Cite?
I doubt anyone playing the mostawesomest game ever invented would willingly switch to the mostlamestlongestboringest game in the world.
Why, yes, I was in on that three-week Risk game in Bill E’s basement back in '67.
I’ll admit I haven’t played Monopoly in years. And when I did we had a mess of house rules so I don’t know if I’ve ever played the official version.
But from what I recall, a problem with the game is that luck usually trumped strategy. (Assuming you consider this a problem. Some people probably would think this is a good thing.) The strategy was pretty simple: land on properties and buy them. If you’re lucky you landed on the right properties to get a monopoly. Trading was really irrelevant - nobody except a bad player would trade away or sell the third property to any opponent who needed it to complete a monopoly.
So you needed to rely on luck. If you were the lucky one, you got your three properties and then you built them up. If you were the only one who had a monopoly because all the other groups had divided ownership, you were pretty much guaranteed to win. If two players each had a monopoly, it was back to luck to see which of them would break the other players and then their competitor first.
The “strategy” was essentially to hope the dice would give you the lead and then coast to victory. The only other “strategy” involved was to play weaker opponents who you could convince to trade or sell you the properties you needed to win.
You’ve not played the game correctly or with enough players then. In a four player game, nobody gets a natural monopoly. Nobody. I mean, yes, it’s possible, but highly, highly unlikely. Even in a three-player game, if one person gets a natural, then it’s up to you to deal with the third person and figure out a deal to make yourselves competitive, otherwise, the person with the monopoly is simply going to win. It is usual to trade monopoly for monopoly. Of course you’re not going to trade the last monopoly property somebody needs for just cash or property–you’re only going to do it for another monopoly and some cash/or give some cash.
The easiest marks are the one who think Boardwalk-Park Place is the best monopoly to have. It’s great if you have a large bankroll, but almost useless early in the game. It’s the least landed on monopoly, and it costs a shitload to develop. Early to middle game, the orange properties are generally the most desirable, and give you the best bang-for-buck. That and the red properties are my favorites. I will gladly trade away Boardwalk or Park Place to anyone needing that for a monopoly, if they have the orange or red property I need to complete a monopoly. Better still, neophytes overvalue this monopoly so much, that I can usually talk them into giving me cash in the trade, too. So that limits their ability to improve, and I can immediately start building houses. Now, granted, that is a simplistic example, but that’s the sort of action this game revolves around.
So it’s either about getting lucky and finding a natural monopoly, or capitalizing on someone else’s stupidity?
No, it’s about determining trades that are mutually beneficial to both players. Pulykamell’s point is that newbies can be distracted by shiny stuff and he uses that to his advantage. After a few games against puly, I assure you, the not so newbie anymore players will be less likely to take him up on his offer of Park Place and Boardwalk when they see him creaming them with St. James Place.
Exactly. That example was merely illustrative to show an obvious example of exploiting differences in skill. Once you get past that newbie type of dealing, the trading becomes much more subtle and, in my opinion, interesting. But, yes, “capitalizing on stupidity,” if it’s at the table, is part of the game. The entire premise of the game is to wheel and deal come up with mutually satisfactory trades between players. Naturally, you’re going to do your best to maximize what you get in the deal.
Also, a natural monopoly doesn’t mean crap, unless you’re playing 2 players. Monopoly is not a good two player game. Three is better, but four feels about right to me. Even in a three player game if somebody gets a monopoly, it’s nowhere near a sure win. The other two players should, at this point, start trading properties to form their own monopolies, otherwise they are sure to lose. If the third player is a little new at this and not getting the point, it’s up to you, as the negotiator, to appraise them of the situation and convince them to make a trade, and why it makes sense, what will happen if they don’t, etc. I mean, sure, sometimes you get the obstinate player that doesn’t get it. That happens, but usually they figure it out.
Speaking of liars…
The most fun I’ve had in Monopoly is when a player (usually a losing one) decides to auction off a property to the highest bidder. I’ve seen players reach ridiculous sums to secure a monopoly - or block one.
Louis CK does a bit about playing Monopoly with his young daughters in his latest special and talks about how the total annihilation of a Monopoly loss is a tough thing for a kid to comprehend.
Here’s a 2-minute clip from his Leno appearance which includes the relevant clip from the standup special. (For me, this first played a 30-second warning that Hulu was unable to play the required ad, but then the clip played normally.)
If you’re interested, the entire special can be downloaded from his website for a $5 payment via PayPay or Amazon. (I thought it was well worth it, but I’m a fan.)