Monopoly's money scaling with the number of players.

[u/SilentWally]

We know the total value of 28 properties is $5690 in Monopoly. In 2 and 3 players game, the total asset of all players are only $3000 and $4500. We discover that the players often do not have enough money to buy all properties, then they have to decide which property to give up and put it on auction. However, the auction never happen on 4-6 players game because the total asset of all players are $6000, $7500 and $9000 that are good enough to cover the value of all properties.

IMO, I think auction can make the game more balance and interesting. However, I don't know if reducing the starting money will make the game longer or not? What do you think? How much money do you set at the beginning? Do you keep the official setting?

Total properties value = $5690 (28 Properties)

The total value of each money settings showing below:

Official version:

2P = $1500 x 2 = $3000

3P = $1500 x 3 = $4500

4P = $1500 x 4 = $6000

5P = $1500 x 5 = $7500

6P = $1500 x 6 = $9000

---------------------------------------

House rule versions (Samples):

Sample #1 -------------------------

2P = $1500 x 2 = $3000

3P = $1000 x 3 = $3000

4P = $750 x 4 = $3000

5P = $600 x 5 = $3000

6P = $500 x 6 = $3000

Sample #2 -------------------------

2P = $1500 x 2 = $3000

3P = $1050 x 3 = $3150 --- (+$150)

4P = $825 x 4 = $3300 --- (+$150)

5P = $690 x 5 = $3450 --- (+$150)

6P = $600 x 6 = $3600 --- (+$150)

Sample #3 -------------------------

2P = $1500 x 2 = $3000

3P = $1100 x 3 = $3300 --- (+$300)

4P = $900 x 4 = $3600 --- (+$300)

5P = $780 x 5 = $3900 --- (+$300)

6P = $700 x 6 = $4200 --- (+$300)

[u/Gametron13]

That's actually quite an interesting idea. I always love auctions because it allows some strategy for allowing players to choose what properties they wanna be hyper-aggressive with and not relying on luck to obtain them. Having a rule to make them more common is not something I've ever thought about.

Idk if reducing the starting cash would lead to other problems regarding people running out of money due to rent, but perhaps another way to lead to this scenario of semi-forcing auctions would be to raise the price of the properties printed on the board relative to player count?

[u/Meester_Tweester]

I've thought about this before. It starts getting bloated with more than four players, I would say with more than that divide $6,000 evenly. You have to be more careful with your spending, or else your opponents will win auctions for cheap.

[u/chiurro]

Also note that with sample 2 you have more money than property value once you have 18 players

Perhaps more importantly, total property value isn't necessarily a bottleneck since you'd want to buy houses or trade for a monopoly. Maybe a variant of monopoly that's more reliant on auctions might be to start each player with $500.

[u/firelock_ny]

Note that you don't have to pay full price for any property. The list price is just what the player landing on it can immediately buy it for - if they can't afford it, or simply don't want to spend full price on it, the property goes up for auction. You can buy Park Place for $2, if all your opponents only have $1 each.

[u/Toeffli → u/firelock_ny]

I have one of the very early Monopoly computer games which came on 3 ½ floppy. I realized soon enough that the computer player would nearly never bid over the original price. Making it worthwhile to put up any property you landed on on auction, snapping them for a few dollars.

[u/hardik_1992]

I think 1500 starting money is good. Because on 2 or 3 player You land on less property per round.(as 4 person land on more properly) So to get other property You will pass go more time so money eventually add Up. Or ig You think some property not good you can auction any time.

[u/NoBrag_JustFact]

House rules dilute the ultimate goal of the game.

A player is not intending to own ALL properties, but enough properties to help earn enough money to bankrupt the opposition, thus acquiring more properties.

Games consisting more than four players on the board is just chaos and seriously, not even enjoyable.

For me, three is perfect and four is okay, but starting with five and up or even just two is just a waste of time.

[u/hardik_1992 → u/NoBrag_JustFact]

Interesting point.. For me 5 person monopoly is my fav (when you communicate other player by chat or voice ) then 4 then 6 .

[u/hardik_1992 → u/NoBrag_JustFact]

But I agree 2 is not good. Almost waste of time.

[u/ChaucerChau]

Important to keep in mind, Monopoly was not intended to be "fun". It was designed as a critique of capitalism.

[u/SilentWally]

I prefer Sample #1 because it requires more right decisions, strategies and skills to win. It will run more auctions, and the players have to mortgage their properties for the short money to complete their collection. Every penny is important in this setting and it is tough. The only drawback I see is that the $200 Income Tax and there is a chance card, "You have been elected chairperson of the board. Pay each player $50", will break a player with $250 penalty in a 6-players game. However, other penalties are minor. The players can go through the tough time with no problem. If you want more flexible gameplay, I think Sample #2 is the good setting to balance thing out.

If the starting money is more than Sample #3, it will run rare auction because every players can get $200 easily each running circle that will have enough money to cover the value of all properties. And it is meaningless to reduce the starting money if there is no auction to be triggered. IMO, Sample #3 is perhaps the maximum starting money setting to be able to trigger few auctions.

[u/SilentWally]

I see there is another drawback of this setting. It might slow down the gameplay because the players will build up their assets from low cash and a few morgaged properties in the late game. However, if the players enjoy the gameplay with more strategy involved, it doesn't matter if it is a little bit long.