Why can't people play Monopoly by the actual rules?

[Delicious Taffy]

I've played countless games of Monopoly, and I've read the rules, but I've never actually participated in a game that goes by the RAW. Everyone has to come up with some random house rule that does nothing but slow it down. I mean, if you want to play more, just wait until this round is over and we'll start over. It doesn't have to drag out for the entire length of a Lord of the Rings movie. Here are a few stupid rules I've had to deal with:


"You have to wait until you've gone around the board at least once before you can even do anything."
"Landing on Free Parking means you get a bunch of money from the middle of the board, which by the way was collected through various means."
"You can't buy a space you're not currently on."
"Being in jail means you're basically out of the game for a couple of turns."
"You can ask other players for loans."
"If you're asked for a loan, you MUST provide one."
"Going bankrupt means someone else takes over for your piece."


And so on. I also can't seem to get a consistent answer on how much cash you're supposed to get, because some people want to start really low, while others want to basically start off with an empty bank. Can we at least come up with some fun house rules, for once? Either play by the RAW, or you'll keep getting long, drawn-out, boring games that go on forever and never actually get a conclusion, since everyone keeps leaving the game out of boredom. Actually, screw it. I know I've stated previously that being a GM isn't for me, but if that's what it takes to make Monopoly fun, I'll gladly bite that bullet.


/Rant

[Rynjin]

To be fair, Monopoly was literally DESIGNED to be un-fun.

Which is why it's interesting that so many people want to make it even LESS fun.

[Silfir]

I've tried quite hard to get the only person who I've played Monopoly with in the last couple of years to play by the actual rules. I managed to convince him not to put money into Free Parking, but he thinks auctions are too complicated. Predictably, our last game ended in a "draw" when he got bored.

He is, however, seven years old.

That may be a central issue: Monopoly is being bought as a children's game all the time, but children don't know how auctions work, let alone understand why the game is less horrible if you use them. But its children for whom handling money and buying property has any novelty factor at all. In other words, children want to play, but rarely understand how, and adults usually don't want to play, and because all their knowledge from the game derives from when they didn't know how to play it as children, they continue not knowing how to play it as adults and don't care enough to learn how.

I have yet to play the game, ever, with a full table of people who understand the rules. I likely never will, because if I should ever become part of a board gaming group of four people who care enough to learn the rules of the games they play, there are lots and lots of other games I'd suggest first.

[Erloas]

I've never played when someone actually auctions off property. But the one that always gets me is free parking, there are a lot of people that think that is RAW.
I am surprised so many people still buy the game. It isn't that great and there is a whole world of really good board games out there now.

[danzibr]

"You can't buy a space you're not currently on."
Wait... there's a way to buy a property you're *not* on?

EDIT: Oh right, yeah, auctions. Rarely comes up, forgot about it.

Also, I've done pretty much all of those variants at some point or another.

[cobaltstarfire]

I've never played when someone actually auctions off property. But the one that always gets me is free parking, there are a lot of people that think that is RAW.
I am surprised so many people still buy the game. It isn't that great and there is a whole world of really good board games out there now.

I'd be willing to bet it's because it's traditional, and most people aren't serious enough about board games to know better, or to want to try something more interesting.


Though I've always kind of had fun with monopoly, we never finish, but the social interactions can be pretty entertaining. The last game I played (several years ago) one player had the worst streak of luck and kept ending up in Jail, which was pretty entertaining. Meanwhile someone else was amassing a huge housing empire and making a big show of it.

I don't really know the rules of monopoly though, we'd start out with so much money, and play, then buy things as we go around the board doing things the board tells us to do and such. Never did auctions or anything like that....though I think we did have the "no buying things until you're around the board once" thing.

I don't own a copy of the game but now I want to actually find and read the rules to see what it's supposed to be like...

[Erloas]

There are some things that require a lot more time than everything in the rest of the game. The income tax one is usually enough of a pain that pretty much everyone just pays the simple value.

The best moment of the game though was one time when I was playing with several of my cousins. One cousin was having some bad luck so he tried to sell "iceberg insurance" to the player with the battleship for some extra money, they didn't take him up on it. A while later someone knocks over a drink and a piece of ice goes flying across the table and smacks the battleship right off the board.

[AdmiralCheez]

These are some really strange houserules. I don't see how anyone would play with some of these. I don't really like Monopoly to begin with, but these few just sound pointless and against the point of the game.




"You have to wait until you've gone around the board at least once before you can even do anything."

What purpose does that serve? Just to roll around the board for a tour before you start fighting over it? It just seems like a couple of turns of nothing before the game actually starts.


"You can ask other players for loans."
"If you're asked for a loan, you MUST provide one."

What? So you land on someone's hotel, and can just ask them to loan you the money? The point of the game is to bankrupt the other players, not bail them out!

[Triaxx]

Sounds like someone with a future in politics. :)

About the only rule I ever changed was to auctions. We went to silent auctions, so there wasn't a huge amount of shouting. Everyone interested made a bid, and the seller picked the one they wanted. Saved a fair bit of time.

[Kish]

What? So you land on someone's hotel, and can just ask them to loan you the money? The point of the game is to bankrupt the other players, not bail them out!
It might be so that people can keep playing until one of them has enough IOUs to call in everything everyone else has and win, instead of people dropping out one by one and having to find something else to do. Of course, that presupposes that you actually want to play a three-or-more-players game of Monopoly until one player wins, which is some pretty extreme masochism.

[AdmiralCheez]

It might be so that people can keep playing until one of them has enough IOUs to call in everything everyone else has and win, instead of people dropping out one by one and having to find something else to do. Of course, that presupposes that you actually want to play a three-or-more-players game of Monopoly until one player wins, which is some pretty extreme masochism.

If people want a game that keeps all players in the game until someone wins, I don't think Monopoly is for them. Besides, most games of Monopoly I've played become pretty obvious on who will win around halfway through, and the only person that wants to finish is the leading player. Everyone else either straight up quits, or just half-heartedly goes along to the end, and only one person ends up having fun.

[Winter_Wolf]

Auctions? Wait, what? Damn I was never told about any auctions in Monopoly. True I haven't played it since I was, eh, hem, well maybe 10 I guess? Otherwise I don't recall having ever played with any of those other house rules. Maybe the jail one. Don't you just have to try to get doubles to get out else pay a fine after three failed attempts?

To be honest, I have zero intention of subjecting my children to Monopoly or myself to playing Monopoly with any children so with any luck effort at all I'll find a more useful way of teaching them about handling money.

[theMycon]

Because the game was originally designed to make winning suck- and thus, showcase that making money without adding wealth was Evil.

Lizzie Maggie designed "The Landlord's Game" to showcase the evils of capitalism, and demonstrate that rent-seekers were just leeched living off the hardworking proletariat; and that land speculation was evil- (AKA, easy money), and the best way to benefit the most players was by nationalizing stuff.

It didn't play well, AND the game was boring; so Charles Darrow took the idea, removed the educational aspects & the best ways to produce wealth, and used her work to make money by selling "his" boring game to Milton Bradley.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2986/was-monopoly-originally-meant-to-teach-people-about-the-evils-of-capitalism

[veti]

From memory, I think my family used to play pretty much RAW. I never heard of the "free parking" nonsense until this very thread.

"Asking for loans" was never formally part of the game, but is there any actual rule against it?

The point of bailing out another player is to increase the number of variables in the game when it's going against you. If one player owns six hotels, you own three, and the third owns a smattering of houses - you might be willing to pay the third to keep playing, rather than see all her properties handed over to the guy who's already set fair to wipe you out.

In a similar vein (I'm very rusty) - is there any rule against private sales between players?

[AdmiralCheez]

The point of bailing out another player is to increase the number of variables in the game when it's going against you. If one player owns six hotels, you own three, and the third owns a smattering of houses - you might be willing to pay the third to keep playing, rather than see all her properties handed over to the guy who's already set fair to wipe you out.

Fair point. I have nothing wrong with loans, per se, but that rule about always granting loan requests doesn't sound like a good rule to me. If you want to strategize and keep people in for your own benefit, that's up to you.


In a similar vein (I'm very rusty) - is there any rule against private sales between players?

I see no reason why it would be outlawed. I would always try to make weird deals for property. Like, if I had a hotel, I'd offer one free stay at that hotel in exhange for some property. A lot of people took the deal.

[Fri]

We all should just play Anarchist Monopoly. (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/159)

[Erloas]

Trades and sales between players is pretty much mandatory isn't it? It would be almost impossible to get a set of properties without it, and without a set you can't make improvements and none of the base rents are enough to put anyone out of the game to start consolidating properties.

Monopoly still teaches though. Like "if you are getting ahead by taking everything from your sister she is likely to jump across the table and make you eat that money" (Lesson between my mom and Aunt when they were younger).
But in general if one person is getting everything and the others are struggling to survive they are going to get mad and leave.

[Psionic Dog]

@Erloas, that might be why free parking is so prevalent. As long as money is in the center it offered Hope that a loosing player could stay in longer or regain position and discouraged them from throwing the dice at you until no plausible hope of a comeback remained.


Free parking (almost always) and no auctions (frequent) were the only the only 'House Rules' I can remember. I also don't know anyone who actually plays monopoly these days. It may have been the only/closest thing to worker placement or resource management when I was a kid but ever since Settlers of Catan hit the scene everyone into board games has had better options.

[Tetrimino]

Here are a few stupid rules I've had to deal with:


"You have to wait until you've gone around the board at least once before you can even do anything."
"Landing on Free Parking means you get a bunch of money from the middle of the board, which by the way was collected through various means."
"You can't buy a space you're not currently on."
"Being in jail means you're basically out of the game for a couple of turns."
"You can ask other players for loans."
"If you're asked for a loan, you MUST provide one."
"Going bankrupt means someone else takes over for your piece."



The only common house rule I've ever had to deal with is "no auctions".

That being said, I once played with a group that claimed that when a player landed on a space, they would receive the amount of money listed below the property name (the price of the property). No buying anything, no paying rent, no nothing. The game ended when there was no money left in the bank, and the player with the most money was the winner.


I also can't seem to get a consistent answer on how much cash you're supposed to get, because some people want to start really low, while others want to basically start off with an empty bank.

As far as I can tell, each player is supposed to start with $1500, which seems like a reasonable amount.

[Erloas]

As far as I can tell, each player is supposed to start with $1500, which seems like a reasonable amount.
Unless it has changed it used to be:
2x $500
2x $100
2x $50
6x $20
5x $10
5x $5
5x $1

Which is $1500.

[KillingAScarab]

I've played countless games of Monopoly, and I've read the rules, but I've never actually participated in a game that goes by the RAW. Everyone has to come up with some random house rule that does nothing but slow it down. I mean, if you want to play more, just wait until this round is over and we'll start over. It doesn't have to drag out for the entire length of a Lord of the Rings movie. Here are a few stupid rules I've had to deal with:As an owner of a no-frills Monopoly board, I can confirm that while placing collected Income Tax on the board to be collected by the next person to land on Free Parking is not in the rule book, it is given as an example house rule on an insert covering frequently asked questions, specifically "Can I make my own rules?" The response only says this isn't allowed in tournament play. The rulebook itself does contain two variants in which some properties are handed out to players at the start of the game.

If you want to ensure adherence to the game's basic rules, including auctions, then I might suggest that you simply play a version where you cannot implement any house rules. Monopoly has had software adaptations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_video_games) since the NES. I remember playing it on Yahoo! Games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahoo!_Games) and it was baffling how much faster the game goes when no one has to directly hand out currency and property, no one can try to cut a deal and thus no one can refuse a deal, hurt someone else's feelings and then not speak to each other for a week.


We all should just play Anarchist Monopoly. (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/159)Also, Dresden Codak (http://www.dresdencodak.com)'s Buddhist Mario
http://i43.tinypic.com/2vl2o3o.jpg

[Red Fel]

@Erloas, that might be why free parking is so prevalent. As long as money is in the center it offered Hope that a loosing player could stay in longer or regain position and discouraged them from throwing the dice at you until no plausible hope of a comeback remained.

This is exactly it. In fact, this can be explained as a source of a lot of house rules.

More accurately, the reason is this: This is marketed as a game for children.

Let's consider some house rule scenarios. First, with or without auctions.
With: Little Timmy lands on a property. He either can't afford to buy it or doesn't want to. Now it goes up for auction. Little Susie and Daddy bid back and forth on it, and Daddy wins. Little Susie feels upset.
Without: Little Timmy lands on a property. He either can't afford to buy it or doesn't want to. Next turn.
Now, was anybody cheated in the first example? No. But here's the difference - without auctions, it's a game of chance. If you don't land on a property, you can't buy it, and nobody is to blame except the dice. But with auctions, there is someone to blame - the person who bids against you. Little Susie is angry because Daddy defeated her, actively, in an auction. There are games where you can blame the dice when you beat someone, and games where you can't; the latter is a great way to cause hurt feelings.

Next, with or without the Free Parking jackpot.
Without: Little Timmy is in dire straits. If he doesn't get some money soon, he'll be foreclosed. The game proceeds, and Little Timmy, continuously backed into a corner, throws his hands up in frustration and defeat. He's bored and wants ice cream.
With: Little Timmy is in dire straits. If he doesn't get some money soon, he'll be foreclosed. Then he lands on Free Parking, enjoys a windfall, and is back into the game!
Again, is it unfair that Little Timmy is losing in the first scenario? No, that's how games work. But with a small child, a losing streak - and this game, played properly, is unforgiving of losing streaks - will drive them away from the game. The goal is to keep them involved, not make them stomp off from the table. So Free Parking rectifies that by promising a chance at redemption if you just keep playing.

So we play with these house rules. And what happens? We get used to them. Adults get used to playing with the house rules, and forget that they're adaptations. Kids grow up with the house rules, and never know any better unless they bother to look it up. After awhile, that's just how things are.

[Giggling Ghast]

Trying playing competitive Monopoly. They adhere to the RAW to a cutthroat degree.

[Olinser]

The same reason people add in a whole bunch of house rules for Checkers. Because the base rules are quite frankly very boring, and after just a handful of full trips around the board its almost always blatantly obvious who is going to win.

So people add in extra house rules to try and spice things up or at least giving people that are down some possibility of coming back.

[The Glyphstone]

Competitive anything is cutthroat to the RAW. Bingo, for example.

[Cespenar]

Houserules are some of the best things that could happen to a game. As long as everyone knows and agrees that they are playing with houserules.

[Delicious Taffy]

If little kids want to play a game where everything is fair because you can only blame the dice, so nobody's getting their feelings hurt, they should stick to Candyland or similar. I stopped playing games with kids around the time I started getting in trouble for not fudging every single turn, anyway.

[Dienekes]

Probably because Monopoly is one of the most drawn out boring board games that has ever been created, so people inevitably try to do something to fix it.

Unfortunately, most of them aren't exactly brilliant game designers and you'll get some house rules that are straight up worse than the original rules. And, that is a hard thing to do.

[Mando Knight]

I see no reason why it would be outlawed. I would always try to make weird deals for property. Like, if I had a hotel, I'd offer one free stay at that hotel in exhange for some property. A lot of people took the deal.

Allowing private sales is (IMO) literally half the point of the game. It wouldn't be a "property trading game" if you couldn't exchange your properties, and AFAIK most digital adaptations include a trade window.

[Chen]

I never understood the auction rule in Monopoly. Aside some extremely niche scenarios, I can't see WHY you'd ever auction off a spot you landed on. You don't get the money for it, so why give your opponents the opportunity to gain more property on your turn?

[Sholos]

I never understood the auction rule in Monopoly. Aside some extremely niche scenarios, I can't see WHY you'd ever auction off a spot you landed on. You don't get the money for it, so why give your opponents the opportunity to gain more property on your turn?

If you can't afford it or you don't want it, it automatically goes to auction. It's not optional in the base rules.

[KillingAScarab]

Allowing private sales is (IMO) literally half the point of the game. It wouldn't be a "property trading game" if you couldn't exchange your properties, and AFAIK most digital adaptations include a trade window.I believe the rules allow for the sale of unimproved properties you own to other players. However, AdmiralCheez's deal would not be allowed in tournament play. Deals like that aren't bad if you know how to make them. I find it quite entertaining watching how Steve Jackson plays Munchkin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6oMBSiL7Zs).


I never understood the auction rule in Monopoly. Aside some extremely niche scenarios, I can't see WHY you'd ever auction off a spot you landed on. You don't get the money for it, so why give your opponents the opportunity to gain more property on your turn?

If you can't afford it or you don't want it, it automatically goes to auction. It's not optional in the base rules.Indeed. You aren't the holder of the title, the bank has it. The bank setting up an auction is not something you request, it is a reaction to your inability/refusal to purchase.

[Destro_Yersul]

When I was younger, my family played with free parking and no auctions. I actually owned a copy of Star Wars Monopoly for the PC, which had those as a toggle in the options menu.

Now that I am older, I understand that monopoly is terrible and play better games instead.

[Rynjin]

Again, is it unfair that Little Timmy is losing in the first scenario? No, that's how games work. But with a small child, a losing streak - and this game, played properly, is unforgiving of losing streaks - will drive them away from the game. The goal is to keep them involved, not make them stomp off from the table. So Free Parking rectifies that by promising a chance at redemption if you just keep playing.

Well, theoretically the goal IS to get them to stomp away from the table and reject the evils of capitalism when they grow up or some such.

It's iffy as to whether it would actually work, and I doubt any parent would actually even attempt it, but...

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not so much shocked as why people don't play, as why they keep buying it. As a store owner, anyways. It seems they put out new versions constantly, with a new art skin, but the same game underneath. It's not a trick. Everyone knows exactly what they're doing. They buy it anyways.

But then, I feel the same way about Munchkin.

There are various online places where you can play Monopoly by the rules, with adults, but unfortunately, once you get good at the game, you run into the problem of there being fairly little diversity in Monopoly strategy. So, the game ends up being fairly predictable for the most part.

[wumpus]

Because if you play by the actual rules, it becomes a race to corner the housing market (the little green houses. The rules limit it to 36 houses and that's it). Corner the market on them and you win the game, although trying this with people unfamiliar with the rules is unlikely to lead to a net benefit. Also the auction rules are pretty silly if you only have two players (the vast majority of my monopoly experience [I never considered having an auction]).

This thread primarily interests me because I played a lot of Monopoly with a kid while his big brother was playing D&D (probably 0e, but I remember at least the AD&D monster manual and later the player's handbook). A few years later I was ready to start on my own with the Basic game (although never with either that kid nor his brother). This caused me to think of early D&D competing with Monopoly (and similar games) when it really competed with wargames.

[veti]

Because if you play by the actual rules, it becomes a race to corner the housing market (the little green houses. The rules limit it to 36 houses and that's it). Corner the market on them and you win the game, although trying this with people unfamiliar with the rules is unlikely to lead to a net benefit.

To put up 36 houses, you need at least nine separate properties you can build on, which means you need to own three of the four sets-of-three properties. And have sufficient cash in hand for all that building.

"Cornering the market in housing" seems like an awfully - indirect way to win, starting from that position.

[Aotrs Commander]

This caused me to think of early D&D competing with Monopoly (and similar games) when it really competed with wargames.

Eeeh... I dunno, I think Monopoly is nearly as far from D&D as it is from a lot (may be most) of wargames, actually. I suppose both involve people verses other people as opposed to being co-op run by a DM? (I say that and not "competative," since that does not describe the sort of gaming attitude my games have had... Really ever. And I say that as someone whose wargames are also, by no stretch of the imagination "casual.")

[wumpus]

To put up 36 houses, you need at least nine separate properties you can build on, which means you need to own three of the four sets-of-three properties. And have sufficient cash in hand for all that building.

"Cornering the market in housing" seems like an awfully - indirect way to win, starting from that position.

You should be able to trade for cheaper areas and build on them quicker. The "traditional" means is to go for 3 houses on each property, but *preventing* anyone from doing the same is likely more critical (especially if you have cheaper properties, the likely only time you even have the option of such things).

I was also wrong, it was 32 houses. So some ideas:
20 houses by owning the entire "cheap side". Total cost $1000 - problem: a single player could conceivably put up hotels and destroy this strategy.
32 houses by owning the cheap side + either dark blue or tan. Total cost $2200
24 houses by owning light blue and either dark blue or tan. total cost $1800 This is the most realistic (and still requires more oblivious players to pull off. Don't expect them to be happy if you point out the rules). With only 8 houses left, your only real danger is either two "big payout" property with three houses on it [it will have 2,3,3 with a big bump in the price in hitting the three house areas] or the bigger danger of somebody getting both boardwalk and park place. You should be taking their money faster than they can afford to build up, unless they have a real cash cow like 4 rail roads.

Important Note: the rules are rather unclear about *when* the housing shortage kicks in, and if you can buy houses for less than the par cost for your property. If you *really* want to spark an argument, try to buy the last houses for expensive properties while someone tries to buy houses for a cheap one. Presumably you could force them to buy a few houses for a lot more than they were expecting, all the while paying $201 for each of yours.

[Triaxx]

Nasty speed rule: Hotels don't replace housing. You have to have all four on the tile. It means hotels don't free up housing. So you end up with a big war over the best properties, and the one person who works out the answer.

[Knaight]

I have yet to play the game, ever, with a full table of people who understand the rules. I likely never will, because if I should ever become part of a board gaming group of four people who care enough to learn the rules of the games they play, there are lots and lots of other games I'd suggest first.
This is the single biggest reason. If you have a group of people who care about the quality of rules for a board game, and who make a point of actually reading the rules, why would Monopoly ever come up in the rotation? It's garbage. The only people who play it are the people who either don't know or don't care enough to avoid it successfully.

[137beth]

When I was a kid, a couple of friends and I would sometimes play by the rules. However, sometimes we wanted the game to go on a lot longer than it would by the rules, so we introduced the "snake eyes" house rule: if you roll two 1s, you automatically get $1000 from the bank. We also ignored the cap on the total amount of money that could be in play (keeping track on paper if the bank ran out). And paid everything except the initial cost to buy a property to Free Parking instead of the bank.

The end result was that everyone would end up with an enormous amount of wealth, to the point where you'd need to land on several hotels in a row (with no one landing on yours) to have even a chance of going bankrupt. And so the game never ended until we all got bored.

Nowadays I don't play Monopoly very often. But when I do, I tend to play either RAW or with very limited house rules.

[KillingAScarab]

This is the single biggest reason. If you have a group of people who care about the quality of rules for a board game, and who make a point of actually reading the rules, why would Monopoly ever come up in the rotation? It's garbage. The only people who play it are the people who either don't know or don't care enough to avoid it successfully.And the people who play in Monopoly tournaments (http://monopoly-championship-history.wikia.com/wiki/MONOPOLY_Championship_History_Wiki). It looks like there wasn't a championship for about a six year period, though.

[Olinser]

And the people who play in Monopoly tournaments (http://monopoly-championship-history.wikia.com/wiki/MONOPOLY_Championship_History_Wiki). It looks like there wasn't a championship for about a six year period, though.

In the context of this thread what's hilarious about that is that the Monopoly championship used the Speed Die - which is NOT base rules and was only created in 2006.

[KillingAScarab]

In the context of this thread what's hilarious about that is that the Monopoly championship used the Speed Die - which is NOT base rules and was only created in 2006.It is, apparently (http://monopoly.wikia.com/wiki/Speed_Die), part of the standard edition now.

[Olinser]

It is, apparently (http://monopoly.wikia.com/wiki/Speed_Die), part of the standard edition now.

Yes, but the point is that when it was introduced it was, effectively, a niche house rule.

Quite a few long-running games have had their base rulesets changed because of widely common house rules.

[Wardog]

"You have to wait until you've gone around the board at least once before you can even do anything."
"Landing on Free Parking means you get a bunch of money from the middle of the board, which by the way was collected through various means."
"You can't buy a space you're not currently on."
"Being in jail means you're basically out of the game for a couple of turns."
"You can ask other players for loans."
"If you're asked for a loan, you MUST provide one."
"Going bankrupt means someone else takes over for your piece."



The only one of those I've heard of people doing was the Free Parking bonus.

When my family used to play, as far as I am aware we stuck to the proper rules, with two exceptions:

1) We didn't realise you were supposed to build n houses on each property in a set before you put n+1 on one of them.
2) I don't think we understood the mortgaging rule (and so either did it wrong, and/or just sold the property).

I'm surprised so many people don't auction - it seems a really straight-forward rule to me, or amI missing something?

[KillingAScarab]

I'm surprised so many people don't auction - it seems a really straight-forward rule to me, or amI missing something?My guess is that a parent acting as the banker was the one reading the rules and decided to not include it. Probably for the reason Red Fel stated earlier. I had only encountered it in the software versions.

[Destro_Yersul]

I'm surprised so many people don't auction - it seems a really straight-forward rule to me, or amI missing something?

It has nothing to do with the rule being logical/straightforward, and everything to do with how it feels to play with. Auctions are adversarial by nature, and monopoly already makes people hate each other. Why make it worse?

[Knaight]

It has nothing to do with the rule being logical/straightforward, and everything to do with how it feels to play with. Auctions are adversarial by nature, and monopoly already makes people hate each other. Why make it worse?

It makes it over faster, and that's a blessing.

[Keltest]

It makes it over faster, and that's a blessing.

So would dousing the board in gasoline and dropping a match on it. Guess which of the two I would prefer.

[Red Fel]

So would dousing the board in gasoline and dropping a match on it. Guess which of the two I would prefer.

I understand your sentiment completely.

Fire is hypnotic.

[AdmiralCheez]

I understand your sentiment completely.

Fire is hypnotic.

Soooo preeeeety.

... I mean... what were we talking about? Something about ending Monopoly faster? We had a rule we experimented with a few times. The game ends when the first player goes bankrupt, and the player with the most value wins. It encourages people to invest early and try to build as much as they can, all while trying to keep people alive until they're ready to let them lose. It also ended earlier, which was key.

[Knaight]

So would dousing the board in gasoline and dropping a match on it. Guess which of the two I would prefer.

I don't disagree that the best way to deal with Monopoly being too long is to just play something else to begin with, but if it has to continue existing it might as well exist in a marginally better form.

[The Glyphstone]

I remember playing Pokemon Monopoly once. It had a special rule where rolling specific doubles meant you could either take the extra turn as normal, or gain a special bonus. Double 1's let you teleport to a space of your choice; double 2's was a free $200; 3's stole $50 from each other player, 4's and 5's drew a free Chance/Community Chest card respectively, and the holy grail of double 6's let you challenge another player to a 'Battle' - where you selected one property they owned that wasn't part of a completed set, and both rolled dice; higher roll took/kept the challenged property.

[KillingAScarab]

I remember playing Pokemon Monopoly once. It had a special rule where rolling specific doubles meant you could either take the extra turn as normal, or gain a special bonus.
...and the holy grail of double 6's let you challenge another player to a 'Battle' - where you selected one property they owned that wasn't part of a completed set, and both rolled dice; higher roll took/kept the challenged property.But... the Pokémon series specifically doesn't allow capturing what belongs to another trainer. You can trade, so I would expect the game to encourage that, perhaps even after improvement. Guess they didn't put much time into playing Pokémon before developing that version.

[The Glyphstone]

But... the Pokémon series specifically doesn't allow capturing what belongs to another trainer. You can trade, so I would expect the game to encourage that, perhaps even after improvement. Guess they didn't put much time into playing Pokémon before developing that version.

No, but it did make the game go immensely faster. The easiest way to cause a stalemate is when people snap up isolated singletons, preventing opponents from completing lots, and then no one is willing to trade unless they're getting the better deal. Being able to force other players to surrender their orphaned properties let the endgame begin.

[Red Fel]

But... the Pokémon series specifically doesn't allow capturing what belongs to another trainer.

Are you sure (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Shadow_Pok%C3%A9mon) about that? (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Snag_Machine)

[Bucky]

The easiest way to cause a stalemate is when people snap up isolated singletons, preventing opponents from completing lots, and then no one is willing to trade unless they're getting the better deal. Being able to force other players to surrender their orphaned properties let the endgame begin.

Proper strategy is generally to try to do several three-way trades with different sets of opponents; Everyone benefits from the trades they're involved in, but I benefit more because I'm involved in all of them.

[SaintRidley]

Either play by the RAW, or you'll keep getting long, drawn-out, boring games that go on forever and never actually get a conclusion, since everyone keeps leaving the game out of boredom.

I think you're confused. Playing by the rules as written won't prevent any of that. Monopoly is designed to be a horrendous experience. It's unbridled capitalism the game, after all.

[Triaxx]

Monopoly only ever ends, when someone gets so frustrated that they tear the board in half the hard way. Everything else is simply a lull in the action.

Speaking of, did anyone else ever play the NES Monopoly game? It's one of the more exceptionally frustrating 'ports' because the Computer Cheats, but does so sufficiently subtly that it's pretty hard to actually catch it doing so.

[Velaryon]

I don't have the hatred for Monopoly that a lot of folks here seem to. It's far from my favorite game, but I don't mind it. I had a version of it on the PC some years back that was pretty good, except the computer players always wanted to make horribly one-sided trades ("oh, you want Oriental Avenue so you can have all three light blue properties? I'll trade it for literally every other property you own, plus $5,000 and your Get Out of Jail Free card.), but otherwise it wasn't bad. It included options for the Free Parking rule, dealing out a certain number of properties to players at the beginning of the game, as well as whether to allow futures & immunities trading (which was poorly implemented because the computer players didn't consider their value in trades and never used them). It wasn't amazing, but you could have a decent game of Monopoly over in an hour or so.



I never understood the auction rule in Monopoly. Aside some extremely niche scenarios, I can't see WHY you'd ever auction off a spot you landed on. You don't get the money for it, so why give your opponents the opportunity to gain more property on your turn?

It's automatic if you don't buy the property. So it pretty much only happens if you can't afford to buy the property when you land on it.



Soooo preeeeety.

... I mean... what were we talking about? Something about ending Monopoly faster? We had a rule we experimented with a few times. The game ends when the first player goes bankrupt, and the player with the most value wins. It encourages people to invest early and try to build as much as they can, all while trying to keep people alive until they're ready to let them lose. It also ended earlier, which was key.

I actually like this house rule quite a bit.

[BannedInSchool]

There was a DOS version of Monopoly that intentionally included an AI player who played poorly. He'd even say, "I don't know how to play this game, so how about <horribly low or high price>?" when you were making a deal with him.

[Gnoman]

I remember one DOS version of the game I once had where the AI looked only at the absolute size of any financial trade - and the developers didn't restrict them to positive values. In other words, it was entirely possible to offer the AI -$2000 for Boardwalk and Park Place, have the AI read it as a good deal, and fork over the cash as well as the properties.

[KillingAScarab]

Are you sure (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Shadow_Pok%C3%A9mon) about that? (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Snag_Machine)Wow. "Team Snagem," huh? Guess when someone other than Game Freak develops you end up with Care Bears/Kingdom Hearts logic. That, or an on-rails 1st person shooter (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Snap).


I don't have the hatred for Monopoly that a lot of folks here seem to. It's far from my favorite game, but I don't mind it. I had a version of it on the PC some years back that was pretty good, except...I also view the game with indifference-to-fondness, probably because of that Yahoo! games implementation making it possible to complete a game in good time. Westwood Studios also developed a PC CD-ROM version with some early CG animations to introduce properties.

[wumpus]

Wow. "Team Snagem," huh? Guess when someone other than Game Freak develops you end up with Care Bears/Kingdom Hearts logic. That, or an on-rails 1st person shooter (http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon_Snap).

I also view the game with indifference-to-fondness, probably because of that Yahoo! games implementation making it possible to complete a game in good time. Westwood Studios also developed a PC CD-ROM version with some early CG animations to introduce properties.

I remember the Westwood game. I'm pretty sure it included auctions (for property, there was no auction for housing shortages: this let you break the AI's game). It was pretty good, and the AI seem to make pretty good deals unless you were using a housing shortage strategy.

[LastCenturion]

Monopoly only ever ends, when someone gets so frustrated that they tear the board in half the hard way. Everything else is simply a lull in the action.

Speaking of, did anyone else ever play the NES Monopoly game? It's one of the more exceptionally frustrating 'ports' because the Computer Cheats, but does so sufficiently subtly that it's pretty hard to actually catch it doing so.

How did the computer cheat? I've never played it before, but I'm interested to know how a computer can cheat subtly at anything.

[OracleofWuffing]

I won a free Monopoly board at a random drawing back in the first few weeks of my college days. That was over a decade ago. I still haven't found anyone willing to play. :smallfrown:


I actually like this house rule quite a bit.
Ever heard of Fortune Street? It's a video game/series that's basically another company's take on Monopoly (but with stock options. It's... Simple but difficult to explain), and implements that rule as one of the possible win conditions. The other being if you reach a certain net worth and pass it's equivalent of "Go."

Also has a rule where you can just buy another person's property if you land on it and are willing to pay 5x it's value. Helps deal with stalemate situations where nobody can get a monopoly.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Soooo preeeeety.

... I mean... what were we talking about? Something about ending Monopoly faster? We had a rule we experimented with a few times. The game ends when the first player goes bankrupt, and the player with the most value wins. It encourages people to invest early and try to build as much as they can, all while trying to keep people alive until they're ready to let them lose. It also ended earlier, which was key.
That sort of rule is nice, because it adds a lot of interest to multiplayer games that can normally turn into gang-up fests. (I initially saw it proposed by designer David Sirlin when he talked about multiplayer games.) It works with basically any multiplayer game that has measurable progress, although you want to make sure that it doesn't unfairly advantage some strategies over others.

Like, if you played RISK like that? (When one player is eliminated, the player with the most territories wins, that is.) Would add an entirely new dynamic to alliances and work against that whole "three people gang up on the last person" thing.

[Seerow]

I won a free Monopoly board at a random drawing back in the first few weeks of my college days. That was over a decade ago. I still haven't found anyone willing to play. :smallfrown:


Ever heard of Fortune Street? It's a video game/series that's basically another company's take on Monopoly (but with stock options. It's... Simple but difficult to explain), and implements that rule as one of the possible win conditions. The other being if you reach a certain net worth and pass it's equivalent of "Go."

Also has a rule where you can just buy another person's property if you land on it and are willing to pay 5x it's value. Helps deal with stalemate situations where nobody can get a monopoly.

For what it's worth Fortune street was basically my favorite game on the Wii.

[Olinser]

How did the computer cheat? I've never played it before, but I'm interested to know how a computer can cheat subtly at anything.

The blatant cheating is things like them trading each other properties that are drastically different in value (i.e. I recall them doing a 1 for 1 trade Baltic for Boardwalk).

Subtle cheating in this case is them manipulating the dice rolls with rubber banding, screwing you in auctions, and utterly refusing to consider any offer for a piece of property you want, no matter how generous (one time just for kicks I offered an AI $2000 for Baltic when I had the other - they refused). Dice rolls seem to be fair when the game is even, but as a computer gets behind or you get ahead it starts to manipulate rolls to try to make the game 'even' again - computer tending to roll more doubles, player tending to hit 'bad' squares or cards more often. This gets really blatant in games when you own an entire side of the board and multiple computer players get past multiple times without ever hitting one of your properties.

The AI will also massively drive up the price of any auction - even if none of them have any legitimate reason to want the property (one of them significantly over-bidding for 1 piece of a set they own nothing in, and all other pieces are owned by different players, for instance).

[Chen]

The AI will also massively drive up the price of any auction - even if none of them have any legitimate reason to want the property (one of them significantly over-bidding for 1 piece of a set they own nothing in, and all other pieces are owned by different players, for instance).

The rest about dice rolling and whatnot is bad, but this last one seems easy to make the computer get screwed with by just letting them get the property.

[Olinser]

The rest about dice rolling and whatnot is bad, but this last one seems easy to make the computer get screwed with by just letting them get the property.

Sure, that's one of the ways to manipulate the AI and increase your chances of winning. Instead of buying crappy things like railroads, auction it and drive up the prices to lower their ability to contest higher priority auctions.

In fact one of the typical strategies for winning in the NES version is to auction everything from the crappier sets like the railroads and drive the prices way up for AI to bleed them of funds, then start buying up auctions for important properties for less than their actual buying price. If Boardwalk costs $400 but none of the AI has more than $200 and you land on it with $900 - don't buy, auction it and steal it for $200.

But that makes it no less annoying when you have 2 of 3 greens, and a computer lands on the 3rd and auctions it, and they pay $700 to take it.

[KillingAScarab]

But that makes it no less annoying when you have 2 of 3 greens, and a computer lands on the 3rd and auctions it, and they pay $700 to take it.In my experience, purple, orange and red are where the real money can be made. There are more cards which direct a player to that portion of the board than elsewhere. A player who just got out of jail must pass that gauntlet unless they are directed to Boardwalk or Go.

[jayem]

Monopoly, as already mentioned by design, has a decidedly unstable equilibrium.
Auctions massively favour the already winning players
The auction will only really occur if the losing player lands on the property, and they can't contest the auction, they have no money, so they are definitely worse off than if it remains empty (when they might land on it again).
Whereas the winning player has all the choices they can outbid if they really want it (want to prevent someone else getting it), get a cheap property if others don't bid for it, or be no worse off if they chose.

In addition auction and exchanges are where any OOC power discrepancy comes into bigger play, even if not intended.

Without a once round the board, the last player has a 50% chance of being a complete turn behind each of the other players (that is starting behind where they started), and is almost certain to be behind where they end their turn. With two other players on the first turn he has around 2/6 chance of landing on already taken properties (the distribution is biased to 7). On the second turn they also have high chance of the same...
With the once round the board the starting positions are slightly staggered, so the odds of collision are longer. And there's a chance that you might have overtaken by then (or have completely fallen behind).

[Red Fel]

Monopoly, as already mentioned by design, has a decidedly unstable equilibrium.
Auctions massively favour the already winning players
The auction will only really occur if the losing player lands on the property, and they can't contest the auction, they have no money, so they are definitely worse off than if it remains empty (when they might land on it again).
Whereas the winning player has all the choices they can outbid if they really want it (want to prevent someone else getting it), get a cheap property if others don't bid for it, or be no worse off if they chose.

In addition auction and exchanges are where any OOC power discrepancy comes into bigger play, even if not intended.

Without a once round the board, the last player has a 50% chance of being a complete turn behind each of the other players (that is starting behind where they started), and is almost certain to be behind where they end their turn. With two other players on the first turn he has around 2/6 chance of landing on already taken properties (the distribution is biased to 7). On the second turn they also have high chance of the same...
With the once round the board the starting positions are slightly staggered, so the odds of collision are longer. And there's a chance that you might have overtaken by then (or have completely fallen behind).

All of which is entirely the point of the game. It was designed around "the rich get richer, the poor get poorer."

That said, I disagree that the last player is automatically behind. He has the opportunity to snipe on every auction, without risk, before he has even gone. Every other player may incur penalties, or may or may not purchase property, but if there is at least one auction, the last player - again, without any risk - can either advance substantially, or make other players pay dearly for their advancement.

[Chen]

That said, I disagree that the last player is automatically behind. He has the opportunity to snipe on every auction, without risk, before he has even gone. Every other player may incur penalties, or may or may not purchase property, but if there is at least one auction, the last player - again, without any risk - can either advance substantially, or make other players pay dearly for their advancement.

I can't fathom why there'd be any auctions on the first round of the game. Everyone has more than enough money to buy pretty much anything they land on. I'm pretty sure the first player advantage in Monopoly is absolutely huge. Even very basically, the first player has no chance of paying someone else rent on their first turn. If they buy something every following player now has a chance to land on that square and lose money TO the first player.

The lower you are in the starting queue the more money you should probably get to try and even out the advantage the earlier players have. Or you could auction the play order off after giving everyone their starting money.

[Olinser]

I can't fathom why there'd be any auctions on the first round of the game. Everyone has more than enough money to buy pretty much anything they land on. I'm pretty sure the first player advantage in Monopoly is absolutely huge. Even very basically, the first player has no chance of paying someone else rent on their first turn. If they buy something every following player now has a chance to land on that square and lose money TO the first player.

The lower you are in the starting queue the more money you should probably get to try and even out the advantage the earlier players have. Or you could auction the play order off after giving everyone their starting money.

Because if the first player lands on mediocre stuff like Baltic or the utilities, you can either auction them and force somebody else to pay more than they are worth and depress their cash for more valuable properties, or get them for less than face value. Either way its a win.

More desirable properties like the oranges should of course be immediately purchased.

[jayem]

Because if the first player lands on mediocre stuff like Baltic or the utilities, you can either auction them and force somebody else to pay more than they are worth and depress their cash for more valuable properties, or get them for less than face value. Either way its a win.

More desirable properties like the oranges should of course be immediately purchased.

That seems like a risk of yourself losing initiative or yourself paying more.
The other players probably have the allowance of at least a 10% premium for it being an extra property (there's a fair chance that they might land on either the other, or at least on a property).

You can buy the bottom half of the board, the top row, or all but one on the right.
So if it were enough to stop them buying Park Road then they'd still be in a pretty good position. And if you've bought Mayfair/Boardwalk you've also splurged a fair bit so you might lose the bid anyway to a third party.

[wumpus]

That seems like a risk of yourself losing initiative or yourself paying more.
The other players probably have the allowance of at least a 10% premium for it being an extra property (there's a fair chance that they might land on either the other, or at least on a property).

You can buy the bottom half of the board, the top row, or all but one on the right.
So if it were enough to stop them buying Park Road then they'd still be in a pretty good position. And if you've bought Mayfair/Boardwalk you've also splurged a fair bit so you might lose the bid anyway to a third party.

From what I remember about that Westwood game for Windows, computer players were unbelievably bad at valuing properties during an auction (no idea if this was intentional to model humans). Players not buying at list price and paying more at auction was a common occurrence.

What isn't spelled out is exactly what happens when more than one player wants to buy the last houses. I'd have to assume that they would have to be able to buy all the remaining houses (and are willing to), and they you put each up for auction one at a time until that condition is no longer true. No idea if the bidding starts at $50 or $1, but I'd assume that somebody trying to buy $200 houses would have an extreme advantage over the $50 houses. It sounds like a pointless detail, but when the market is cornered on houses, that is where the game is won and lost (which is one of the reasons people who care enough to know the rules don't like monopoly).

[Red Fel]

From what I remember about that Westwood game for Windows, computer players were unbelievably bad at valuing properties during an auction (no idea if this was intentional to model humans). Players not buying at list price and paying more at auction was a common occurrence.

Yeah. I know plenty of players who would put it up for auction just to try to get it at a lower price, or to trick other players into overpaying.

There have been studies on this. People will knowingly overpay at auctions after getting swept up in it. If you're smart and manipulative, you can get people to overpay on the rubbish properties on the first side of the board, saving your money for the good stuff. Meanwhile, the other players have just blown their cash before getting to any of the good properties, and have to make a complete trip before they can recoup their losses.

[Douglas]

I didn't know that such a thing as a housing shortage was actually part of the rules until reading this thread. I remember having games where we ran out of the house tokens that came with the game, but we just assumed that was poor planning assumptions by the game manufacturer and improvised other tokens for more houses.

Seems like a rather silly and arbitrary mechanic to me. Not that the rest of the game's mechanics aren't full of other similarly arbitrary silliness, like the total lack of control over where you go that is the primary core mechanic.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Seems like a rather silly and arbitrary mechanic to me. Not that the rest of the game's mechanics aren't full of other similarly arbitrary silliness, like the total lack of control over where you go that is the primary core mechanic.

It's a great way to make people never ask to play with you again though...which may be my goal whenever I'm forced into playing Monopoly. Just build about 16 houses and sit on them forever.

[Destro_Yersul]

the house thing reminds me of another rule that I used to play with, way way back. When I was a kid, we played that you could have both houses and hotels on the same property, and you didn't need to own all three of that colour property to build on it. I think I also recall some silliness with putting houses on railroads at some point.

We made up a lot of stuff.

[BannedInSchool]

[...] you can get people to overpay on the rubbish properties on the first side of the board, saving your money for the good stuff.

I recall a "Slumlord" strategy I read. The rents may not be high absolutely, but the houses are cheap and if you can get them built-up early in the game before there's a lot of money in circulation you can stifle everyone else with luck.

But seven spaces out of Jail is the most landed on regular property on the board, IIRC, so that group of properties is the most valuable. The back row has the disadvantage of being after "Go To Jail", so some of those potential rents go to those properties just out of Jail instead.

[Emperor Demonking]

If you play 'no buying on the first go round' then that reduces first mover advantage while also adding an excitement of who will go round first while adding barely any time to the game. Just saying.

I can't see what adding auction to the game really adds unless you are plnning on trying to get bad players to bid up too much, or if its a case where people are just too poor. Seems to add more in complexity than interest.

I'm also one of those who has no idea how mortgaging works.

We also play: can only buy houses on your turn. Which, makes multiple players wanting the last houses imossible, and I don't even have a grasp o what method others are using.

I like an occasional game of monopoly, and if I was forced to play by the rules rather than what I know then I do imagine that I'd just play a good game instead.

[huttj509]

I'm also one of those who has no idea how mortgaging works.


You flip over an unimproved property you own (no houses on it). You get that amount of money from the bank, but cannot collect rent on that property or improve it until it's mortgaged.

In order to return it to profitability, you need to pay back the bank the amount you were given when you flipped it over, plus 10% interest.

If another player gains the mortgaged property (via trade, for example), then they may immediately unmortgage it (paying the 110% as normal), or keep it mortgaged, but if they keep it mortgaged they must pay 10% to the bank as a transfer fee (still needing to pay 110% later to unmortgage it).

[Kish]

The short version is: If you ever need to care how mortgaging works, you're going to lose. But you can draw it out a little by mortgaging your properties.

[Olinser]

The short version is: If you ever need to care how mortgaging works, you're going to lose. But you can draw it out a little by mortgaging your properties.

That's not even close to true. Properly leveraging property to strategically buy/win auctions/build is central to winning in actual by rules play.

Easy example - you own 2 of a set and you land on the 3rd but don't have enough to buy it outright. Mortgaging a non-set property you own completes your set in return for a small fee paid at a later date and not collecting paltry unconstructed rent on property that isn't construct able anyway.

Other examples include Mortgaging non-set pieces to construct on a set your opponent is about to go through, Mortgaging to buy a property your opponent needs rather than allow it to go to auction, or getting enough money to win an auction for a set

[Gnoman]

I can't see what adding auction to the game really adds unless you are plnning on trying to get bad players to bid up too much, or if its a case where people are just too poor. Seems to add more in complexity than interest.


In Monopoly, there are "good" properties and "bad" properties. This is due to a combination of their rent value and the odds of landing on them - the ones between "Go to Jail" and "Go" are more profitable due to high rent, while those between "Jail" and "Free Parking" are valuable because of a much higher chance of landing on them because people get sent to Jail a lot. Without the Auction rule, it becomes smart to ignore the properties on the other two sides of the board in order to save money for these two. Using auctions means that you can't do this, otherwise your opponents will get properties (and potentially monopolies) at virtually no cost because you aren't bidding them up.

[wumpus]

You know you are in trouble when you are selling houses. Mortgaging properties isn't an issue. As mentioned above, plenty of properties are worth more than others, and you should often mortgage the less valuable ones to buy the more valuable ones. Plenty of properties are only valuable to block opponents, those should be mortgaged first (assuming you aren't interested in trade).

Another crucial stage is getting three houses on your property. At that point, pretty much all other properties are irrelevant except as reserves (unless you have something like all four railroads). If you can manage a third house (and have the reserves needed for any likely scenario of hitting somebody else's property) anything else can be sacrificed to the cause. After that, things tend to go back into balance, but the jump in income on the third house is exceptionally steep.

[dadada]

We play with no auctions,and when all the properties are gone,we add up how much money each person has,plus the overall cost of properties and the houses/hotels on them per person.Highest total of these 2 factors wins

[keybounce]

"Asking for loans" was never formally part of the game, but is there any actual rule against it?
It is against the rules to loan money.

It is not against the rules to sell a "get out of jail free" card, or one of the two deep purples, for several hundreds or even a thousand dollars. You cannot count on the person to reverse that transaction in the future, however.


The point of bailing out another player is to increase the number of variables in the game when it's going against you. If one player owns six hotels, you own three, and the third owns a smattering of houses - you might be willing to pay the third to keep playing, rather than see all her properties handed over to the guy who's already set fair to wipe you out.
This. I tried to get this point across to a group when I was about to bankrupt someone that had a small amount of money (not enough to develop houses), and a bare monopoly. No one wanted to help that person out, so I wound up with that monopoly, and a little more money. It was enough to develop, but no one was near that spot, and I was worried about hitting someone else's spots first.

So, I didn't develop, paid out money (glad I didn't develop), and ultimately did not get the money to develop.

(I was in second place when this went down, but ultimately I was one of many losers).


It may have been the only/closest thing to worker placement or resource management when I was a kid but ever since Settlers of Catan hit the scene everyone into board games has had better options.
I can buy a monopoly set for about $10-$20. Used for about $1-$2. Good games? They start at $45 and up, are generally only found in specialty stores, and very often 4 people will want to get together and only have "party games" or monopoly. Maybe chess/checkers.

People with a game collection? We're the rare oddities.


Why put something up for auction?
As the amount of money in the game goes down, the value of the properties goes down. Consider a two player game: you have $3000 in the game, and the cost of the properties on the board is how much? Even late in a normal game, you may wind up with people having a lot of forclosed properties, very little cash, one developed trio, and the person with some spare cash lands on one of the last few spots. Buy it at face value? Or put it up at auction, and try to get it for less.
Or: Land on a third property, where two other players own the A and B? Put it up for auction, and let those two fight over it's value. One of them will be much poorer.


36 houses
It's 32. The goal isn't to corner it yourself, but to be one of two people who do in a bigger game. Every house you have is one more that you don't have to pay rent to when you travel.


This is the single biggest reason. If you have a group of people who care about the quality of rules for a board game, and who make a point of actually reading the rules, why would Monopoly ever come up in the rotation? It's garbage. The only people who play it are the people who either don't know or don't care enough to avoid it successfully.
Why? Because try explaining 1830 to someone that has never played a serious game. Try spending the time to set up Time Agent, let alone explaining the rules. Try teaching Titan. Etc.

Monopoly may not be the best choice if you have 4 people who are serious game players. But if your goal is to play a game, and people want to play something that is relatively easy to get started with?

I would love to use Fast Food Franchise rather than Monopoly. Heck, I do own a copy of it now. But for many of the people I've tried to teach it to, it's been a case of "I don't want to learn a new game, period".


Proper strategy is generally to try to do several three-way trades with different sets of opponents; Everyone benefits from the trades they're involved in, but I benefit more because I'm involved in all of them.
I used to do that. But apparently, careful reading of the rules requires pair-wise trades, not three-way trades. You can do three ways, but you have to be very careful to set the ordering in such a way that you don't benefit until the last trade, otherwise people won't want to help you in the N-1'th trade as you have no reason to do the N'th trade.

This comes from playing at conventions, where the games are really cutthroat. Casual real rule games might be kinder (I'll let you know if/when I play one.).


Once around the board vs being last player
Simple: On turn one: If you land on a space that another player has landed on, roll the dice again and move from that space forward. Repeat until you land on a space that has not been landed on yet. Spreads people out nicely.

---

While responding to this thread, I realized that there's a *really* good strategy for a 4+ player game. The first property that you land on? Let it go to auction. "Why are you letting a property go to auction??" / "Because I want to see how much the three of you think it's worth..."

The name of the game is as much "drain them of money" as much as anything else. Having them overpay for early property?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I can buy a monopoly set for about $10-$20. Used for about $1-$2. Good games? They start at $45 and up, are generally only found in specialty stores, and very often 4 people will want to get together and only have "party games" or monopoly. Maybe chess/checkers.

People with a game collection? We're the rare oddities.

That used to be true, but a lot has changed over the past 5-10 years (http://www.target.com/p/machi-koro-bright-lights-big-city-board-game/-/A-51093080). Target has definitely been the flagship of getting better games into the hands of consumers.