But you don't get UBI/collect $200 every trip around a month to keep the game going a little longer. So it's much worse than this.
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
894 points (99.2% liked)
Microblog Memes
6139 readers
3777 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
That's meant to represent your income, not UBI.
Everyone gets it for "free". You don't have to be guarding the jail square to get it.
Maybe your job is to keep rolling the dice instead of flipping board upside down, which is only way you stop getting $200.
Lizzie Magie, the creator of the predecessor game called The Landlord’s Game, was a georgist who supported UBI.
Sure, but the Landlord's Game was a critique of capitalism. The $200 was supposed to be wages even in her version.
Okay
Only for capitalists!
For everyone stuck in the game. The problem with "capitalism" isn't voluntary market exchanges. It is corrupted markets from hierarchical power discrepancies. UBI, as the power to say no, solves the structural desperation imposed on people threatened by starvation. The monopoly analogy is slightly distorted because there is still some undeveloped land that can compete with existing housing affordability.
Monopoly needs a Luigi role
It took me way too long to realize how fucked up it is that you build houses on your properties and as soon as you collected enough rent money evict all those families, tear down the houses and build a hotel instead.
The best way to win the game is actually to aggressively build houses and never upgrade to hotels. I'm pretty sure that the rules as written don't allow anyone to buy houses if there's not any house pieces left so if you can get a bunch of the cheaper properties and max out houses you can stop any of the rest of the players from being able to jack up the rent on their properties.
Correct. I have recited this in a million contexts over the last 20 years.. the first sentence in Business 101 textbook: "there is scarcity" and therefore all the shit that has followed
Also always buy Orange as they are tile most frequently landed on
Also dark blue at the end of the board for their one-hit kill chance. Basically the equivalent to getting seriously ill in the US. Can't do shit about it, but your pleasant life (if existing) ends right there.
Those are actually quite bad imo, very expensive to build up and people very rarely land on them, that's why I like brown, they seem to get more hits and very cheap to build up
I'd aim for the light blues. It's cheap to get hotels on em early. But honestly, even winning isn't particularly fun. Cause in my experience, everyone knows who's gonna win like 2 hours before the game is actually over.
If you follow the rules the game should take less than 2 hours unless nobody gets a set to start building houses and everyone refuses to trade.
Oh we played with ALL the house rules. Fines on Free Parking, substitute pieces for houses when they ran out, per-determined trading periods, all so we could maintain some vaguely stable hierarchy of monopolies that inexorably lurch toward the one at the top winning. I'm sure I've never played actual Monopoly.
Yeah, all those things drag the game out. We did the money goes into free parking thing and all our games dragged out 6+ hours as well when I was a kid.
Played it by the rules as an adult and it went pretty fast.
this strategy assumes people follow the raw, which usually isn't the case
I've never seen anyone play Monopoly by the rules as written because anyone who cares enough about board games to follow all of the rules isn't interested in playing games like Monopoly.
Every strategy based on the rules assumes people follow the rules.
ok but this one assumes people follow a very specific rule that most people who play don't even know
every time you want to use this strategy people will assume they can simply add houses and you will have to point out the rule and probably prove that it's an actual rule and then you are the jerk who insists to play by the rules
also there's a difference between raw and rai and I'm pretty sure that the makers intended you to want to upgrade to hotels
Except monopoly is never fun at any point in the game
Ironically that was the original point of the game
But then the game idea was stolen from the original creator and turned into a profitable product by a company. Which is even more ironic.
And this nightmare is?
If a guy named Luigi comes around it certainly is, for a brief moment at least.
that's the entire point of monopoly.
unfortunately in the real world you still need somewhere to sleep after you flip the board over.
Yea working as intended.
Get a few of the boards and you can tent those over yourself
Monopoly is a very boring game when you're just throwing dice and hoping to get lucky early on.
Then, two or three players have a lot of fun haggling over properties for a bit in the middle.
But once the trading is done and monopolies are locked in, there's never a reason to trade again and you're back to just rolling dice until someone goes broke.
The original version of the game had a "cooperative" mode, where you tried to develope the whole board in the fewest number of turns. But even that was largely "roll dice, hope you get lucky".
It's just not a good game, overall. Catan plays much faster and still gives you the bargaining dynamic. Puerto Rico lets you play a soulless land developer without the randomness. Tzolk'in has a way cooler board. And if you've got 2-3 hours to blow on a board game, pick up one of the insane 4Xers like Eclipse or do something more exciting like Galaxy Trucker for a madcap puzzle/racing adventure.
Monopoly is designed to be unbalanced on purpose. It's mostly derived from the Landlord's Game that was made to be a political education tool about the accumulation of land and real estate in a few private hands.
Monopoly is designed to be unbalanced on purpose.
It's not the imbalance that's the problem. It's the glacial pace and the lack of meaningful decision points.
the lack of meaningful decision points.
Again, that's part of the point.
It can be played quicker. Players don't get money for passing go. That's socialism don'tcha know? And if you end up in jail it's for twice the turns as there are players. A few tweaks here and there make the game quicker and way more unfair, hammering home the point that the player who gets a lucky roll first will dominate the other players.
That doesn't make it a good game. They don't give it away for free at Economics classes, it's sold worldwide by Hasbro!
In a really cynical turn of events, Hasbro (or whatever company came before) ripped of the woman who made The Landlord's Game to make monopoly and made billions in the process.
The irony is too damn high.
That sucks. But the original point was it's a bad game. The fact that it's an unethical, bad game doesn't change that.
That was the point of the original game though right? To show how quickly it becomes imbalanced and players who got lucky early on easily ended up winning.
Monopoly is derived from The Landlord's Game, created in 1903 in the United States by left-wing feminist Lizzie Magie, as a way to demonstrate that an economy rewarding individuals is better than one where monopolies hold all the wealth.
load more comments
(3 replies)
::: spoiler New plan... better than the thimble and boot
Start with the plumbing...
load more comments
(3 replies)
view more: next ›