Hacker News Reader

Comment by justinsb | Hacker News Reader

We had a really old version of Monopoly growing up, and the rules said something like "Players may make any agreements they wish" (the rules don't say that now). That's what real Monopoly is about in my book: deal-making rather than gambling on the dice.

For example, if one player owns all the railroads, the rent is higher for each railroad. So, a common deal would be to "give" all the railroads to a single player, and that player would then divide the greater spoils.

Similar "pool" deals could be made to collect properties without needing to hope that you got them all by luck, or making similar deals to block other players.

There are also a large number of books that talk about Monopoly strategy and even analyze it statistically.

Needless to say, with these rules the game could easily become 'contentious'!

View on HN

I absolutely agree, and want to add one point: Rent immunity, which this author decries, is the only thing that keeps the game interesting after the first few times circling the board. Weak players can team up to tear down strong players, while strong players try to play weak players against one another. It's all socially and psychologically driven, and it's possible to engineer amazing comebacks.

But are agreements binding?

If you want a game that thrives on negotiation, try Diplomacy.

I've heard that it's a game that destroys friendships.

There are no dice. It's entirely about self-interest and betrayal. So why would you think that? ;-)

Yeah, Diplomacy is one of those games that you know you have been back-stabbed and there are no dice to save you. I will say it is a fun distance game with a group. Diplomacy is a marathon and Colonial Diplomacy is a sprint. Playing Diplomacy with a judge and only 1 area of visibility is a true treat.

If you want a game that can seriously lead to violence then try Junto, History of the Roman Empire, or TSR's Line in the Sand when Israel gets the "Ancient Israel" card with USA getting "Global Policemen" (these are not compatible and leads to nukes and fists).

Sometimes in the middle of a game of Diplomacy it seems worth destroying a friendship if it means finding a way to wrest control of Serbia from an opponent.

And if they quit your friendship over a game, you better get new friends anyway.

I've heard that too, but I'm not sure why any players (friends) would be surprised. The whole point of the game is to backstab other players at just the right moment! :)

This a great point. There are two facets to Monopoly that unfortunately go unnoticed in any debate among board game geeks. The first, you mentioned, is the art of the deal in each game - the psychological and strategic maneuvering of assets acquired by dice roll.

The second facet, and no less important, is that almost everyone knows the rules to monopoly. You can play a lively game of monopoly with your grandmother, your son, your older sibling, and a random stranger, because everyone has a basic understanding of the game.

In a game of psychological maneuvering, nothing is more valuable than the possible diversity of the psyches involved.

risk has both those properties, while being a lot faster-paced and less boring than monopoly.

That's where I'd risk to me. For one, the combat theme is going to instantly turn off at least half the females, and a chunk of the males also. It just doesn't have the same appeal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com