#>#>#># 8.) Fun Factor and Negotiation: Much of the fun of Monopoly comes from
#>#>#># the fact that you can trade almost anything for anything. You can
#>#>#># trade Illinois Avenue and a get out of Jail free card for Oriental
#>#>#># Avenue, Pennsylvania Railroad, and $200 - or whatever combination
#>#>#># you'd like. This is my favorite part of the game, as the shrewdest
#>#>#># dealer frequently (barring terrible luck) wins the game. It's
#>#>#># possible that one person can bog down the game if they refuse to trade,
#>#>#># ever; but I just skip those people when playing this game.
#>#>#> In my experience, no one ever likes to trade anything in Monopoly,
#>#>#> making the game pointless.
in games of combined chance and skill, those without skill will often
seek to avoid exercise where skill comes into play. Monopoly combines
the elements of a race game (entropic) and negotiation game (dealing)
and a good number of players are more interested in the pastime of
a Snakes-and-Ladders race into Bankruptcy than having to confront
the issue of how shrewd their bargaining skills may be in contest
with other players.
it is far easier to assess relative wealth in aggregate, by stack of
bills or property-ownership or house/hotel ownership, than assessment
of the 'soundness' of a trade of real property, especially given the
potentialities of possible future trades, luck, and where these are
likely to intersect.
#>#># Typically, the only reason you would want to trade is to gain another
#>#># property in an area where you are trying to build a monopoly. Since
#>#># this is very detrimental to other players, my experience has also been
#>#># that few people ever want to trade.
it may be that it connects, as does the original game "The Landlords Game",
to very real-world woes, and therefore solicits sympathy from those who
see the problem of constructing what will increase the entropic fall of
players from continued participation.
the immediately above is a overstatement. trades are sometimes valuable
for other reasons within a game like Monopoly. they may lay the
groundwork for successful negotiations later (sacrificing something
that will help another player without gaining ground to monopoly in
the short term, or helping another player in the shadow of a third).
#>#># I've never played a game of
#>#># Monopoly that was fun... it's just a question of how many times
#>#># you're going to have to roll the dice before the game will be over.
that's probably because of the entropic gradual nature of the whole.
your preference is apparently something in which some specific victory
condition may be met by particular player without driving others out
of the game. there are variants of Monopoly that allow this:
time limit Monopoly during which the object is to
accumulate the greatest worth in the brief duration
(one might just as well play the game 'Life')
'Bankruptcy' rules such that players who have been
driven out have one or more opportunities to restart
with some handicapping assets (in which case the
objective may change to acquiring the most wealth)
#>#> But even where no-one gets particularly lucky, two players should trade
#>#> and break the resulting deadlock. If no-one else has the wit to do
#>#> anything, they just ensured that one of them will win.
the weakness of Monopoly is as a strict race game during which no player
gains through use solely of the dice the financial advantage. in fact,
the OPPOSITE is supported by such variants as "Beyond Boardwalk and
Park Place", where the race game is downplayed and the likelihood that
all players will, strictly by luck, not be able to buy up all those
properties upon which they land. this almost ensures that the VERY
lucky *and* skilled will acquire only what they need to win and thence
become reduced in their funds needed to build, or that trades of some
kind must take place before anyone will make any headway.
negotiation is not required. the "fun" of the game will depend on what
aspect of the game is most valuable to the player. if the race game
aspect of Monopoly is enjoyed, then never negotiating and slowly dicing
and moving about collecting $200 at each Go can result in a never-
terminating escalation that is enjoyable to all of those who like this
type of continuing game. in this case "winning" in an ordinary sense
of the rules is not either important or possible. we might find that
our aims revert to previous versions of the game itself.
if the "fun" of the game is applying skill to achieve progress toward
victory through the means available (particularly negotiation), then
negotiation will become imperative to compensate against dicing luck,
and shrewd assessment of real goods in trading will be the skill that
is tested one against another. these *two types of gaming* make
Monopoly somewhat unusual, and derive in part from the bifurcated
origins in socialistic ("Landlords Game") and capitalistic
theoretical principles (the first seeking to preserve the infinite
game, the second seeking to drive the game to a screeching halt)
which may war against one another (I've seen fights break out)
as different characters of people come to play it.
#># Unless there are no two player deals that work. The only game I've
#># played with all gamers left no two players able to make a deal (no person
#># had two properties in any set - except for the one player with two
#># railroads). Trying to find a stable three player deal - especially if it
#># had to be made two players at a time with opportunities for reneging
#># (I'm not sure of the rules there) just wasn't doing to happen. Collapse
#># of game and reinforcement of belief this was not a game worth playing.
there's a good way to test this. amongst 4+ players distribute the ownership
of all properties on the board and 200$/each at the outset of the game.
complex dealing will then become a necessity for the game to easily end,
and such complex negotiations may not be within the skillset of those
playing.
#> In that case, I'd certainly try to arrange a deal with another player
#> that left both of us with two of a set. And likewise, if another player
#> offered similar deals, I'd take them. It'd still leave both of us in a
#> better position.
that is correct. movement *closer* to a monopoly is better than no
movement at all where the interests are its conventional victory.
that said, since there is a hierarchy of real estate value and its
likely rental return, it will surely the case that no satisfactory
deal can be easily arranged on the basis of deals with property alone.
in this case supplements with cash will need be included, or in the
case of variant games, the nefarious "Free Lands" may become one
way to ensure game closure within a reasonable time period.
# The problem is, Monopoly is a zero-sum game. You can only win
# if other people lose.
your point is essentially sound. the game of Monopoly can become
endless where no negotiation takes place and entropic degradation
never exceeds the bottomless Bank's $200/round (often supplemented
with $400 on a Go-land and more for "Free Parking". for some this is
considered a more pleasant result than multiple-bankruptcies (i.e.
for those who want to play a race game without an end -- fruitless
by ordinary standards) and for others this is considered tedious
because it never actually concludes (those actually interested in the
game of negotiation and capitalism which Monopoly typically becomes).
for those with this latter interest, the dice and the luck of the
roll are actually somewhat of a PROBLEM. they reduce the power and
exciting return of skill at shrewd dealing (compare trading games
with cards like Settlers of Catan or strict card games), whereas
games of strict strategy like Chess or Go or Checkers don't
ordinarily suffer so.
a similar criticism by strategy-players is levelled against games
like Backgammon, because it relies so heavily on dice-throws
for its completion. if someone's 'luck is with them', goes the
complaint, there's no way to prevent them from winning. and yet
in neither Monopoly nor in Backgammon is this entirely true. the
latter player may actually carry out the lucky rolls on the Back-
gammon board poorly, and regress through error and loss of men to
the Bar. in Monopoly the skill-weakness of negotiation can bring
the lucky into the same ruts of bankruptcy as those without luck.
for this reason those without familiarity with negotiating real
properties are often better off avoiding negotiations if they do
have good luck during the game (buying up 1 of every property-
set, acquiring a meager Monopoly which will gradually break the
rest of the players but at a much less corrosive pace.
regardless of the terminology ("zero-sum game" etc.), the fact
is that Monopoly is what Carse calls a "finite game" -- it does
require the maneuvered termination of play of all other players
in the game in order to achieve its general victory conditions.
many games of this sort exist and are fun. one of the downside
to Monopoly is that this termination may be gradual, driving
one and then another player out before the others (so it becomes
boring for those who are driven out -- at gaming events those
who are forced out sometimes play short games until the conclu-
sion of the larger entropic competition). board games of this
sort require what I would call agreed aim-oriented activity in
order to be won in their original victory condition assignment.
one example is Risk, which I'm now studying in all its forms,
having played all of my life and recently acquired a PS2 version
of the game after being dissatisfied with the computer-game.
if any or all other players decide to opt out of aim-oriented
activity (in Risk this is attacking others, rather than sitting
back and collecting 'spoils' reinforcements and doing nothing;
in Monopoly this is attempting to buy or negotiate toward the
possession of a monopoly of properties), the game might be
*indefinitely* prolonged.
my brother and I used to change the game objective in Monopoly
to accumulating the most *money* by the end of the game (at
times setting a time limit), and allowed the winner to sell
off all real estate at board value to reach a measure-marker
"Grand Total Worth" which we'd log on the cardboard game top.
comparably, my wife prefers to turn the game into an INFINITE
game by role-playing during the course of Monopoly and trying
to get everyone their own self-sustaining economic structure!
as you might guess, she's an anarchist, and so the aim of the
original game of Monopoly is not something she finds fun in
any way *unless* she introduces these sub-goals/sidegame
RPG elements. this morning she and I talked about this thread,
and brainstormed ways to add RPG elements to Monopoly, talking
about Riskopoly, and many of the variants of each I've seen
while researching these, which she's more interested in
considering than why negotiating and capital are so important.
agreement as to game objectives (aim, in the above) will likely
determine what was called at the beginning of this thread the
"Fun Factor". for people like the original poster, negotiation
is part of this aim and part of the fun. for those whose skills
at negotiation is inferior or whose aim is at variance with the
capitalistic use of property to drive people into bankruptcy
and resolve the game with a single standing victor, this aspect
of Monopoly will greatly reduce fun content.
back to the original reason for the thread, however....
when considering the original game and its playability, the
lack of incentive or *requirement* to negotiate does become
a negative when everyone's game objectives aren't inspiring
them to engage aim-oriented activity. in Risk, House Rules
sometimes act to *prevent or punish* this failure to engage,
to participate in the game as designed. the same might be
achieved with a House Rule incorporated into the game of
Monopoly also. I'll try to imagine some below.
my point in doing this is that I agree with the criticism,
and think that ANY game can be compensated for its
weaknesses. therefore criticism that an ortho-version of
any game has problems places the responsibility upon the
CRITIC to offer a rules revision if the game's aims are
a premise of that criticism. not only does this remove
the dogmatic emphasis on ortho-rulesets, but it allows
for ruleset-comparisons, ruleset-competition, and game
REFINEMENT, rather than repeated handwringing and
gripes about dogma without any helpful outcome.
------------------------------------------
Variants Serving to Require
Aim-Oriented Activity in Monopoly
and Preserve its Negotiation-Play
------------------------------------------
the gridlock which develops with widely-arrayed
properties through random distribution via dice
or initial dealing causes games of Monopoly to
potentially become endless, especially when
there is no penalty for failing to engage
in aim-oriented activity, taking risks. these
few rules are suggested as method to prevent
that condition and allow for more enjoyable
games of Monopoly amongst those who are really
interested in the original rules (or some
variant whose aims are the same).
---------------------------------
Socialized Property Liquidation
---------------------------------
once the last property offered for
sale by the Bank is purchased,
all players with single properties must,
as a block, sell ALL of them back to
the Bank at half their board-value in
order support the real estate business
infrastructure.
---------------------------------
this first is a top-down dissolvency of
"colour-set collections" at a later point
in the game after monopolies could have
been negotiated if they'd been possible.
it penalizes all for failure to acquire
or deal sufficiently in "property blocks".
----------------------------------
Repossession is 9/10ths of the Law
----------------------------------
any property of a group whose entire
colour is in a number of private hands
and upon whose space any *2* non-owning
players land is immediately STOLEN by
the landing players; they may negotiate
a deal between them to establish one of
them as owner, or if they fail to resolve
such a deal within a given time limit,
the property goes up for auction to the
highest bidder in the game that is not
in Jail, including the owner; the sale
money is divided between the two players
landing on the property, even if one
of them was the high bidder on it; if
another player should join them, then
the process repeats with *3* players
involved in the property space and a
new auction should they fail to deal;
once a monopoly is established with
the property it is immediately
protected from such "repossession".
---------------------------------
this second affects properties from near the
beginning of the game (should all of the block
be purchased early on -- e.g. Light Blue), and
therefore it gives people incentive to avoid
stand-alone properties, or "protect" them from
"repossession" by getting a monopoly, whether
by luck/purchase or through negotiations.
it compares with the advantages offered in
doubling of rent and building opportunities
to those with monopoly-blocks, except that
it punishes the unlucky who haven't yet
had or *made* the opportunity to consolidate
and deal with those other colour-block owners.
---------------------------------
Pairs or Better To Open!
---------------------------------
when the final property of any property-
group (3) whose other properties are not
both owned by a single player (a pair) is
purchased from the Bank at auction or
directly, the new buyer selects one of
the 2 properties and it immediately
reverts ownership to the Bank without
recompense to the original owner; those
sets with 2 properties and players
with PAIRS of Railroads are exempt.
---------------------------------
this variant penalizes those who do not focus
on the acquisition of pairs or monopolies,
forcing a merry-go-round reversion of ownership
to those who cannot negotiate or purchase to
this status for their properties.
===============================================
criticism of these variant rules and addition
of other possible 'fixes' very welcome. I've
just arrived in this newsgroup as part of my
life-long research on board games, having
enjoyed playing for years and looked over
some of the excellent history offered up by
such sources as Parlett and others.
thanks!
Rookie-Move
nagasiva@luckymojo.com
|
|