Game: Monopoly

Image

jsper — 2008-09-05T13:53:01+00:00

Card in spanish in Vintage Edition

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

jeffreyac — 2008-09-04T15:02:54+00:00

We actually used to play this way - with longterm deals, i mean - and it led to some silly situations.

For example, a three-player game. I give up a property allowing my friend a monopoly in exchange for a lucrative trade, and 'immunity' as mentioned in the original post. Many many turns later, my friend trades this monopoly to the third player, as part of a big trade, getting immunity for himself in the process.

Later, I landed on the property in question - and was successfully able to argue that my immunity was still good from the earlier deal! (mostly because the second guy sided with me in the resulting argument)

This amounted to the third player having a monopoly, but unable to collect any rent from it...

This was pretty silly. We sort of lost interest in monopoly over time, as it always, without fail, ended up in an argument over something that broke up the game.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

russ — 2008-09-01T17:22:30+00:00

DaviddesJ wrote:
mtpoll wrote:
Anyway, The rules don't say anything about long-term deals. Doesn't cover them either way. I would have to assume, then, that they are allowed. Why not?

The rules also don't say whether you're allowed to take money from the bank when the other players aren't looking. I would have to assume, then, that that is allowed. Why not?
Stealing money from the bank seems a different sort of thing to me. It's an objectively testable and enforcable thing that financial transactions follow the rules. But it's a lot less clear how you can define and enforce that 2 players can't help each other for a long term at the expense of others.

If the rules permit players to sell things back and forth, that is basically a backdoor for letting people help each other. E.g. even if officially one is required to pay rent when landing on another player's property, what stops me from paying the $1000, then saying, "Hey, can I sell you this property for $1001? And then you sell it back to me for $1?", thus effectively not paying rent.

There's the common scenario of a couple, one of whom hurts himself to help his SO. How can you define that in a way that distinguishes it from someone sincerely believing he's making a good deal for himself, but he's just bad at math, or his strategic sense simply differs from yours?

You can say "But that's obviously not in the spirit of things!" But how do you define the spirit of things and draw the line? How can you define and enforce that a player can not make "long term" deals, when short term deals are explicitly allowed? How do you define "long" and "short"? Maybe it's one of those things that you just say "I know it when I see it", but at the very least it's not clearly definable like stealing money from the bank.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

mtpoll — 2008-09-01T16:52:42+00:00

Interesting question.. Where does shrewd negotiation end, and cheating begin? And who decides that distinction?

Clearly, when a group of people get together to play a game, they are usually friends, so they usually have similar expectations without having to explicitly discuss them. If you play with strangers, is saying "No house rules! This is purist Monopoly!" adequate to impart that you consider reneging on deals equivalent to cheating? I think not, since the "purist" rules don't cover this. Should we all just know that reneging is cheating? If so, based on what?

Here is my point: If a person existed who had never played Monopoly, but who was instead brought up on games like Diplomacy and Bootleggers (games in which deal-breaking is a matter of course), that person (Bobby, in my example above) might be confused and frustrated by your seemingly arbitrary perceptions about the necessity of honesty.

And again, what is fundamentally the difference between expectations of deal-making in Monopoly vs Diplomacy? Both are listed by BGG as negotiation games. But the extent to which negotiation occurs and the "rules" (in our heads or in the rulebook) we put on negotiation vary greatly. The near 50/50 split of my poll so far proves that. Hence my chart at http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2603659#2603659. I've thought about other factors in categorizing negotiation games, among them, "The extent to which deals are enforceable", but how would you put a value on that from one game to another?

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

DaviddesJ — 2008-09-01T16:25:33+00:00

mtpoll wrote:
Anyway, The rules don't say anything about long-term deals. Doesn't cover them either way. I would have to assume, then, that they are allowed. Why not?

The rules also don't say whether you're allowed to take money from the bank when the other players aren't looking. I would have to assume, then, that that is allowed. Why not?

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

mtpoll — 2008-09-01T15:03:10+00:00

For what it's worth, I checked my edition of Monopoly... There must be 1000 different editions of this thing, but mine is the "Deluxe Edition". It says 00011-IR1 on the box and the rules; I assume this is the edition number or something.

Anyway, The rules don't say anything about long-term deals. Doesn't cover them either way. I would have to assume, then, that they are allowed. Why not?

It does say that no money may be loaned from one player to another... That seems to be one of the few restrictions it places on trading. But that's not exactly the same thing.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

baba44713 — 2008-09-01T09:28:31+00:00

Correct answer is "If you are playing that way, you are not really playing Monopoly".

As much as I am an unfan of Monopoly, I still think it's a passable game if you follow the rules. Negotiation is allowed, but conspiracies aren't - and the original "agreement" between players in the first example is essentially a conspiracy against all the other players and should not be allowed to happen AT ALL, way before the latter issue comes up.

Consider this example - you play Monopoly with a married couple who agree in advance they are immune to paying rent between each other and who will share properties between them for minimal amounts of money. Is this a fair game which could be played to everyone's enjoyment?

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

DaviddesJ — 2008-08-31T17:41:59+00:00

mtpoll wrote:
Monopoly is technically listed as a "negotiation game", but what does that mean? If you have the safety net of a "no long term deals or alliances" rule, or unspoken social expectation that regening on deals is bad form, how "high stakes" is the negotiation?

The negotiation in Monopoly is hugely important. It determines the whole outcome of the game. Any group of players can trade amongst themselves to vastly improve their positions, by accumulating sets of properties ("monopolies"). The game is mostly decided by who accrues, for themselves, the greatest benefit from that trading phase.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

whac3 — 2008-08-31T15:16:09+00:00

mtpoll wrote:
Thanks for the responses. There seem to be a notable number of people who would expect Bobby to keep his word. And consider the second question: How would you have voted when you were still a casual gamer (assuming you ever were)?...

Can we really place Monopoly in the same game category as games like Diplomacy, in which reneging is condoned and a sense of paranoia (regarding backstabbery) surrounds the table at all times?

Thanks again for the responses.

My answer would not be different had you asked me when I was a "casual gamer" but I think the big difference between deals made in Monopoly and in Diplomacy is that in he latter games the rules state that deals cannot be enforced. Contrast with Dune in which the rules state deals are binding.

When I play Diplomacy, I know deals canand will be reneged upon. It's part of the game. Not so in Dune which is also heavily a negotiation game. Thisgoenot towhether or not Monopoly is or is not a negotiation game. I think clearly it is. The question goes to what STYLE of negotiation game. In Monopoly deals represent contracts between real estate companies which would be legaly binding contracts enfrcable in court. In Diplomacy deals representthings said among politicians. In both cases it makes sense in terms of the game. In trms of Dune, that game already has traitors and so betrayal can occur but only under the rules governing it, not whnever a player wants.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

mtpoll — 2008-08-31T13:28:46+00:00

Thanks for the responses. There seem to be a notable number of people who would expect Bobby to keep his word. And consider the second question: How would you have voted when you were still a casual gamer (assuming you ever were)? How would your Aunt Harriet and Uncle Bernie, who have never really played many games beyond Monopoly, Clue, and a few party games, vote on the above issue?

In case you're interested, I brought this up to illustrate a point that I'm trying to make on another thread... it's here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2604206 ... check out the 8th post down.

Monopoly is technically listed as a "negotiation game", but what does that mean? If you have the safety net of a "no long term deals or alliances" rule, or unspoken social expectation that regening on deals is bad form, how "high stakes" is the negotiation? Can we really place Monopoly in the same game category as games like Diplomacy, in which reneging is condoned and a sense of paranoia (regarding backstabbery) surrounds the table at all times?

Thanks again for the responses.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

whac3 — 2008-08-31T03:27:00+00:00

Sagrilarus wrote:
whac3 wrote:
evanbrooks wrote:
Alternatively, they could just beat him to death for destroying the basic integrity of the game.

Even though I would consider what the person did cheating-- with all whichthat connotes-- I would still consider this reaction a tad bit extreme.

Is beating him to within an inch of his life a reasonable compromise?

Sag.

Hmm... Not sure. I'd have to see it demonstrated on the guy.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

Sagrilarus — 2008-08-31T02:07:23+00:00

whac3 wrote:
evanbrooks wrote:
Alternatively, they could just beat him to death for destroying the basic integrity of the game.

Even though I would consider what the person did cheating-- with all whichthat connotes-- I would still consider this reaction a tad bit extreme.

Is beating him to within an inch of his life a reasonable compromise?

Sag.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

whac3 — 2008-08-31T01:25:19+00:00

evanbrooks wrote:
Alternatively, they could just beat him to death for destroying the basic integrity of the game.

Even though I would consider what the person did cheating-- with all whichthat connotes-- I would still consider this reaction a tad bit extreme.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

evanbrooks — 2008-08-31T01:11:00+00:00

Demand immediate recission of the contract, i.e., since the acquiring player has refused to stand by his contract, the players should declare the initial deal null and void -- therteby forcing the two players to trade back their properties to one another.

Since properties cannot be traded with houses, the player who has shown the bad faith would be penalized by receiving only one-half of the cost of the improvements as per the standard rules.

Alternatively, they could just beat him to death for destroying the basic integrity of the game.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

whac3 — 2008-08-31T00:47:38+00:00

I'd not play with rules that allow a dea of this type either but if one DOES play with such deals, I would think them binding because it was aprice to be paid for the sale ofthe property.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

Sagrilarus — 2008-08-30T23:36:10+00:00

Bobby did everyone at the table the favor of revealing his nature in a situation where absolutely nothing of value was at stake. I'd let Bobby do it. I'd deem it an exceptionally bad move in a much larger game.

Sag.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

Dearlove — 2008-08-30T20:12:49+00:00

kevinb9n wrote:
In fact I don't know any examples of games that do allow "future promises" and actually consider them to be binding.

There are a few. Right now the only one that springs to mind is Quo Vadis, where we can make a deal where I vote for you now, and you vote for me in my next turn. But it's a strictly time-limited deal, a deal to vote for me in my turn after next isn't binding.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

kevinb9n — 2008-08-30T18:17:31+00:00

In fact I don't know any examples of games that do allow "future promises" and actually consider them to be binding.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

DaviddesJ — 2008-08-30T17:54:12+00:00

Imagine playing a three-player game of Monopoly with two other players, who agree on turn 1 that they will play until most of the properties are sold, and then they will flip a coin and the loser of the coin toss will sell all of his properties to the winner for $1.

If such agreements are binding, then, at this point (before any dice have been rolled), they each have a 49.9% chance to win the game, and your chance is about 0.2%. How do you feel about that?

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

DaviddesJ — 2008-08-30T17:51:31+00:00

Can I choose, "I would have quit the game as soon as the players started conspiring with one another?"

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

thatmarkguy — 2008-08-30T17:21:37+00:00

When the deal is first discussed (and before it comes to pass) I'd make sure all players are on the same page regarding the enforceability of such a deal. Either everybody knows it's binding and everyone will expect the promiser to follow his word, or else have it be perfectly clear to all that all future-consideration deals are unbinding and at-your-own-risk.

Even if it's not within the rules-as-written, to me, it's just important to make sure everyone is playing with the exact same interpretation of the unwritten rules in play. A problem like this only arises if two people have different expectations of what the current game's rules are. Obviously, one player expected such deals to be enforceable and one did not. And this conflict came up way too late to have a 'fair' resolution.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

Dreadnaut — 2008-08-30T17:12:47+00:00

If they tried, I would object. Then point out the rule. If they still went ahead with it, I would then begin cheating too. I mean, if people are going to ignore rules, then I guess I will too. When finished, I would never play with those people again. But I've never come across that type of poor sportsmanship before. I've had arguments/discussions as to interpretations of rules, but never have seen someone purposely ignore a rule.

I play that any rules changes have to be agreed upon prior to the game starting, otherwise it has to be RAW (Rules As Written). I doubt any would would try it with me because I clearly state that we will be playing RAW before starting any game of Monopoly.

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

mtpoll — 2008-08-30T17:00:19+00:00

Can you stop two other players from making such a deal? If they tried, would you object, saying it was against the rules and that you had agreed on no house rules? Would you quit the game and walk away?

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

Dreadnaut — 2008-08-30T16:44:11+00:00

You may not trade free rent or future considerations, so I would never play this way. I don't play with any house rules (it makes the game way faster).

Thread: Re: Reneging on long-term deals

mtpoll — 2008-08-30T16:27:49+00:00

To what extent do you think being a board game enthusiast affected your decision? In other words, if you were a casual gamer, would you have answered differently?

Thread: Reneging on long-term deals

mtpoll — 2008-08-30T16:26:00+00:00

If you haven't played Monopoly in a number of years, try to think back to when you did. I'm going to present a short scenario, then I'd like your opinion on it.

Bobby is enjoying a nice game of Monopoly with several total strangers. All players are strangers to each other as well; among them is Jimmy. Bobby has Boardwalk and Jimmy has Park Place. Bobby wants Park Place, so he outlines an elaborate trade that Jimmy finds acceptable. One condition that Bobby offers Jimmy is that Jimmy will have total Boardwalk / Park Place immunity for the rest of the game. That's right. Bobby will have a monopoly, but it can never hurt Jimmy, because Bobby has agreed to extend permanent immunity to him. The trade is made.

But on his next roll, Jimmy lands on... you guessed it... Boardwalk. By now Bobby has decked it out with hotels, and the rent is massive. Jimmy isn't worried, he has immunity....

But suddenly Bobby says "Pay up, chump!"
Jimmy: "No. I have permanent immunity."
Bobby: "I'm revoking it. You've been had. You shouldn't have trusted me. Now pay up!"

If you are one of the other players, what do you think?

[poll=13420]

Thread: Re: Anyone of the World Edition?

jimmcmahon — 2008-08-28T18:02:34+00:00

Here's an article about it being played at Hasbro yesterday for a new World Record.

Jim

Thread: Anyone of the World Edition?

joeharris — 2008-08-28T17:11:28+00:00

Does anyone here have the new World Edition?

If so, how is it?

Thanks

Image

Knoxy143 — 2008-08-27T02:02:20+00:00

Monopoly Board given to participants of the 2004 UK Monopoly Championships with names of all those who took part printed in the centre.

Image

Knoxy143 — 2008-08-27T02:00:10+00:00

Monopoly Board given to participants of the 2004 UK Monopoly Championships with names of all those who took part printed in the centre.

Thread: Re: Nationals rumors

Tostie14 — 2008-08-24T12:04:38+00:00

I'll confirm that yes the US Championship will be in New York in February. While they have not yet announced dates, I would guess that it's very likely that it would coincide with the New York Toy Fair in mid-February.

Additionally, the World Championship will be in Las Vegas in October.

I'm producing and directing a documentary about the game of Monopoly called "Under the Boardwalk." We plan to film at both the US & World Championships and follow some of the top Monopoly players from around the world. You can check out a few clips at http://www.MonopolyDocumentary.com .

Thread: Nationals rumors

SailorAnch — 2008-08-24T00:59:39+00:00

I've heard rumors (on the internet, so they must be true) that there is a U.S. tournament scheduled for February in New York, as well as a world championship in Vegas later in the year.

Can anyone confirm?

Thread: Re: Another "No Dice" Variant

Der Das — 2008-08-16T21:21:30+00:00

Larry Levy wrote:
But you do have such a timer, Mark--the card deck. Simply play that you go through the deck so many times. Once the deck is exhausted for the last time, finish out the round and end the game.

*snip*

In order to determine how many decks the game should consist of for each number of players will require some playtesting. But you already knew that. Oh yes, an elegant way of using the extra components.

The size of the game-deck can have a direct relation to the number of players because of the way the cards are being used. Since suit color is meaningless here, you could finetune things by determining the number of required 1-6 suits per player at start in combination with the number of times the game-deck will be used up. Multiply both and you have a timer of X suits.
Increase/decrease X to play a longer/shorter game. This kind of timer means there will be a fixed number of turns.

Thread: Re: Another "No Dice" Variant

Larry Levy — 2008-08-16T18:38:31+00:00

mtpoll wrote:
Now if we only had a game timer... some way of saying "the game is over after X rounds, and at this pre-determined point, we'll count up assets and declare a winner." This would end the problem of the game becoming a never-ending tedium, another common complaint.
But you do have such a timer, Mark--the card deck. Simply play that you go through the deck so many times. Once the deck is exhausted for the last time, finish out the round and end the game. I'm not saying that's the best way to trigger the ending (other methods have been proposed, such as playing until the first player is eliminated), but if you're looking for a timer, you've already created it.

In order to determine how many decks the game should consist of for each number of players will require some playtesting. But you already knew that.

Thread: Re: Another "No Dice" Variant

Der Das — 2008-08-16T13:44:44+00:00

mtpoll wrote:
Now if we only had a game timer... some way of saying "the game is over after X rounds, and at this pre-determined point, we'll count up assets and declare a winner." This would end the problem of the game becoming a never-ending tedium, another common complaint.

But exactly how many rounds should mark the "game over by timeout" point?Literally "game is over after X rounds" on the board would work as a timer mechanism. The first person to land on/beyond START after say 10x, triggers the end of the game.

Wealth could also work as a timer where the acquiring of Y in capital+property becomes the goal of the game. The amount Y should be coupled to the value of a certain property since the bill denomination varies between editions. For instance 10x the most expensive property.

In both cases, a score track for property value could be implemented if you want. This prevents having to do the maths over and over.

I'm probably reinventing the wheel here. This has quite likely been discussed many times, but I didn't research this. Just discussing.

Thread: Re: Another "No Dice" Variant

mtpoll — 2008-08-16T02:34:23+00:00

sure.. with two cards each you can still "roll doubles", maintaining the possibility of taking extra turns for doubles, or going to jail after your third double in a row.

Now if we only had a game timer... some way of saying "the game is over after X rounds, and at this pre-determined point, we'll count up assets and declare a winner." This would end the problem of the game becoming a never-ending tedium, another common complaint.

But exactly how many rounds should mark the "game over by timeout" point?

Mark

Thread: Re: Another "No Dice" Variant

Der Das — 2008-08-15T13:55:41+00:00

I like your variant Mark, even though I probably won't ever get round to trying it.

Larry's additional suggestion of 2 cards per player sounds perfect. It better allows for the possibility to trade cards or even to help eachother by trading a single card because there are more cards in play.

I would allow for the trading of both cards, either with a single player or two different players.

Thread: Re: The Only Child Plays Monopoly

mejustjustin — 2008-08-15T12:44:48+00:00

Hahahahaha, this is funny. :P As funny as your geek badges, not sure I should be asking here, but why do you have a Christian, Atheist and Evolution badge?

Thread: Re: Another "No Dice" Variant

Larry Levy — 2008-08-15T03:16:12+00:00

Might I suggest you take the Ace, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 cards from two decks and use that instead? Deal two cards to each player at the start of the game. Each player's movement is the sum of the two cards in front of him (which duplicates the way the dice are used in the standard game). That way, you can continue to use the same probabilities to estimate how you might move the next turn. At the end of each player's turn, he draws two more cards, which will be his movement the following turn unless he trades them away. This way, each player has a full round to trade his cards.

I'll leave it up to you if you think players should be able to trade just one of their two movement cards (receiving one in return, of course). It's an interesting variant, Mark; let us know how it plays when you try it out.

Thread: Another "No Dice" Variant

mtpoll — 2008-08-15T00:39:05+00:00

I know there have been a thousand suggestions to make Monopoly a little less random, and perhaps something like this has been suggested already, but here's my two cents...

Throw out the dice... you won't need them. Instead, take a regular deck of playing cards. Remove the aces and face cards, leaving only the numbered cards (you'll have four each of 2-10, and suits don't matter).

The bottom line is that these cards dictate movement, not the dice. Furthermore, these cards can be traded and sold just like any other asset in the game.

At the beginning of each round of play (including at the start of the game), there is a "draw phase", in which every player draws one of these cards and shows it to the table (these cards are always face up.. always public knowledge) each player, on his turn, will move the number indicated on his card during that round. However, at any time movements cards may be traded (add cash and properties to these trades, if you see fit!) Will a trade prevent an opponent from landing on your awesome property? Then get in on the deal-making! Pay your other opponents to not aid the victim! Promise them a cut of the profit when your victim lands on your awesome property (of course, promises can always be broken...).

This adds a bit of strategic depth without being too intrusive, and it may even make Monopoly into a game of negotiation and back-stabbery... my favorite!

Let me know if you try it out,

Mark

Thread: The Only Child Plays Monopoly

Holmes! — 2008-08-14T16:58:17+00:00

So, I posted this in Chit-Chat, but it seems apropos to throw it over here, where interested parties may find it...

Thread: Re: So flawed -- so lasting

Fortuna — 2008-08-13T19:45:44+00:00

(Calvin Daniels)
So flawed -- so lasting

Oh, it LASTS, all right. That's one of the flaws, isn't it.

(Richard Hutnick)
This being said, Monopoly isn't a bad game. It is a decent game. It is just that people don't play it correctly.

I played it recently, the right way, just to test that theory. It was still awful.

(Charles Hasegawa)
Monopoly has only "stood the test of time" due to pure marketing.

...and ignorance, and fear of the unknown, and childhood nostalgia...

Thread: Re: So flawed -- so lasting

jschlickbernd — 2008-08-13T19:34:53+00:00

Monopoly is an elimination game though. And many times people feel they have to keep playing even though it's obvious who is going to win. These are just two core issues that can't be denied. A family activity should involve the family, not just a couple of people who keep rolling dice until someone finally goes bankrupt on Boardwalk (I know that's not the only way to win, but you get my drift).

I think the BGG community interested in family games are looking for games that don't have those two attributes and that's why I think Monopoly gets a bad rap here.

Thread: Re: So flawed -- so lasting

mjtuell — 2008-08-13T18:40:02+00:00

Tatsu wrote:
Monopoly has only "stood the test of time" due to pure marketing...

I don't think it's quite that simple. I loved Monopoly when I was a kid and preferred it to many other games that were probably marketed more intensively to my demographic at the time. I also liked Payday -- it must have been the play money.

Honestly, though, I feel that one of BGG's faults as a community is that we inevitably take our own aesthetic(s) a little too seriously. Some people can take legitimate pleasure in watching a dynamically random situation play itself out. Monopoly is just a kind of elaborate wind-up toy and serves as a perfectly good diversion for many, many people who don't need to agonize over "meaningful decisions" in their spare time.

Thread: Re: So flawed -- so lasting

Talisinbear — 2008-08-13T18:07:21+00:00

Actually the theme sets are the only redeeming aspect of this piece of junk.

If you have to endure this gaming pergatory at least be fun to buy a Natioanl Hockery League stadium of a piece of Middle Earth or some such rather than Baltoc Avenue

Thread: Re: So flawed -- so lasting

docreason — 2008-08-13T18:03:39+00:00

Tatsu wrote:
Monopoly has only "stood the test of time" due to pure marketing. It has household name recognition which means the older crowd will pick one of these when looking at a wall of games they've never heard of. The fact that they have a bazillion versions of theme tacked on means that you can find a version of the game that should match anyone's taste.

The other thing that has allowed this game to flourish, is that nearly everyone plays the game with house rules that change the game from what it should be - an auction and negotiation game. Even then, the randomness of the game and the player elimination make this a game that will not typically appeal to the BGG crowd.

Well stood the test of time, not just marketing, but it appeals the the inner desires of people to own real estate and get rich bankrupting others. The Parker Bros. version of the game was launched during the Great Depression, and provided people a fantasy outlet.

I know Geeksters (BGG folk) would want to trumpet the whole gameplay over theming (that explains the bruhaha over Agricola), but for most people, a game is a fantasy and escape to live out what you normally can't do. So, if a game gets mass exposure, and ends up appealing to a core fantasy of people, it will sell.

This being said, Monopoly isn't a bad game. It is a decent game. It is just that people don't play it correctly. Also, track and dice is the typical form of boardgames in America, so it is WAY overused. You have seen it far too often. Not sure Monopoly should be faulted for it being in this form.

I will say the real tragedy for Monopoly is the mindless retheming to EVERYTHING in order to get it to sell. I mean beyond the real estate area. I'm not talking about the likes of the dotcom version (it added a few wrinkles), the Mega version (added fundamental changes to speed up the game, while providing more real estate), or even the updated one with modern pricing and real estate. Also, "Advance to Boardwalk" shouldn't be counted either. I am referring to the NASCAR, sports, Star Wars, and Harry Potter versions. These give the base game Monopoly a bad name, in my assessment. Even "Make your own Opoly" would count as this.

By the way, back in the 1990s, when "Ameritrash" was discussed on rec.games.board, the mindless theming of Monopoly is exactly what I saw in my mind for the term. Not a term of affection for theme driven games coming out of American, but slapped on themes on derivative play mechanics. Pretty much what is done with Euros, minus innovation in play mechanics (ok, call it a gimmick).

Thread: Re: So flawed -- so lasting

Tatsu — 2008-08-13T17:06:42+00:00

Monopoly has only "stood the test of time" due to pure marketing. It has household name recognition which means the older crowd will pick one of these when looking at a wall of games they've never heard of. The fact that they have a bazillion versions of theme tacked on means that you can find a version of the game that should match anyone's taste.

The other thing that has allowed this game to flourish, is that nearly everyone plays the game with house rules that change the game from what it should be - an auction and negotiation game. Even then, the randomness of the game and the player elimination make this a game that will not typically appeal to the BGG crowd.

Thread: So flawed -- so lasting

Talisinbear — 2008-08-13T10:43:07+00:00

If you were going to pick one game which was full of gaming flaws yet has stood the test time and sold countess copies, you would probably end up picking Monopoly.

This is one of those games which truly is unusual. First published in 1935, the game was designed by Charles Darrow, Elizabeth J. Magie and George Parker, and the fact you can find it on the toy shelves of any big department store today shows it has survived the test of time – only two years shy of 75 now.

It is a game almost everybody has played at least once, and many households harbour a copy in some closet of the basement alcove.

Yet, the game has some serious gaming shortcomings too.

Let's deal with the flaws first.

To begin with the components leave much to be desired. The money is always a piled mess, requiring pre-game, in-game, and post-game sorting, which is basically tedious work to play the game.

The pieces are small and frigidity. It's hard to get four houses properly situated on any property location, and should one ever fall to the floor it's easily lost where it becomes a hazard should it be found by a young child, or a bare foot.

The game is also designed for two to eight players. With two or three it is slow to develop and rather boring. With more there is some joy provided as friends land on your property and have to dole out the cash, but as players lose out they are forced to watch, which has to be the height of boredom, or they are off to the TV which is what you are trying to get away from with a boardgame. The best multi-player games keep everyone involved until the end, such as Ticket To Ride.

As for the mechanics of Monopoly, it's a double barrel case of luck. Your piece moves on the whims of the dice gods, and depending on where you land you can find yourself drawing a Treasure Chest or Chance card, which adds yet another layer of luck.

The lone aspect of skill is the ability to wheel and deal to some advantage.

On the positive side, you can teach the game pretty quickly to anyone.

And, the game obviously has a level of popularity given its continued sales. It's one of those games that always seems to be under the Christmas tree for someone.

Of course it helps that the game has been licensed to a number of sports leagues and other interests, resulting in multiple editions of the game being produced with collectors in mind. There are Monopoly games dedicated to particular cities, to the National Hockey League, NASCAR, Disney, the U.S. Marines and Army, Chronicles of Narnia, Pokemon, The Simpsons, Harley Davidson, Spiderman, Elvis and Star Wars to name a few, and that has opened the game to new sales. It is likely there are now people who simply collect Monopoly editions.

There is even cross marketing, with familiar Monopoly icons showing up on sneakers, glasses, and even a series of Johnny Lightning collectible cars.

As flawed as the game is, Monopoly isn't going anywhere. It will remain a board game standard. It may not be one to run out and buy, but it is one everyone should play once just so they can determine for themselves if the game has merit.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Session report

Caliburn — 2008-08-08T16:27:04+00:00

I have to agree with Corbain; Monopoly doesn't scale down well with two players.

The only way I play Monopoly these days is with these two house rules:

1. When you land on a property, EVERYONE can bid on it. Highest bid gets it
2. Game ends after 1 hour (if not finished before then). Player with the largest amount of money wins.

Saves hours of time

Thread: Re: Why Hobby Gamers Don't Like Monopoly

MisterCranky — 2008-08-07T15:17:47+00:00

I'm always amazed at the numbers of people who claim to have never played Monopoly with the printed rules. The longstanding short rules for Monopoly make the game--amazingly enough--much shorter than the standard game, which, by itself, is really not that long if people don't drag the game out incessantly with ridiculously involved trading sessions. People who really know how to play Monopoly know instantly whether or not a deal will benefit them and play accordingly. Since hobby gamers apparently includes such a tiny subset of the people from the previous sentence, that has some bearing on the former's overall enjoyment of the game.

I have been a hobby gamer for as long as I've been playing Monopoly, and Monopoly is a critical part, for me, of the hobby. I suppose if I were a professional gamer I might hold some different view....

Thread: Re: Why Hobby Gamers Don't Like Monopoly

cfarrell — 2008-08-05T17:24:04+00:00

As a quick follow-up, I would suggest that anyone who wants to try to bridge the gap between Monopoly players and players of "our" games should actually play Monopoly, correctly, with 4 players, a few times. The salient features players often miss are:

- Auction properties players opt not to buy;
- Interpret the deal-making rules strictly, i.e., allow trading of cash, properties, and get-out-of-jail-free cards, but disallow "futures" deals like rent immunities, purchase options, etc.
- Avoid the Free Parking optional rule like the plague
- Don't use the Speed Die included in the most recent edition of the game

Additionally, I recommend the following:

- Play with exactly 4.
- Play to two bankruptcies (then counting assets) instead of to the last person standing (this is a minor variant of the included "short" game).

I did this recently and found that Monopoly was a surprisingly entertaining game. It's not on the level with modern games, but realizing that Monopoly and modern games are really just not that far apart makes it a lot easier to talk to someone when you mention that you're a boardgame fan, and they say "like Monopoly?". Because you can basically just say "yes" and talk about what's good about Monopoly that modern games have improved, instead of going on a harangue about all Monopoly's problems.

Thread: Re: Why Hobby Gamers Don't Like Monopoly

cfarrell — 2008-08-05T17:02:07+00:00

I think the question of why we don't like Monopoly is complicated, and not really that strongly tied to runaway leaders or other high-level gameplay elements (although Monopoly does have a few tuning issues, more on this later). Hobby gamers love Age of Steam, which is of similar length to Monopoly and has a runaway leader problem that is at least as severe. Player elimination is certainly an issue, but hobbyists also like games where players are "virtually eliminated", again like Age of Steam or Brass or Civilization (or even Settlers of Catan), or eliminated outright, like Titan. The "unfair resource distribution" is a feature of many games "we" like, and Monopoly arguably mitigates it by being a deal-making game.

I think there are a couple more pressing things:

- Monopoly is a trading/deal-making game. This sort of game tends to be much less popular amongst hobbyists, who apparently prefer much more tactical games (I think this makes the Acquire-Monopoly comparison unfair; Monopoly is a deal-making game, Acquire a strictly tactical one. To me, it's apples and oranges). There is not one single deal-making game anywhere in the BGG top 50, despite having a bunch of great modern ones available to choose from (Chinatown, Traders of Genoa, Bohnanza, and Quo Vadis, for starters). Only Settlers of Catan, which is not quite the same thing.

- Most people of our age have never played Monopoly correctly, and so may have bad experiences with it. The 3+ hour playing times reported by players are most likely linked to two things. Firstly, the very popular Free Parking optional rule which drags the game out substantially. Secondly, players frequently allow very wide-ranging deals (rent immunities are a huge culprit here) which are not technically allowed by the rules, which only allow players to trade cash and properties. Allowing these sorts of deal is very problematic and can dramatically lengthen the game.

Monopoly tends to be marketed to a much younger demographic than seems reasonable, and those younger kids are more likely to play Monopoly as an experience rather than a game, thus the popularity of this style of play. But as an adult these features turn into problems.

- Monopoly's biggest structural problem, in my opinion, is that it simply doesn't scale well. Monopoly plays perfectly well with 4 players. But with 5 or more, you have a lot more cash in the game (because everyone starts with the same amount regardless of the player count) and so it's going to take longer to end and have a long period with players eliminated and the ultimate winner obvious. Also, with the same number of properties available, more than 4 players leads to a dramatically higher likelihood of getting in an unplayable position (not enough property) due to the roll of the dice, especially for players later in the turn order who have a pretty high chance of getting hosed (you really, really don't want to be player #5 in a 5-player game). Monopoly desperately needs a house rule to reduce the amount of cash in the game with more than 4 players and to give later players a better chance with 5+ players in the game. A better practical answer seems to be just to play with 4, the number for which it seems to have been designed.

Thread: Re: Why Hobby Gamers Don't Like Monopoly

Philip Thomas — 2008-08-05T14:10:25+00:00

What makes the 'runaway' leader problem so infamous in Monopoly is the potential length of time playing after the leader has become clear. Since Monopoly is often played as a family game, conceding is not usual, players preferring to carry on to the bitter end.

The problem is also generally worse in multiplayer games than in two-player games, partly because conceding is less acceptable in multiplayer as you might affect someone else's position and partly simply because it is more people dying slowly.

Image

aleacarv — 2008-07-24T15:52:20+00:00

board and compounds (by brazilian's publisher Estrela)

Image

race9 — 2008-07-16T06:23:44+00:00

1974 Limited Edition Monopoly

Image

race9 — 2008-07-16T06:22:04+00:00

1974 Limited Edition Monopoly

Image

race9 — 2008-07-16T06:21:01+00:00

1974 Limited Edition Monopoly

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-15T07:06:38+00:00

Wonder of The World Monopoly Front Box

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-15T07:05:22+00:00

Wonder of The World Monopoly Game

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-15T06:53:03+00:00

Passport - Wonder of The World Monopoly Board