From: urban@sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Urban)
Subject: Re: Monopoly Rules
Reply-To: urban@sideshow.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Urban)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:45:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.212028.11710@colorado.edu> jcwu@moet.cs.colorado.edu (WU JEFF) writes:
>...
>+  For some reason, it is viewed as a children's game. 
>... (for adults:) ...
>+  play with the official rules, don't add ANY optional rules.
>...
>+  trade, trade, trade, and encourage other people to trade.  That's
>   the fun part of monopoly. 

I absolutely agree that the auctioning and dealing -- elements that
add a high level of player interaction -- are what separate `adult'
play from Monopoly as a `children's' game.

For the heck of it, I played in the first round of a Monopoly
tournament at a local gaming convention a few months ago.  I was
_astonished_ when the tournament director did not allow me to cut a
deal involving the purchase of property in exchange for `rent
immunity' for my first two landings on that property.  `Rent immunity'
dealing has IMHO always been the most important reason for the rules
to explicitly state that `you must ask for the rent', rather than
requiring automatic payment.  Players who do not take advantage of
this device are missing part of the fun.

>
>+  Go for broke.  Hock everything.  Conservative games take forever.  I'd
>   rather play 3 wild exciting games than 1 long conservative boring game.

Well, I do not know that I would agree with `hock everything', but the
game is certainly more fun when you go in for the high-risk,
high-payoff option of sinking a rather unsafe amount of capital into
big-time property improvements.  I would not recommend this if you are
already clearly ahead, however...

Although most of my gaming friends, alas, disagree, I still consider
Monopoly to be, as Parker used to say, very much a `fun-making' game.


Incidentally, those interested in the history of Monopoly should be
aware that the late lamented British magazine `Games and Puzzles' ran
an article back in the 1970s describing one Elizabeth Magie's ``The
Landlord's Game'', patented about 1910 (the patent showing the board
and rules are reproduced in the article); this game was clearly the
direct ancestor of Monopoly.  Darrow's claim to `invention' for
Monopoly is shown to be an overstatement, since Magie's game showed
most of the original elements of tokens moving around a board,
purchase of properties, collection of rent, passing `Go', and so on.
In a subsequent issue, a letter from Parker Brothers explained that
Parker had purchased the rights to the game from Magie and that they
had even marketed The Landlord's Game in its original form for a short
time, so nobody really `stole' anything, legally speaking.

(feminists could argue, and not without some justification, that
giving Charles Darrow full credit for the invention of Monopoly and
leaving Elizabeth Magie out of the story entirely could represent a
rather cynical sexism on the part of Parker's marketing department.  I
personally suspect that Magie's apparent leftist political views may
have had something to do with this as well -- but then, the beauty of
speculation is that it is hard to contradict without more speculation
:-) ).

If there is interest, and I am feeling energetic, I can dig out the
article and try to summarize it more extensively.

	Mike Urban

	urban@cobra.jpl.nasa.gov