The Landlord's Game • Hacker News Board

Re: The Landlord's Game

#141

Post by gota » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 12:48 PM UTC

throwawayay02 wrote: post #62

lordnacho wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged, at least years of playing it with my cousins never revealed the didactic purpose to any of us. When we played people always took it seriously, ie that there are smart things you can do and you should do them, but we never stepped back and pointed out how the rules made the losers more and mo…

Is there a board game where one's advantage doesn't compound, though?

"Imperial" - the best boardgame of all, in my opinion[1]- largely circumvents having a comeback mechanism by making the game scores being a dynamic result of all player interactions until the very end. You typically only know for sure whos about to win in the last round but (very importantly) it does not feel random at all (there is virtually no luck, no dice, no card decks)

In short, its a light wargame in which the players control the nations - but they are not the nations. They are investors who buy bonds in the nations and the player with most investments controls (governs) that nation. Controls shift during the game and war is _not_ the objective. Profiting from your nation(s) is.

Do check it out. The game is well reviewe and still critically underrated

[1] https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24181/imperial

Re: The Landlord's Game

#142

Post by danShumway » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 12:55 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #52

midasuni wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the whole point, it’s a realistic simulation of life

Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged, at least years of playing it with my cousins never revealed the didactic purpose to any of us. When we played people always took it seriously, ie that there are smart things you can do and you should do them, but we never stepped back and pointed out how the rules made the losers more and mo…

> Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged

I don't want to start a big argument, because I realize some people actually do like Monopoly as an artistic statement, but I've always felt that if a game is actually that universally misunderstood, it's not because it's brilliant -- it's because it's bad at demonstrating its core point.

One of the purposes of game design is to communicate something, whether that's an idea or an emotion or whatever. And Monopoly is a bad game at communicating. It doesn't add anything additional to anyone's understanding of Capitalism, it's only decipherable by people who already know what it's trying to say.

I have never, ever seen a child or an adult that was out-of-the-loop on Monopoly's origins walk away from the game saying "huh, that has some interesting parallels to the real world, I should read more about this."

Re: The Landlord's Game

#143

Post by lordnacho » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 1:24 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #142

lordnacho wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged, at least years of playing it with my cousins never revealed the didactic purpose to any of us. When we played people always took it seriously, ie that there are smart things you can do and you should do them, but we never stepped back and pointed out how the rules made the losers more and mo…

> Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged I don't want to start a big argument, because I realize some people actually do like Monopoly as an artistic statement, but I've always felt that if a game is actually that universally misunderstood, it's not because it's brilliant -- it's because it's bad at demonstrating its core point. O…

Perhaps this was different in the past, back when your entertainment for the evening was just to sit around with a few people, read the rules thoroughly, and concentrate. Perhaps even play it several times.

For the current age I think it takes way too much patience. I think movies have changed like that too, the attention economy demands that you get to the point immediately. Heck, I can't even read articles that don't address their headline within the first three paragraphs.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#144

Post by dasKrokodil » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

eloeffler wrote: post #140

eloeffler wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I wonder the same... The wikipedia article points to landlordsgame.info. Thereyou can also see a picture with all the cards and chips that came with it. It seems a lot. But there is no complete, printable copy of them: http://landlordsgame.info/games/lg-1906/images/lg-1906_egc-p...

And I found this: https://thelandlordgame.com/index.html Seems to be based on it. Don't know how closely it relates but it is CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 licensed and you can just download it.

Nice find, thanks!

Re: The Landlord's Game

#145

Post by mod » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 1:53 PM UTC

throwawayay02 wrote: post #62

lordnacho wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged, at least years of playing it with my cousins never revealed the didactic purpose to any of us. When we played people always took it seriously, ie that there are smart things you can do and you should do them, but we never stepped back and pointed out how the rules made the losers more and mo…

Is there a board game where one's advantage doesn't compound, though?

Chutes and Ladders

Re: The Landlord's Game

#146

Post by mod » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

fouronnes3 wrote: post #50

flower-giraffe wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very interesting twist is to play with real money. Set a sensible exchange rate to real money and treat the Monopoly money as “chips”. The tactics and strategy significantly change because there is real external value to the assets and currency - but only for the duration of the game. Apart from anything else it means the game ends much faster.

That's an interesting idea. I've had fun playing with another twist. Follow the rules strictly but start with 1/3 the usual starting money.

Sounds like this would just extend the period where people have to get lucky to gain an advantage. So it would appear more even for a longer time.

(I do agree that would be more fun)

Re: The Landlord's Game

#147

Post by iso1631 » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 1:58 PM UTC

OscarCunningham wrote: post #116

iso1631 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

> The difference is that when you give money to your children, you're not getting any goods or services in exchange

Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. What if my kid is a mechanic and does the work for me?

Re: The Landlord's Game

#148

Post by dragontamer » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:48 PM UTC

PMunch wrote: post #98

heja2009 wrote: post #65

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).

You are encouraged to trade with weaker players.

If you trade with the winning player, they win faster. If you trade with players who are behind, it doesn't really change the outcome of the game (they will probably still be behind at the end of the game)

The only thing preventing that winning player from reaching 10 points is 2 stone and 3 wheat. So as long as no one gives the winning player those resources, the game continues.

Alternatively, the winning player can try to win on their own by massing up 20 other resources and trading 4 for 1. But everyone else can more efficiently get the resources they need by trading with each other, allowing for an innate comeback mechanic.

--------

At a minimum, that puts even the weakest players always in the position as kingmaker. So everyone has something to do at all stages of the game.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#149

Post by epistasis » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 2:49 PM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #109

cies wrote: 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…

"Capitalism" is a fraught word because it is used both with very specific definitions, many conflicting to a degree, and it's also in very general terms. So in general conversation with people of different backgrounds, it's important to connect its usage to specific schools of thought or to more precisely define what is meant

I'll think you'll find that Marx is pretty upset about labor not being entitled to what labor produces, as well. And while Marx is not all of socialism, I don't know anybody who says that Marxian thought is outside of socialism, and I've sought out lots of socialist thought that critiques Marx.

Most critiques of capitalism are that workers are not entitled to the fruits of their labor, that capital steals from them. So if saying that somebody is entitled to work and to keep their labor is capitalist, I'm having trouble understanding where you come from, and would like to hear more. In particular, I don't think George declares that capital is entitled to the fruits of others' labor, which is what you seem to be saying.

Georgism is about socializing land, about preventing people from hoarding it and the wealth it produces. Land is the one input to production that we can't make more of, so therefore hoarding it is by far the most harmful. It's about restoring commons, after the commons had been taken away and privatized. It's about restoring all land to some form of social control, no matter who owns it and how much that person owns. And it's about redistributing that wealth that people are unfairly taking from society when they pocket unearned land rents.

My problem with Georgism is that it tends to be politically unstable and lead to tax revolts. And my problem with the typical Marxist visions (Marx himself was not super prescriptive, but in that void, Marxist thought must expand upon Marx) is the tendency to dictators and totalitarianism, something which George also predicted.

I think George is extremely compatible with, and perhaps required for, the type of socialism that was sought in the Spanish revolution of 1936.

Re: The Landlord's Game

#150

Post by banannaise » Wed, Apr 21, 2021, 4:01 PM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #142

lordnacho wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged, at least years of playing it with my cousins never revealed the didactic purpose to any of us. When we played people always took it seriously, ie that there are smart things you can do and you should do them, but we never stepped back and pointed out how the rules made the losers more and mo…

> Perhaps the most intrigueing meta observation of the monopoly game is how the players seem to never recognise how it is rigged I don't want to start a big argument, because I realize some people actually do like Monopoly as an artistic statement, but I've always felt that if a game is actually that universally misunderstood, it's not because it's brilliant -- it's because it's bad at demonstrating its core point. O…

That's because when it was corporatized, they intentionally took out the message. The Landlord's Game became Monopoly. The Poor House became Jail. References to wages and necessity taxes were removed. The anti-monopolist rules were removed entirely.