Hacker News Reader

Comment by hprotagonist | Hacker News Reader

I prefer this approach: http://imgur.com/a/vX3zm

> Because of the way the game is designed, this inevitably results in one person acquiring a majority of the assets on the board, and beginning the slow, painful, friendship-destroying process of grinding the other players out of the game, turn by turn. This is why Monopoly starts as a fun exciting romp, only to turn into a bitter cesspool of despair.

View on HN

I agree. Monopoly isn't broken; it's a shitty game by design.

Yeah exactly, the game shows that monopolies naturally emerge from player actions, just as in real life. That was the entire point of the game being created.

That post doesn't really make sense. Of course if you can get two Monopolies without any other player having a threat you will win. Building shortages are rarely used in serious play.

Minus-Celsius is a former tournament Monopoly player and his posts on this thread summarize it better than I could: https://www.reddit.com/r/boardgames/comments/42wze4/how_to_w...

The author admits as much in reply to Minus-Celsius. He wasn't proposing the master strategy to win against good players, he's laying out an effective way to poison the well so we can stop playing that stupid game every thanksgiving.

Yeah, it's missing my favorite tactic though. Trading expensive mortgage properties for cheap mortgage properties to players with little to no money. Even though you give them a monopoly on a more expensive set they can't do anything because they have no money.. mouhahah.

Step 2: ...With less experienced players, swapping an expensive property (e.g. green) for their cheap one (e.g. orange) to give you both a full set is an easy sell, but they end up with the "poisoned" set: something that's too expensive for them to develop with their current resources...

This is why when I play I ignore that rule and allow unlimited houses and hotels. In fact the very first time I played a game with limited houses was also the last time I ever played that way, since it seemed so unfair I decided the rules were flawed.

Also, if you want a game that never ends and is just for fun, instead of winning: Allow borrowing money from other players, secured by their property, but without requiring them to actually sell it. (The game will never end, but you can have fun anyway.)

> it seemed so unfair

Well, that is the point. :-)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com