Graham Zaretsky <grahamz@ameritech.net>:
# "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnm@yahoo.com>:
#> "Mike Church" <mchurch579@hotmail.com>:
#># Monopoly is chock full of luck, and relatively light on skill.
this is why variants exist like "Beyond Boardwalk and Park Place".
other variants might be made which eliminate dice altogether or
allow one to select from a 'hand' of dice-throws to strategize.
the ortho-games are just standards from which good fixes might
arise. RPGs have "problems" which are similarly fixed by House Rules:
the skeleton-original ruleset should be abandoned and repaired if
it has weaknesses. through time the mass-produced games will begin
to incorporate the popular House Rules as Variants.
#> I dunno- the only person who has been able to beat me more often than not is
#> my father. I tend to crush my competition because they don't know the rules
#> of the game.
not knowing the rules could indeed make a huge difference, but not just
because the game is luck- or skill-based, but instead because the person
doing the rules-lawyering is deciding how the whole game is going. it is
incumbent upon any interested player to learn the entirety of the rules
or face the affect of the person upon whom they depend to inform them of
the rules, including misremembered rules or omitted options available.
#> I used to have Monopoly for Sega Genesis, and it *cheated*
#> fairly regularly when it came time to trading properties. That is, I would
#> find that I would be missing a deed or cash after the trade, and it would
#> sometimes end up with a player I *didn't* negotiate with....
weird. that's a game FLAW.
# When you talk about two-player games, you can measure the degree that
# luck plays in the game by pitting someone who has studied the game
# thoroughly against a novice in a large series of games.
agreed, though "beginner's luck" may even factor here with matchings
between intermediate and beginning players.
# The problem
# with some types of mulitplayer games, like Monopoly, is that you are
# dealing with group behavior, where weaker players can conspire against
# stronger players.
as long as group-compacts are possible covertly or by discussion, yes.
# So, for example, I was in this tournament, where I was really the most
# experienced player, but I had a really weak/unlucky start.. Everyone
# in the tournament was an experienced gamer, but I was the only person
# who had actually read books on Monopoly, and knew what time in the
# game which properties were the most valuable, etc.
in tournaments sometimes it helps to hide one's knowledge so as to
give the impression of a lack of threat. you don't say if you made
the rest aware of these databits. bringing this knowledge up in a
game of the unfamiliar can backfire and make you seem a danger.
strategic mention of pertinent rules in a convivial manner can
have a completely different outcome than rules-lawyered coersion.
# I actually forced
# one player to tear down all his hotels on an expensive property,
# because he had hotels up during a housing shortage (bad bad bad
# mistake).
this is a somewhat ambiguous statement. it sounds like you
rules-lawyered a muscle-move personal embarrassment, rather
than claim slight-familiarity with the rules and ask to check
after the player landed on one of your properties. if by
'forced' you mean that you didn't cooperate to engage in a
mutually-pleasing and LEGAL settlement, then you harmed your
own reputation and image to others as a "baron" or "meanie".
# At that point, the other players decided that they were tired of my
# wheeling and dealing,
my translation: your style of mean, uncooperative play. sometimes
weak players of negotiating and strategy games wish to give the
impression of niceties, or 'standards of honour' while pursuing
the same, eroding, disabling finite game that all would, if
pressed, agreed is the general goal. others (perhaps you and at
times I) don't like to play that way, and prefer "cut-throat"
tactics -- games for blood, but not taking it too personally).
# and decided that they didn't care who won so long as I lost.
in case you think that I'm criticizing you unfairly without
being myself in error here, I've been in the same situations
*amongst friends* many times -- mostly because I like to know
all the rules as soon as I can and try to use them for my own
benefit when desired, sometimes resulting in surprising, and
even crushing, humiliating victories. the 'meta-game' isn't
often forgotten by these friends, and so they will sometimes
bring that back to haunt me, and I deserve it. ;) once I take
a beating in revenge a few times they see that I don't take
the games as seriously as they do, and we can all lighten up.
# So they, essentially made trades so that one person
# (the guy in second place) ended up with nearly all the
# property and money.
I've done the same and had the same done to me. at points it
can become a kind of "final revenge" by those who are sure
that their own chances for victory are lost to a superior
opponent. weakling losers try to turn a game loss into a
meta-game victory. sometimes it can work!
# It could have worked, had they done it a few turns earlier.
# That game, I won on skill.
in a tournament you have the advantage of a lack of memory on
the part of most of the other players involved. with a regular
gaming group, the "meta-game" isn't really possible to avoid,
though it may be minimized by those who take games less
seriously and don't hold grudges in agreed strategic objectives.
# On the other hand, I once played a game where there were far
# too many bad players who didnt' want to trade at all.
your assessment of them as "bad" may be biased here, even
though you may be right that they were inexperienced and
weren't operating from a position of power/understanding.
# There were only two
# players who would trade with me, and one had a really bad start, and
# the other had nothing I could use. One person got lucky, got an early
# monopoly, and still I couldn't convince people trade with me. No
# amount of skill could have saved me, even though I had a stronger
# start in that game than in the first game I described.
another in the thread commented here about your words. "no amount of
skill" is untrue. if you were more persuasive, had better modes of
presentation, they may have been taken in by you and convinced.
that's part of the variable quality of negotiation games: the
manipulation of personal impressions, masks, and intention.
# So, my only point is that the group dynamics of a perticular Monopoly
# game can determine how much influence you can have over the outcome.
# I've seen the same thing happen in other games as well, even those
# that have very little luck to them.
very true.
# I mean, look at Diplomacy -- no one will say that Diplomacy is mostly
# luck. But you can be a great negotiator, the best tactician there is
# -- if you can't get anyone to keep their word with you, you could wind
# up playing solitaire for a good part of the evening.
in which case the negotiation skills should be called into question,
since followthrough on deals should be part of the success of
negotiation-assessment. appeals to honour, fair play, and any number
of principled or threatened outcome could be used to persuade.
Rookie-Move
nagasiva@luckymojo.com
|
|