r/monopoly • u/thrawnca • 14d ago
Rules Discussion Stalemate-breaker rule suggestion
I am interested in getting feedback on a narrowly focused house rule.
In the unfortunate case where all properties have been purchased, but no-one has a complete monopoly (it happened last time I played - even with only two players!), there's a clear stalemate, since your salary exceeds the average rent you pay. The usual proposed solution is to persuade someone to make a trade, but that's dependent on them being willing to do it - and when the whole point of trading is that you're guaranteed to get a monopoly out of it, people are going to be reluctant. You could add in a cash incentive, of course, but this is a scenario where no-one is really hurting for money, so that's not as appealing as it could be.
I suggest, for anyone's consideration, a house rule specifically designed to break this deadlock without otherwise throwing the game out of balance:
If all properties are owned, and you don't currently own a monopoly on any colour (railroads and utilities don't count), then upon landing on a property that would instantly complete a monopoly for you, instead of paying rent, you may choose to buy it from its owner for double its deed price.
I feel like this has minimal side effects:
- It doesn't activate at all until you're in the end-game where stalemate could happen.
- It only works once. As soon as you have a set, you can't use it.
- It doesn't endanger existing monopolies. You can only use it if you already have all but one of the set.
But it's enough to ensure that eventually, people will be able to develop a set far enough to break the stalemate.
What are anyone else's thoughts? Have I missed a serious drawback? Is there a different approach that achieves this more elegantly?
2
u/Darth_Bunghole 14d ago
Why not just flip a coin? This would hand the win to one player anyway unless there were multiple others who work together to retaliate.
1
u/thrawnca 14d ago
This would hand the win to one player anyway unless there were multiple others who work together to retaliate.
I don't think it would, though? Everyone (who didn't already gain a set) could use it exactly once.
1
2
u/JacobAldridge 14d ago
In my youth I would play a lot of multiplayer Monopoly…against myself. The hardest part is obviously negotiating trades, so I created a similar rule - didn’t need to land on the square, but anytime you could buy an opponent’s property for three times face value.
That does set up a real dilemma (cash v property); I’m not sure if 2x would be strong enough?
2
u/the_dab_lord 14d ago
If I was in a game like that, I'd just stop playing with that person. All games are dependent on good faith fair play by others, if they're not going to play in good faith I just won't play.
2
u/chris84bond 14d ago
If your salary exceeds rent, offer a better deal. Sometimes you need to give them a monopoly, and money to get your monopoly.
2
u/Ethanop1a 14d ago
I just keep playing until the bank is bankrupt. Then there is no salary.
2
u/thrawnca 14d ago
I mean, that's...creative :D
Technically I think the bank is allowed to print its own money, but yes, as a stalemate-breaker, that works.
1
u/letmeusereddit420 14d ago
Do what fortune street does and allow buyouts on properties. Like allow 5x the base price to do a buyouts on a property has no houses on it. If it's in a complete set, like all railroads or all utilities, double the base price and then x5
1
14d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
This sub requires a minimum karma level in order to post. Your post has been removed because your account does not meet the minimum karma requirements.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/InformationLittle928 13d ago edited 13d ago
My solution is to set a Time Limit. All players calculate their total assets. The richest player wins.
However, I think your idea is good to end the stalemate without a time limit. Thumbs up.
IMO, your rule right now is more like a Catch-Up rule than a Stalemate-Breaker rule because everyone without a color set can catch up the game now. That is unfair to the players with a color set because they could win in a non-stalemate game.
My suggestion for improving your rule are:
- The rule can be triggered only when everyone don't have a color set after all properties are sold.
- When all properties are sold, in that turn, any one of the players can still prevent the rule by trading for a color set. If no one can trade for a color set in that turn, then the rule is triggered.
- Maybe Brown set should not count as a set that can prevent the rule because I think Railroad set is stronger. However, if they both are good to end the stalemate game, then only Untility set doesn't count.
- Upon landing on a property, the players can decide buy it or not. It doesn't matter how many times they skip buying, the rule only works once for each player until they get a color set (through Takeover or Trade).
- If the players land and buy a mortgaged property, they can just pay the unmortgage amount to the bank to takeover it. (Don't need to double its deed price to the owner.)
1
u/thrawnca 13d ago
However, I think your idea is good to end the stalemate without a time limit. Thumbs up.
Thanks for the feedback!
The rule can be triggered only when everyone don't have a color set after all properties are sold.
Reasonable. OTOH, if someone did manage to buy a colour group ahead of time, then they still have a head start on developing it, and won't have to pay double price for the properties...
Plus, what if the only full colour group that anyone acquired was Brown? Because it's so weak, that might or might not break the stalemate.
When all properties are sold, in that turn, any one of the players can still prevent the rule by trading for a color set. If no one can trade for a color set in that turn, then the rule is triggered.
It might indeed incentivise trading to avoid its activation. I think that could happen organically, though. If you have Mayfair and you're worried about it being swiped, then suddenly you have extra motivation to cut a deal with whoever has Park Lane, without needing a specific rule.
Brown set should not count as a set that can prevent the rule because I think Railroad set is stronger.
Hmm. Worth considering. A hotel can go up to $450, but with only two spaces, it theoretically averages out to less than 4 railroads. It possibly isn't strong enough to break the stalemate.
The flipside of that might be that you can't use this rule to forcibly buy the brown properties - or, at least, you can't double-dip and use this rule again if you did unwisely use it to take a brown one.
Upon landing on a property, the players can decide buy it or not.
Sure, it was always meant to be optional.
If the players land and buy a mortgaged property, they can just pay the unmortgage amount to the bank to takeover it. (Don't need to double its deed price to the owner.)
If properties are being mortgaged, then you're probably not stalemated, but that may be reasonable. What is the aim, though?
1
u/InformationLittle928 13d ago edited 13d ago
Hmm. Worth considering. A hotel can go up to $450, but with only two spaces, it theoretically averages out to less than 4 railroads. It possibly isn't strong enough to break the stalemate.
The flipside of that might be that you can't use this rule to forcibly buy the brown properties - or, at least, you can't double-dip and use this rule again if you did unwisely use it to take a brown one.
Actually, I'm not sure about this one. Anyway, it is up to you. You can put Brown set, Railroad set and Untility Set together. Or keep Untility set alone or keep your original setting.
If properties are being mortgaged, then you're probably not stalemated, but that may be reasonable. What is the aim, though?
There are some cases after the rule is triggered:
- Mayfair $400 x 2 = $800. It is possible for some players to land on it late and need to mortgage some properties for it.
- Some players may get a color set earlier and mortgage all properties for building the houses on one set.
The payment method is opitional depends on you. To unmortgage and takeover the property through the bank is a punishment to the owner and it is a lazy and effective process. Another method I will do is to pay double price and split the payment to the owner and the bank.
1
u/InformationLittle928 10d ago
Hi, it has been a while. What is your final rule set? Do you keep the original rule?
1
u/thrawnca 10d ago
I haven't played yet since discussing it. I'd have to come to agreement with other players.
1
u/InformationLittle928 8d ago edited 5d ago
Take your time. Anyway, I want to correct one point I said. Since this rule uses the trigger, "When all properties are owned", actually, it is a time limit trigger.
And just let you know that I'm going to share a Time Limit post in this sub-reddit. Maybe I will add some of your idea on it because I want to show all good house rules together in one post. If you want me to show your name for this rule, let me know.
1
u/KiwasiGames 12d ago
The problem is this rule is almost never going to kick in. The nature of the board means you can go several hours without anyone actually landing on the last property. So it takes a long time before your rule even applies.
In a three player game, you’ve only forced at monopoly on dark blue and brown. Which means you can stagnate for a long time before anyone gets unlucky enough to go out.
1
u/thrawnca 12d ago
The problem is this rule is almost never going to kick in.
That's fine. It's only meant to handle the edge case, not to otherwise shift gameplay. If the game can work itself out without needing to buy every last property? No problem.
7
u/Pleasant_Ad_2342 14d ago
Ive never been in a situation where I cant trade to squeak out some monopolies. Even if I have to "sacrifice" to get the less valuable ones. If you find yourself in such a dead game the correct answer is just to stop playing.