"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com>:
# > # The problem is, Monopoly is a zero-sum game. You can only win if other
# > # people lose.
I'm generally ignoring this "zero-sum game" phrase in favour of more
obvious terms to me which come from philosophy and my own reading,
such as "finite game" / "infinite game", which I like very much.
"David Damerell" <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote in message
# > Yes, correct. Why does that mean that Alice and Bob cannot increase both
# > their chances of winning at the expense of Charlie, Derek, and Eddie?
"Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com>:
# It doesn't-
then it isn't a problem, unless for some reason you need to win immediately
at the point of the trade (which isn't a game-necessity/requirement). prior
to that, however, some negotiated trade might lead to leverage of position
and increase the chance of some players winning but not others.
# but in order for *any* player to win,
the original context was negotiation and trade within the game,
especially when all players have divided up the properties.
# that player has to end up with the property of *all* of the
# other players.
but not during the game itself. those are the victory conditions
of the ordinary Monopoly game, but they aren't the necessary
outcome of any specific choice or settlement within the game
prior to achievement of victory-conditions. one might improve
the chances of victory for all or some players at the same time.
# There is no way to win in Monopoly
again, the context was a condition of decentralized property-
ownership and a movement toward the game conclusion.
# with a mutually cooperative play style.
there is a way to win with this style during *some* of the game.
the presupposition that Monopoly is *only* cut-throat, and that
cooperation *cannot* result in (sometimes concocted or meta-)
game objectives sometimes leads to coalitions against those
who are viewed as sharks, opportunists, and exploiters.
# The nature of the game won't allow it.
all finite games (cf. Carse) with a single-player-as-winner
will not allow *perpetual* cooperative play toward joint-victory.
that's a given. but that doesn't mean that players cannot join
forces in a cooperative way to negotiate improved chances of
victory for all those combining their efforts, as has been
described in this thread when players decided to set a
temporary pseudo-goal of eliminating a mean or uncooperative
ogre from their midst (banishing unpopulars), effectively
saying "we agree this player will not win". at times this can
be successful, if that player is insufficiently well-placed
so as to resist them and pick them off as a group. it is a
meta-game strategy that can help weaker players, and stronger
ones may consider it "unfair alliance".
sometimes in games of strategy this is the only way that
players who are in inferior positions or who have less skill
at the game entire can preserve their chances or prevent
that skilled player in a position of extreme superiority
(skill or luck or something else) from winning: by ganging
up against them and at least keeping them at the same or a
lesser condition than the rest, if not driving them out
of the game. in repeated game-fests this can even be
discouraging on a META-game-level to skilled players
who are consistently targetted by others without the
same skills as important to limit or expel early on.
meta-level strategies such a fostering or compassion
and cooperation to combat the raptor image can help. :)
your contention that the nature of the game "won't allow"
mutually-cooperative play style is false, therefore, in the
short term, and true in the long-term within games like
Monopoly, where victory conditions are stated as only solo.
Rookie-Move
nagasiva@luckymojo.com
--
yronwode.com@nagasiva; http://www.satanservice.org/
emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired;
HOODOO CATALOGUE! send street addy to: catalogue@luckymojo.com
|
|