Dieter
Administrator
Dieter
Joined: Jul 23, 2014
  • Threads: 11
  • Posts: 3209
September 20th, 2021 at 8:11:52 PM permalink
Quote: Wellbush

Quote: Dieter

Why, it's almost as if they've monopolized the limited resources for exploitation.

  • link to original post

    and?
  • link to original post



    .... that is the goal of the game.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    Wellbush
    Wellbush
    Joined: Mar 23, 2021
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 824
    September 20th, 2021 at 8:50:37 PM permalink
    Quote: Dieter

    .... that is the goal of the game.

  • link to original post

    personally, i think the game would do better if there was a restriction on property purchases. like make the game more closely fought. E.g. for two players, no player can buy up more than half of each side of the board. for three or more players, adjust the max. number of properties that can be bought accordingly. then there may be more wrangling for properties and more thought given to the value of the properties
    All persons reading my posts gamble at their own risk, as I do. I don't ordinarily dispute math. I may dispute math I don't understand, or if I think it's faulty. I am not a conspiracy theorist.
    Dieter
    Administrator
    Dieter
    Joined: Jul 23, 2014
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 3209
    Thanks for this post from:
    Wellbush
    September 20th, 2021 at 8:58:53 PM permalink
    Quote: Wellbush

    Quote: Dieter

    .... that is the goal of the game.

  • link to original post

    personally, i think the game would do better if there was a restriction on property purchases. like make the game more closely fought. E.g. for two players, no player can buy up more than half of each side of the board. for three or more players, adjust the max. number of properties that can be bought accordingly. then there may be more wrangling for properties and more thought given to the value of the properties
  • link to original post



    Fascinating observation about the nature of unbridled capitalism and possible remedies, but we're way off topic for the thread.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    Wizard
    Administrator
    Wizard
    Joined: Oct 14, 2009
    • Threads: 1423
    • Posts: 24357
    September 21st, 2021 at 6:28:55 AM permalink
    This thread is a split off from the Discussion of the Suspension List.

    The only rule I don't like in Monopoly is "income tax," requiring a payment of 10% of all your assets. It is a pain to add them all up. When I play, I eyeball it and suggest that as the fee.

    Here is a question -- do you think immunity deals should be allowed? For example, if you do this trade (that is in my favor), the first so-many times you land on my monopoly you won't have to pay. I think not.

    Those of you who like games based on capitalism might like Settlers of Catan.
    It's not whether you win or lose; it's whether or not you had a good bet.
    ThatDonGuy
    ThatDonGuy
    Joined: Jun 22, 2011
    • Threads: 110
    • Posts: 5413
    September 21st, 2021 at 6:36:36 AM permalink
    Quote: Wizard

    Quote: rxwine

    Cool! As a kid, if we landed on Free Parking we got a bunch of money.



    I hate that rule! It is not to be found in the original Parker Brothers rules.



    There are quite a few rules that "aren't in the original (or current, for that matter) rules":
    Money for landing on Free Parking
    $400 if you land on Go rather than just pass over it (I am assuming this started because Careers does have a "double the normal amount if you land on the start space" rule, and somebody got confused)
    You have until the next roll of the dice to collect rent on your property (I think it's actually three rolls)
    If you land on a property and don't buy it, no one else can during that turn (actually, the property goes up for auction)
    You can arrange houses and hotels any way you want (on any particular color, they need to be "balanced").

    The "balance rule" leads to an interesting situation: suppose you have hotels on the three green properties (Pacific, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania), but you have to sell one, and 29 of the 32 houses are already on the board. What happens?
    Answer: you can't just sell one hotel, as that would mean there would be 33 houses on the board, so you have to keep selling - and in accordance with the balance rule, you have to sell all three hotels, then keep selling houses until you can place just three of them (one on each property).
    billryan
    billryan
    Joined: Nov 2, 2009
    • Threads: 217
    • Posts: 13347
    September 21st, 2021 at 6:44:27 AM permalink
    We don't allow " future" deals such as trade me Marvin Gardens and I'll give you a one time free rent card you can use whenever you want. I personally like putting some money in free parking. It adds chaos to the game and an unpredictable game is more fun. I think a well-executed plan will defeat dumb luck most of the time, but free parking money can throw out a lifeline that adds volatility to the game.
    The difference between fiction and reality is that fiction is supposed to make sense.
    Dieter
    Administrator
    Dieter
    Joined: Jul 23, 2014
    • Threads: 11
    • Posts: 3209
    September 21st, 2021 at 6:53:25 AM permalink
    Quote: Wizard

    Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.

  • link to original post



    ... that, I believe, is one of the lessons The Landlord's Game was intended to demonstrate.
    May the cards fall in your favor.
    Joeman
    Joeman
    Joined: Feb 21, 2014
    • Threads: 35
    • Posts: 2094
    September 21st, 2021 at 7:09:49 AM permalink
    Quote: Wizard

    Quote: rxwine

    Cool! As a kid, if we landed on Free Parking we got a bunch of money.

  • link to original post



    I hate that rule! It is not to be found in the original Parker Brothers rules. Monopoly is a carefully designed balance between skill and luck. The free parking rule only throws this off balance, by making it too much luck. Too often does a good competitive game get ruined by one player getting a windfall from free parking and building hotels on all over the board.
  • link to original post

    Not only that, but this flooding of more currency into a fixed-price economy is what makes the game last 6 hours (or indefinitely) rather than 1.

    Quote: Wizard

    The only rule I don't like in Monopoly is "income tax," requiring a payment of 10% of all your assets. It is a pain to add them all up. When I play, I eyeball it and suggest that as the fee.

    I agree, but typically as the game goes on, I find my assets tend to either easily total over $2000 (so I pay the $200 max limit) or way under enough where counting them up does not take that much work!

    Also, it stinks when you roll a 4 to start the game, but makes it really easy to figure your taxes!



    Quote:

    Here is a question -- do you think immunity deals should be allowed?

    Maybe in a 2-person game, but generally no as it is unfair to the other players.

    Quote:

    Those of you who like games based on capitalism might like Settlers of Catan.

    I tried my best to like that game. It has both cards and dice, so it should be extra fun, right? But I've always found it to be more frustrating than fun. I will still play it if everyone else wants to, but in my gaming circle, Settlers has earned the title of "The game that looks like it should be lots of fun, but isn't!"
    "Dealer has 'rock'... Pay 'paper!'"
    EdCollins
    EdCollins
    Joined: Oct 21, 2011
    • Threads: 19
    • Posts: 1559
    September 21st, 2021 at 7:28:43 AM permalink
    MANY years ago some of my poker-playing buddies and I would get together and play Monopoly.

    Monopoly has three big drawbacks. (Well, maybe more than three but at least three.)

    One, there's not a lot of decision making. Not really. If you land on a property, you purchase it! (Yes, even the utilities.) This is because the value of each property is far less than its actual cost. (Furthermore, you can always turn around and mortgage any property and get 50% of your money back.) Simply by owning a single property, you make it impossible for any of your opponents to build houses or hotels on the other properties of that same color group, since ownership of all properties in each color group is required to do so.

    When you DO acquire all properties of a single color-group, you quickly build as many houses/hotels on it as you can afford, even going so far as to mortgage all of the other properties you do own, if necessary, to raise the cash needed to purchase the houses/hotels. Not hard to figure any of this out either.

    Two, the game can be overly long. (This is especially true if one plays with the common but silly "Free Parking Rule" that says anyone who lands on the Free Parking square gets all of the taxes and other payments that have been paid. This is NOT and never has been a real rule and the home rule is not ideal. It's not a good home rule. When one increases the potential revenue for each player, without also increasing the taxes, liabilities, payments, etc., the game will naturally last longer, as it's now harder to bankrupt someone. It can last a long time as it is. No reason to add a house rule that will make it last longer.)

    And even without playing with this silly Free Parking rule, the game can take awhile to finish.

    Three, and most importantly, going last or even second-to-last, in a five or six player game, is a huge, HUGE disadvantage! If you're last, for example, for the first several turns all of the other players have already rolled and purchased property ahead of you! For the next several turns you will almost always be landing on property that was un-owned a moment ago... but because a player ahead of you landed on it first and purchased it, you now not only can't purchase it yourself, but owe them a little rent!

    All three of the above drawbacks of Monopoly can be remedied with a simple rule change, which is this:

    All properties cost exactly double their printed value.

    So, what is the result of this change?

    For one, now every property that is landed on IS now a decision. Do I purchase it at double the price? New York Avenue is definitely worth $200... but is it really worth $400? If I purchase this at double the price, will that leave me with enough cash for other properties, potential fines, etc? If I pass on purchasing it, when it goes up for auction can I get it for a little less?

    At times some properties will indeed still be worth double the price, but many (most) others will not. You will simply not have enough money to purchase everything you have an wish, hence the decision making.

    And, if a player chooses not to purchase a property they land on, the rules state the bank immediately puts that property up for auction. The initial bid price would start at $1. And everyone, including the player who passed on it, can bid on it! You could now potentially get it for less, if no one else wants it.

    Many, if not all properties will be put up for bid in this manner, so now there's almost no disadvantage for the player going last, or second-to-last. The players going last can bid for that property and have a chance to own it, right along with everyone else.

    This rule will also reduce the amount of cash everyone has, since most all properties will indeed be purchased for more than their printed price. With a bit less cash available, it's now easier to become bankrupt! You have to manage the cash you have much more carefully.

    The game is now much more a game of decisions on what properties to buy, how much to bid, etc.

    There's also a bit of bluffing now too, by bidding on properties you really don't want, in an attempt to raise the bidding price a bit. Just be careful you're "bluff" isn't called!
    EdCollins
    EdCollins
    Joined: Oct 21, 2011
    • Threads: 19
    • Posts: 1559
    September 21st, 2021 at 7:35:47 AM permalink
    Quote: Wizard

    Here is a question -- do you think immunity deals should be allowed? For example, if you do this trade (that is in my favor), the first so-many times you land on my monopoly you won't have to pay. I think not.

    Yes, That was part of the fun for us. We did, however, require that all FREE RENT deals, as we called them, be written down on a piece of paper.

    We had two types. Those of which were transferable and those that were not transferable. If they WERE transferable, a player could sell his FREE RENT pass to another player if so desired. The player who initially offered and sold the FREE RENT pass would be honored to accept it whoever presented it to him. Obviously, a transferable FREE RENT pass was worth more than one that was initially sold as NOT transferable.

    • Jump to: