I just realized that if nobody buys property, you can just keep going around the board collecting 200 dollars until the bank crumbles.
@Roxxie_Riot BUT HUMAN NATURE D:
Monopoly presents a false pretense: It tells you to horde properties and wealth to bankrupt the other players, but this behavior is exactly what will lead *you* to bankrupcy.
Instead of making the bank rich by attacking one another, the players can just as easily starve the bank until it has to turn over all the deeds to the public.
The premise of the communist game was pretty close to what you said up top. Properties couldn't be bought, but both rewards and penalties were shared by all players.
"I passed Go, so we all collect $200."
"I need to see the doctor. Let's split the $45 cost between us."
It's funny becuase even in the capitalist version, buying properties just makes it harder for everyone. By working together, players could just keep rolling and passing go until the bank is empty and everyone is probably richer than if they'd played by the rules and had constant expenses to the bank for development, or to other players.
The communist rule set was never actually finalized, but the most common win condition was when the poorest of the group doubled their money.
With a starting amount of $1500 per player, the communist game would end when someone reached $3000 in personal cash. And it often didn't take long due to how many gains vs expenditures there are.
@Roxxie_Riot @DragonessDella And if anyone goes "But wait! That's not realistic! That doesn't include a lot of expenditures out there! Communism can't work when you factor in everything else!" then you can easily point out that the capitalist version is missing those same things, and yet it does way worse.
At least we stand a chance of a healthy economy & populace with communism. Capitalism -- especially the "free market" kind that this game replicates -- offers no such assurance.
@Roxxie_Riot Do you play without auctioning? I know very few people who follow that rule.
@Roxxie_Riot but it's not a Nash equilibrium. If you start buying property while nobody else does, you'll be better off than if you didn't buy any property.
Moreover, even if everyone else is buying property, you're still better off buying property than not buying it.
It's like prisoner's dilema.
Or tragedy of the commons.
There's no incentive to cooperate.
On top of that, from a board game point of view, it'd be utterly boring to just go around in circles collecting money that you can't use in any way.
@Roxxie_Riot Which is fine, until one of your friends inevitably stabs everyone in the back and breaks the balance in a bid to take over the board and win.
@Roxxie_Riot true story. But then again the game would get horribly boring. On the other hand it's boring anyway, because normally the only winning strategy for Monopoly (and for capitalism) is to grab everything you can get.
I hear the "game would get boring" a lot in this thread.
Like, I don't think monopoly is very fun to start with. It's the kind of game that just causes you to resent whoever's winning, since once you get into a death spiral, it takes like, 50 turns before you're actually kicked out of the game.
Honestly, I'd rather just keep goin round in ciricles getting chance cards, than wating a year for my brother to finish winning.
I guess some people are really into findom.
Knzk.me is Fast and Stable instance.
This instance isn't focused on any theme or subject, feel free to talk about whatever you want. Although the main languages are English and Japanese, We accept every single language and country.
Everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!