Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

scatter.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–148 of 148 posts

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#141

Post by [deleted] »

koolba wrote: post #96
rascul wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've played the game a number of times as a deployed troop just for something to pass the time which can also be mildly entertaining for some people.

Our customized house rules are quite fun and move the game along faster as well: * Eight players setup as four joint ventures. * Joint ventures share cash and properties, but have two separate tokens on the board. * No rent collection while in jail to dissuade camping out. The end game becomes tense as your team has back to back rolls.

[deleted]

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#142

Post by [deleted] »

travisjungroth wrote: post #82
aspaceman wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With full auctions and adults going at it, Monopoly is brutal, mean and not really fun for kids. As a kid I would get knocked out super quick by my uncle, who would then typically have a 6 hour non-stop Monopoly throwdown with my mother after they eliminate the casuals. Everyone else who played would get their feelings hurt but those two were absolutely brutal with each other and loved it.

If they're playing for six hours after other people have been eliminated, either they're also casuals or they have house rules that are keeping money in the economy.

[deleted]

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#143

Post by insickness »

systoll wrote: post #61
insickness wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing irrational about this. Choosing not to buy properties is not irrational. Choosing to buy Park Place and Boardwalk and then put houses on it as soon as possible is not irrational. In fact, my strategy when I play is to get a color set as quick as possible while saving my money by buying as few other properties as possible, then spending all that money on houses/hotels for those few properties I have.

Properties go up for auction if the player that lands on them chooses not to buy. The losing player had the option to bid a total of $4 and get Electric company, Illinois Avenue, Pennsylvania Rail Road, and Baltic Avenue. Mortgaging those properties would give them enough money to afford rent, and having a mortgaged property is still better than not having the property at all. It is irrational to not bid up to the mo…

The winning player can still bid to raise the cost to the losing player without winning the bid. In other words, the winning player can bid $100 for Electric Company, forcing the losing player to bid and pay $110 for Electric Company.

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#144

Post by koolba »

lliamander wrote: post #122
koolba wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our customized house rules are quite fun and move the game along faster as well: * Eight players setup as four joint ventures. * Joint ventures share cash and properties, but have two separate tokens on the board. * No rent collection while in jail to dissuade camping out. The end game becomes tense as your team has back to back rolls.

So the venture can't collect money if either partner is in jail?

Yes. Legal fees tend to scale to what ever you can afford so it seemed like a fair rule.

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#145

Post by SamBam »

ludocode wrote: post #109
SamBam wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you imagine happens if everyone passes? It would be absurd for the rules to require a player to bid who does not want to bid, particularly if they did not write that out.

Why would it be absurd for the game to require that? It could just require that the person landing on it bid $1 as penalty for landing there. Seems perfectly reasonable to me. Besides, you can always immediately mortgage a property so it's always worth buying it for less than the mortgage price. The only situation I could imagine where everyone would pass is if everyone has exactly zero dollars, no houses and no unmo…

No, it could require that, but it doesn't.

That's what I'm saying. If the rules don't say what happens if everyone passes, assuming that no one gets the property is a very reasonable assumption. Assuming that we're requiring people to make $1 bids, or that the landing player has a "penalty," is an unreasonable assumption if the rules don't say that explicitly.

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#146

Post by SamBam »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #115
SamBam wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you imagine happens if everyone passes? It would be absurd for the rules to require a player to bid who does not want to bid, particularly if they did not write that out.

Well, you're assuming that passing is an option. One possibility would be that if you're bidding first, since there's no prior bid to pass to, you must bid; you can bid 0, but you can't pass. The rules just say it's an auction; they don't even say that you take turns making bids (or that this occurs in the usual turn order, or who starts), rather than it being more of a free-for-all! Like I said, it's all kind of und…

The rules specifically say "Any player, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price, may bid."

May bid. No player is required to bid.

Assuming that, while the rules don't say so explicitly, what they really mean is that the last player in the circle is forced to take the property is unreasonable. That's a fairly complicated rules. If that's what they meant, they'd have said it, not left it up to the players to work out.

Sine they didn't say it, it's much more reasonable to think that they just assumed everyone knows how an auction works in real life. No one is forced to bid on a Picasso when it goes on the block. It doesn't get foisted on the last person on the bidding bench who makes no bid.

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#147

Post by systoll »

insickness wrote: post #143
systoll wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Properties go up for auction if the player that lands on them chooses not to buy. The losing player had the option to bid a total of $4 and get Electric company, Illinois Avenue, Pennsylvania Rail Road, and Baltic Avenue. Mortgaging those properties would give them enough money to afford rent, and having a mortgaged property is still better than not having the property at all. It is irrational to not bid up to the mo…

The winning player can still bid to raise the cost to the losing player without winning the bid. In other words, the winning player can bid $100 for Electric Company, forcing the losing player to bid and pay $110 for Electric Company.

Right… but neither player made any bids, because doing so would make the game longer.

If we don’t care about players conspiring to shorten the game, player 2 can go bankrupt before making a move.

Player 1 lands on any property, and puts it up for auction.

Player 2 immediately bids $2000.

Player 2 wins the auction and bankrupts themselves.

Re: The Shortest Possible Game of Monopoly (2010)

#148

Post by dec0dedab0de »

Buttons840 wrote: post #117
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

skipping auctions, and having money in free parking are why most people think monopoly takes a long time to play. It's like playing musical chairs but not removing any.

In part, but it still takes a while to play, and the outcome is obvious long before the end, leading to an anti-climatic slog at the end. This happens even if you play by all the rules. "I got 6 hotels and half your properties are mortgaged. Let's play for another 15 turns until you happen to land on my hotel, then I will win."

Sure, but thats like an extra 25 minutes instead of an extra 4 hours.
Post reply on HN