Not quite fifty years ago, a girlfriend who then was more "liberal" than I was, gave me the board game "Anti-Monopoly" as a birthday present. I had arrived at a stage of disliking board games, so we never played it.
This is a very weird article. It should have been trivial to argue against Turner's tweet, because obviously a board game is not real economics. Instead, the author lands on "actually, Monopoly games take a long time" as a good argument to include. I wonder if the author knows that this happens because people add a wealth-redistributing "Free Parking" house rule?
Regardless of whether it's designed to shorten the game, it lengthens it significantly. Monopoly only ends when enough money leaves the economy. With the free parking lottery a LOT less money leaves the economy, leading to extended play time.
> Monopoly only ends when enough money leaves the economy.
Not true. Monopoly ends when one player can take money from others faster than they can accumulate it. There can still be net money into the players, just not net money in to most of the players.
I want to say this is actually the default rules? We didn’t play it this way growing up but I think every electronic version of Monopoly I have played (and I’ve played a number of them since I’ve always loved the game) does that. Some don’t even let you disable it.
Sort of. The default rules allow the player who landed on the property to buy it first. If they refuse then it goes to auction. When you make auctions the only way to buy property things get interesting.
11 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 56.2 ms ] threadNot quite fifty years ago, a girlfriend who then was more "liberal" than I was, gave me the board game "Anti-Monopoly" as a birthday present. I had arrived at a stage of disliking board games, so we never played it.
Not true. Monopoly ends when one player can take money from others faster than they can accumulate it. There can still be net money into the players, just not net money in to most of the players.