don't for example kids all over the world lose interest in LEGO once they get a smartphone? It can't be just a German phenomenon, can it? "

No, its is way worse than that. It is observable that a large portion of the human race lose interest in live human interactions when they get a smartphone. They may be interacting with some other humans on a keyboard far far away but they totally ignore the humans in the flesh which are right in front of them. A whole horde of zombies glued to their screen - to me, the biggest plague of the 21st century."

@HOBBES said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @AustinPowers :
Fully aware of all of that. And I'm also aware, that you're aware, that this is largely not the case outside of Germany."
True, but I sometimes seem to have to reiterate where I'm coming from with my comments, because some other people always seem to think that I'm always negative just for the sake of being negative.
Which simply isn't true.
What I find strange is that this phenomenon apparently only exists in Germany, or so it would seem.
I mean, don't for example kids all over the world lose interest in LEGO once they get a smartphone? It can't be just a German phenomenon, can it? "

No, its is way worse than that. It is observable that a large portion of the human race lose interest in live human interactions when they get a smartphone. They may be interacting with some other humans on a keyboard far far away but they totally ignore the humans in the flesh which are right in front of them. A whole horde of zombies glued to their screen - to me, the biggest plague of the 21st century."

YES! EXACTLY! I hate it, i realy do! I do not own a smartphone and i never will! I like to recognize things around me and if i have to wait for example at a doctor i just think! 20 people sitting in the waiting room and i am the only one not touching and looking at some sort of electrical a.i. Forming device. As well as no one notices that i am the only one just sitting and thinking. Socially disabled... So many people out there....It is beyond terrible!
I am not saying anyone should throw away their smartphones... But in fact i would if i would be the president of the earth.
I seriously dislike that the internet is 24\7 anywhere anytime in reach. What for by the way? Oh i know to grow the ball of transparent radiation! Yey!

@Oli

When I was living in the UK, my friends and/or colleagues and I had a rule:"when at the pub, the phones are off - not on silent, off." Every so often during the evening, you had to go to the loo - we used those moments to check for urgent messages. That being said, unless you are one of the military officers that have to respond to a potential nuclear strike by a rogue country, there are NO messages that are truly urgent. Even if someone is dead, they will remain dead for a few more minutes/hours (I'm deeply exaggerating this idea but hopefully, you get the point) . I also do not currently own a mobile/cellular/smartphone at the moment - which is often a pain as a lot of websites require sending an sms code as dual identification.

Recently, i was reading a document by some futurologue (futurologist I don't know) and they were predicting a few human body transformations due to the smartphones: bulgy eyes and hunched back were two of the least flattering ones. Let's hope this won't come to pass.

@bananaworld said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"(...)

I get that not having a baseplates can be liberating in terms of creative use of space. It's just I'm so conditioned by the old system and happy with it that I have a hard time adjusting to the new paradigm. I guess I never will. It's no ill will either, just the way I function.
Sorry for the load of personal gibberish. Ever since my dad died last year I feel like I'm not the same person anymore. Hard to describe."
Sorry for your loss, Herr Powers.

I for one like your gibberish on here. :-)
"

My favorite Grumpy German. I'm very sorry for your loss. Your feelings for your father show how great he was.

I, too, suddenly lost my Dad just before the pandemic. Lego helps. He loved toys and holidays- especially space and Christmas. Happy Easter.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @Ridgeheart said:
" @LordDunsany said:
" @Ridgeheart : I keep hearing about discounts over in Europe but in the USA, discounts seem to be extremely rare (maybe I just don't know when/where to find them)."

https://www.amazon.com/LEGO-Marvel-Hulkbuster-Building-Adults/dp/B0BGQJV9HW

25% off at the moment. Still a big discount. Still a big pricetag. Still not sure you should buy it, but still, you still do you."

At 25% off I do not think it is massively overpriced for what you get. Agreed, it is not the best design, but there are a few awesome updated versions available on Rebrickable that use basically the pieces in the set, and vastly improve its looks.

Like this one:
https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-149429/Ransom_Fern/76210-iron-man-mark-44-hulkbuster-alternate-build/ "

"Dear TLG.

I am willing to give you money for your ugly, faulty, overpriced product. Don't worry, I will take it up on myself to fix things in post, so you don't have to. I hope this message finds you well, and you make take it as an endorsement to keep cranking out even uglier, more expensive sets.

Hugs and kisses,

Faceless Consumer."

Something like that?"

You had me at ugly! (sigh, fluttering eyelashes)

Building a large city layout, combined with trains, was made attractive when I was a kid. Because of the base plates. I'd be fine with having smaller base plates (like 16x16, one plate thick), but I do miss a convenient road system nowadays.
The new road plates are nigh impossible to lift up without breaking into pieces. There is much room for improvement there. Like being able to connect them on the undersides for extra strength. In one go, that would make it possible to connect road plates to neighbouring plates with different colours while maintaining a straight line boundary.

Yes, we are.. I wrote a topic related comment just before ;)

The nasty stuff is what frightens me about a.i. and in a way, do we realy need all that? Isnt what we have created enough? Why is there this constand drive of everthing has to get easier for us?! To be honest, for me nothing is getting easier with all that technical and digital stuff.

For example. On the super nintendo, you take your cartrige, put it in, hit the power button and lets go!
A playstation 5 is faaaaaar behind. Sometimes hours of just downloading a game, then installing it, then check if you have enough space on your drive otherwise you need to delete a game. After installation, well nothing works without an update..

To me this is a freakin joke! To hell with grafics, the games itself never changed that much beside the grafics and its complexity. Complexity in a game feels realy minor because after you finished a game by storymode, there is only farming left to do. Another waste of lifetime in my opinion.

There is where everything goes, please dont talk to me about E-Cars! They are the worst!

I'm not gonna lie... I miss a LOT the raised base plates. I love the challenge of try to build new stuff on them.

I turned 40 this year, and for the past two months (and honestly the preceding several years) I've been feeling old about it. But after reading the last twelve hours or so worth of comments on this post, you know what? Maybe I'm not so old. Thank you, Brickset commentators, for being so mad about Kids These Days that I feel young again.

I had to roll my eyes at them getting away from baseplates because kids can’t count in a grid? Huh... I don’t believe making things simpler is going to benefit them. I digress....

As a Modular collector with a town that uses roadplates, I am glad that baseplates still exist in some form. I don’t mind the omission of them elsewhere. I can always throw it on a baseplate, like I did with 10228 Haunted House(I do think it could’ve benefited from a baseplate with a few yard details).

@PhantomBricks said:
" @HOBBES said:
" @Oli

When I was living in the UK, my friends and/or colleagues and I had a rule:"when at the pub, the phones are off - not on silent, off." Every so often during the evening, you had to go to the loo - we used those moments to check for urgent messages. That being said, unless you are one of the military officers that have to respond to a potential nuclear strike by a rogue country, there are NO messages that are truly urgent. Even if someone is dead, they will remain dead for a few more minutes/hours (I'm deeply exaggerating this idea but hopefully, you get the point) . I also do not currently own a mobile/cellular/smartphone at the moment - which is often a pain as a lot of websites require sending an sms code as dual identification.

Recently, i was reading a document by some futurologue (futurologist I don't know) and they were predicting a few human body transformations due to the smartphones: bulgy eyes and hunched back were two of the least flattering ones. Let's hope this won't come to pass."

I teach kids, and their posture is atrocious. What bothers me more is not their posture, but the resignation that they can't do anything to fix it. I teach them posture correcting exercises, but they probably won't understand how important the exercises are until they are much older. Increased phone and computer usage has done a number on their backs, necks, and shoulders."

That, is one of the many reasons I like the Brickset community so much (even those I disagree with sometimes). There are people from all walks in life and we get to benefit a little bit of the expertise of all . @purpledave contributes quite a bit on plastic injection moulding technology (I guess he works or has worked in that industry) some lawyers have contributed on copyright and IP issues etc. I suppose it's the same on all forum platform but I'm not using any except this one.

When I was a kid, I had SEVERAL warnings from my parents (mostly mum) about posture, not being too close from the TV (or being in front of the TV at all) and the level of sound in my ears - today, I still have no problems with any of those - but today's kids know better right?

@HOBBES said:
" @bigfanofnu said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"In my day,... Lego had only big, green, thick baseplates the height of bricks and could connect with each other vertically and horizontally. I don't think I got a 'wafer' baseplate for years.

As to the pertinent discussion, I prefer bricks for elevation.

Also,10228 is a reminder to get it down and build it. Halloween will be here before you know it.

Nice article. "

I was talking to another AFOL about this set because I told him i have one NISB. He said to be careful because the brown bricks are STILL very brittle. I know this is an issue with older brown bricks, but somehow in my mind, being sealed in the box avoided this problem. Buyer beware."

You are correct, as long as you leave it sealed in the box, no Lego bricks will be harmed. ;-)
"

it's the famous "Schrödinger's paradox": until you open the box, all the bricks are both new and harmed xD