Live data from Hacker News

The Landlord's Game

en.wikipedia.org

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: The Landlord's Game

#111
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it is even pretty much a design principle for newer board games [1]. It started to become popular with games like Settlers of Catan. [1] https://boardgamedesigncourse.com/making-a-comeback/

What is the mechanic in Settlers that enables this? Can't think of anything apart from how resources seems to be unevenly used throughout the game (wood and brick being more sought after early on to build roads and settlements, while iron and grain become more important when cities are built later on).

The robber placement, players who are behind can target the lead player.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#112
I posted this a few years ago, about Micropoly (Microsoft Monopoly), Ralf Anspach's Anti-Monopoly, and Monopoly’s Anti-Capitalist Origins:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16261425

A while ago (1999) I made a "Micropoly" board game about the Microsoft Monopoly, with cards for various dot-com companies (Copyleft (L) 1999 Free Monopoly Foundation), using an xml file to define the cards and board and an ugly Perl script to render them with PostScript!

http://donhopkins.com/home/Micropoly/

>Update: I've written an ugly "openopoly.pl" Perl script, and a "micropoly.xml" data file, that describes the specifics of the game. The Perl script reads in and parses the XML database, and writes out PostScript and HTML to render the graphics and web pages. It embeds EPS files with images and cartoons in the PostScript file, and then runs it all through GhostScript, to render out PDF and JPG files with the printable images of the board. It currently writes out one HTML file with links to the small and large pictures of all the property cards, and soon it will write out a web page for each property, and link them all together, as well as an image map for the entire board. Most of the logos, cartoons, and other graphics haven't been put in yet, but the basic functionality for producing the game is there. This is work in progress, but here's a preview of the automatically generated web page index of properties, the full sized board micropoly-board-whole.pdf [1,672k], the paginated board micropoly-board-split.pdf [10,028k, sorry but I'll optimize the PostScript not to draw clipped images and it will reduce in size], and the printable cards micropoly-cards.pdf [5087k], as well as the micropoly.xml file from which it was all generated.

http://donhopkins.com/home/Micropoly/micropoly.xml

http://donhopkins.com/home/Micropoly/micropoly-board-whole.p...

http://donhopkins.com/home/Micropoly/micropoly-cards.pdf

The idea (which I never finished but encourage anyone else to pick up and run with) was to develop a fully skinnable parametrizable Monopoly compatible game template (or variants like Anti-Monopoly), that you could print out and glue onto cardboard, or even play online!

http://donhopkins.com/home/Micropoly/notes.html

Monopoly is essentially the original "Open Source Game" designed by Elizabeth Magie and shared among Atlantic City Quakers. Then it was illegitimately taken over and patented by a giant corporation. Parker Brothers' story about Charles Darrow was marketing bullshit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Magie

There's also an interesting story about Ralph Anspach's decade-long "Anti-Monopoly" lawsuit:

http://www.antimonopoly.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Anspach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Monopoly

https://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/straight-dope/ar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_board_game_Mono...

>Also in the 1970s, Professor Ralph Anspach, who had himself published a board game intended to illustrate the principles of both monopolies and trust busting, fought Parker Brothers and its then parent company, General Mills, over the copyright and trademarks of the Monopoly board game. Through the research of Anspach and others, much of the early history of the game was "rediscovered" and entered into official United States court records. Because of the lengthy court process, including appeals, the legal status of Parker Brothers' copyright and trademarks on the game was not settled until 1985. The game's name remains a registered trademark of Parker Brothers, as do its specific design elements; other elements of the game are still protected under copyright law. At the conclusion of the court case, the game's logo and graphic design elements became part of a larger Monopoly brand, licensed by Parker Brothers' parent companies onto a variety of items through the present day. Despite the "rediscovery" of the board game's early history in the 1970s and 1980s, and several books and journal articles on the subject, Hasbro (Parker Brothers' current parent company) did not acknowledge any of the game's history before Charles Darrow on its official Monopoly website as recently as June 2012. Nor did Hasbro acknowledge anyone other than Darrow in materials published or sponsored by them, at least as recently as 2009.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#113
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jargon for this is a "comeback mechanic" - game designers have to be cautious with them though, as if the final round can flip the results too easily what was the point of all the other rounds? In "Power Grid" (a power plant building game) the turn order is recalculated every round based on how well the player is doing, with the players doing worst getting more chances to bid in power plant auctions and being fir…

Yes, you can lose the meaning of all other rounds but the last. And if player strategies can maximize comebacks, then all the smart people will only focus on the comebacks and only the less experienced or relaxed players will play the actual game (and be constantly frustrated by seeming to win early on and then losing to comebacks without feeling any power to change that). In chess, which doesn't have a clear comebac…

> the unskilled players can sometimes make a lucky win which seems satisfying enough

I like games that have this feature, perhaps even more then a come-back mechanism.

In the game of go playing against a higher skilled player you usually have some portion of the board where you are doing better then expected. The higher skilled player might have actually "given" this result as a trade favorable to them, but that is usually not the perception of the lower skilled player.

In fact on a 19×19 board there are so many micro battles going on that the lower skilled player will usually get enough perceived good mini-results that it is enough to enjoy the game, despite knowing they will definitely loose in the end.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#114
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if they go on more vacations, buy a flashy car, have more parties, you are saying that the Fed "takes that money straight back" and that it doesn't go to travel agencies, car dealers, caterers, party planners, service workers etc? They do get the money. But the world hasn't become any more productive; the number of goods and services being produced is still the same. So when they spend that money and consume goo…

> They do get the money. But the world hasn't become any more productive; the number of goods and services being produced is still the same. So when they spend that money and consume goods and services, someone else must necessarily be consuming less. More flights (its' virtue another discussion), more cars produced, more parties planned, food made, services rendered. Of course production has gone up, and will contin…

> More flights (its' virtue another discussion), more cars produced, more parties planned, food made, services rendered.

That would only be possible if we had previously been using the labour and capital to produce those things at less than 100% efficiency. That's not what happens. Businesses will always have been trying to operate as efficiently as possible. When demand increases they either have to increase prices or increase supply. Increasing prices will mean that someone else doesn't get the good or service. Increasing supply will mean employing extra labour or capital that would otherwise have been used elsewhere. Either way, spending money doesn't cause total productivity to increase.

(Unless of course the Fed screwed up and put us in a deflationary recession. In which case, yeah, extra spending would help. But that's only if they screwed up. Normally, they have already optimised the variable you're trying to adjust. Adjusting it away from the optimum will just cause them to push it back.)

Re: The Landlord's Game

#115
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of like how crypto was started as a reaction to broken financial institutions and is now being marketed as a get rich quick scheme. Sometimes we become what we set out or destroy.

> marketed as a get rich quick scheme I am seeing bus stop ads here in Sydney with a tagline from a BTC exchange saying something like "If you're seeing bitcoin on a billboard, it's time to buy". Now I'm hardly an astute investor but I thought the usual rule is that if your cabbie starts talking about it, it's time to get out of the market.

Reminds me of a billboard I saw in the London tube once, with the big bold title "BEAT THE CROWDS" over a photo of lots of people crowded uncomfortably together on the platform. I wasn't sure if it was encouraging people to get up early and commute to their jobs, or to get a job with the police hitting lots of people with billy clubs. Either way, it was about crowd control.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sztf4hcGrB4&ab_channel=WestL...

It is said that the people are revolting!

You said it. They stink on ice!

Re: The Landlord's Game

#116
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone's working in both cases. In the case of inheritance it's the person who gave the money in their will. That person also already paid tax when they earned the money in the first place. If anything I think we should encourage rich people to give their money away (even if only to their children) since wealth consumed by a broader number of people leads to more happiness than if it's all consumed by one person. It…

I pay tax when I earn money, I then give it to my mechanic to service my car, and I pay more tax on that, he then pays tax on the money I give him. Why should inheritance be any different?

(I came back and edited this answer completely.)

The difference is that when you give money to your children, you're not getting any goods or services in exchange. The transaction is making them richer, but you poorer by the same amount.

(Also, later when the children pay a mechanic the amount of total tax paid will be the same.)

Re: The Landlord's Game

#117
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The jargon for this is a "comeback mechanic" - game designers have to be cautious with them though, as if the final round can flip the results too easily what was the point of all the other rounds? In "Power Grid" (a power plant building game) the turn order is recalculated every round based on how well the player is doing, with the players doing worst getting more chances to bid in power plant auctions and being fir…

Yes, you can lose the meaning of all other rounds but the last. And if player strategies can maximize comebacks, then all the smart people will only focus on the comebacks and only the less experienced or relaxed players will play the actual game (and be constantly frustrated by seeming to win early on and then losing to comebacks without feeling any power to change that). In chess, which doesn't have a clear comebac…

In addition—to take this out side of board games—as someone that is not good at sports, I like sports usually only when there is a lot of added randomness so I can get at least a lucky shot or two, even if I will loose most likely loose the game as a whole. For example when I play basketball I like it a lot better when we play on a coarse concrete, with crooked baskets and a peeling ball. Another examples include: laser-tag (er even better a nerf-gun fight) vs paint ball and disk-golf vs. traditional golf.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#118
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socialism tries in increase wealth of individuals, just like capitalism does. The difference is that different flavours of socialism want to increase it across the board, where capitalism wants an individuals wealth to be very well protected, especially when the numbers get high, so that wealth may accumulate in few. I find it fascinating that the original Monopoly game was desgined to teach us the difference and how…

Georgism is extremely capitalist, and it is not “tax bad behavior.” Georgism can be summarized as such: A person is entitled to exactly what he or she produces. That’s the purest capitalism I’ve ever heard of. The scent of socialism you get is due to the examination that George provides of “exactly what he or she produces.” Laborers are therefore entitled to all of their wages. Capitalists, who earn money by deployin…

> Landlords, however, earn money by charging for access to something they did not produce

Not only did they not produce it, in many places they (or the ancestors they inherited it from) actively stole it from the original inhabitants. e.g. The Inclosure Acts, Colonialism, etc.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#119
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They do get the money. But the world hasn't become any more productive; the number of goods and services being produced is still the same. So when they spend that money and consume goods and services, someone else must necessarily be consuming less. More flights (its' virtue another discussion), more cars produced, more parties planned, food made, services rendered. Of course production has gone up, and will contin…

> More flights (its' virtue another discussion), more cars produced, more parties planned, food made, services rendered. That would only be possible if we had previously been using the labour and capital to produce those things at less than 100% efficiency. That's not what happens. Businesses will always have been trying to operate as efficiently as possible. When demand increases they either have to increase prices…

> ... or capital that would otherwise have been used elsewhere.

Or not used.

Throughout all of this, I don't generally disagree with your reasoning, but you're basing it all on assumptions I reject.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#120
post #70
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the WP article? It seems the original game had 2 sets of rules: > The set had rules for two different games, anti-monopolist and a monopolist. The anti-monopolist rules reward all during wealth creation while the monopolist rules had the goal of forming monopolies and forcing opponents out of the game.[3] A win in the anti-monopolist or Single Tax version (later called "Prosperity"), was when the player…

I don't have a good understanding, but is it actually socialist when it is about increasing personal wealth at the core? It does rather sound like a constrained version of capitalism to me.

Well to be honest there is different versions of socialism with different meanings. Some do put personal wealth as more important, or at least indirectly. If it is part of the market socialism side then wealth is used the same way to promote self-interest.

In market socialism the the difference from capitalism is stricter controls on business ownership (i.e. businesses must be coops or something along those lines).

Post reply on HN