Our ONE house rule between my brother and I was in regards to what amounted to options trading. When you were engaging in trade, we would offer customized free passes, with varying option to exercise that free pass or not within X period of time (e.g 5x around the board.) it was a way to figure out the value of the options and add another complexity to the game that was definitely in the spirit of the game
2:34 Or getting them by bankrupting an opponent. And yes, this is another rule people play wrong. Some players say if you go bankrupt, all of your properties return to the bank, that’s not true. Instead, when you go bankrupt, you give all of your cash, properties, and “Get Out of Jail Free” cards to the player who bankrupted you. If you go bankrupt to the bank, give all of your money back to the bank, return any “Get Out of Jail Free” cards back to their respective decks, and all of your properties go up for auction, one property at a time.
Yes, I could have included that one as well. I'm not sure if it is ever an issue among casual players of Monopoly though - creating a housing shortage is more of an advanced strategy, as I think people who play Monopoly more casually prefer the prestige of owning a string of beautiful red hotels, and just don't think of it. But thank you for pointing it out!
The rule that is almost never followed is the housing market limit of 32 house and 12 hotels. To be fair there are a number of complexities that the rule introduces that aren't fully explored (or at all) so you practically have to come up with house rules or house interpretations to make it work. Do you auction one house at a time? Can I make an offer for 3 houses and ONLY 3 houses? Can I buy houses at the point where another player needs houses in order to break their hotels down? Why or why not and point to the rule that says so :) Another rule that is mostly not followed, because it almost certainly makes the game worse, is that you can build whenever you want, not just at the start of your turn. This strips a lot of the "pushing your luck" that actually provides some tension (and fun!) in the game -- just wait till you've successfully rolled your way past your opponent's hotels before building in front of their token. But it's the only way that the housing market can work, at least as written. Another "bad" house rule is getting $500 when landing directly on Go instead of the $200 provided by the rules. The more money there is in the game the less value it has in making potential deals, leading to stagnation and increasing the role of luck. The one thing about the mugging house rule is that going to Jail is usually preferred in the later stages of the game, unless your opponent has built on the Oranges. It could make for some interesting choices in the early game though.
I will write a strat that I used in my games and I love, most people want to trade their cheap light blue and brown cards so if you can to afford trading with someone that is willing todo this trade or You have them without trading whatsoever, NEVER, change them and just build the max amount of houses in this properties, the max amount of houses in the games is 32 with this strat you get 24 of them this means that almost no one will get to buy hotels and you are the player with one full row.
Deal One Random Title Card to each player in the beginning of the game. Each player will forced to pay that Property to the bank and start their Token in there. The player farthest away to advance in Pass Go will take the first Turn in the game.
My beast house rule is if you aldn on free paking you can choose chance or community chest I feel unlike the other free parking rule t is won't prolong the game as much
Yes i don't understand why people don't play with Auctions...it's basically what makes the game different from playing Little Horses (that and negotiations but negotiations take into account the existence of Auctions (being left without money after a negotiation is a problem for a player potentially missing interesting auction deals later in the game (and vice-versa, going too hard in a Auction can mean losing negotiation opportunities if not well-thought in terms of cash inflow middle/long term )) lol . I always refuse to play without them (but then accept ONE house rule different from the vanilla -besides speed die if available, deciding to play with or without it does not count as a rule different from vanilla- (so in the end there is often an agreement about how to make the pooled money on the center "strategic" (with a rule that's NOT pooling money from taxes or fees, cause those simply make the game longer for nothing and ruin the "deflationary" economics of the game (but the idea of pooling money there only when you land on Free Parking and try to muggle someone could be funny -a funnily fitting mechanic for a Parking lot too XD- (that player can target anyone in the game in this case, free parking would trigger the option to try muggling basically (or play a die game against the bank for the pooled money, if any (if bank wins then the money stays in the middle)) , the player failing the muggle would get a choice between paying 100 to the center OR paying 50 to the center and going to jail ,adding a little bit of strategy to this because going to jail is a benefit in late game so having a choice between 2 good options without any penalty is not a good house rule (if a house rule fails at reducing randomness, fails at adding strategic choices or makes the game pointlessly longer without even an interesting strategic aspect to make up for the "lost" time, then it's a bad house rule (like not being able to buy Turn 1, which is an house rule that is often seen as "logical" but in practice stupid and doesn't solve the randomness problem at all -and can make it worse in some cases- (if people say that starting first is a big advantage, then i simply say "have "auction" to determine order, the one that pays the most gets 1st and so on" (only the last player get to the keep the money they proposed (unless they're last after a negotiation with money with other players to resolve the money tie with a die roll, then the difference between 0 and the lowest amount auctionned goes back to all players (at least one player should start with the vanilla amount of money, if ALL players end up with less money before the game even starts it breaks the vanilla mechanic (what's important is that some players pay more than others to be first so no reason to have let's say all players start with 0 dollars worse case scenario XD (also it would make the central pool too filled without any strategic reason and therefore unbalanced)), all of the others pay for their spots, but people can agree to roll die if there is a tie between money , or no money at all -which is possible in this case to make possible similar strategies with the same amount of money or negotiations, in a "if i put the same amount of money we can agree to roll a die because i don't want to pay too much to be first but i don't mind rolling instead of paying too much for risking starting second" way - (with the "auction" money going in the center too xd (so that the money doesn't leave the game (i think any money that would go to the bank due to a house rule should always stay in the middle instead because the vanilla game has its own natural way of slowly reducing the amount of money in-game long term, meaning in theory, putting money in the middle when it's not due to a vanilla mechanic doesn't make the game longer, no need to dry the money pool even more than that - i think it makes sense to have more stuff resolved with money/auctions rather than die rolls as much as possible, since auctions and negotiations are the core of the game-)) EDIT: gosh i gave this too much thought XD
Everyone I've ever met has used the auction and mortgage rules. This video appears to have been inspired by a faulty premise. If you play Monopoly at all, there's not much that can be done to help you. It's not a good game.
Well, it has certainly been a successful game, and it was at least typical and no worse than most games of that era (ie roll and move). I think you roll with a different crowd than I - I have never known people who played with those rules, but I think it depends on who teaches the game. Almost no one reads the rulebook, so learning Monopoly has become an oral tradition, and almost like a game of telephone, where House rules get added and modified over time.
Well if it wasnt for me I will be playing monopoly with my friends with those rules, so your premise isnt wrong its just for some people. And also I find amazing that we played with exactly the same rules with oral tradition or whatever or maybe its just that somehow the game leads everyone to play in that way, i dont know.
Our ONE house rule between my brother and I was in regards to what amounted to options trading. When you were engaging in trade, we would offer customized free passes, with varying option to exercise that free pass or not within X period of time (e.g 5x around the board.) it was a way to figure out the value of the options and add another complexity to the game that was definitely in the spirit of the game
That sounds kind of cool, but also kind of complicated. I have no idea how to quantify the value of that! Neat idea though!
2:34 Or getting them by bankrupting an opponent. And yes, this is another rule people play wrong. Some players say if you go bankrupt, all of your properties return to the bank, that’s not true. Instead, when you go bankrupt, you give all of your cash, properties, and “Get Out of Jail Free” cards to the player who bankrupted you. If you go bankrupt to the bank, give all of your money back to the bank, return any “Get Out of Jail Free” cards back to their respective decks, and all of your properties go up for auction, one property at a time.
Yes, true! Thanks for pointing that out!
I was certain one of the rules was finite houses and only buying hotels if you have 4 houses.
Yes, I could have included that one as well. I'm not sure if it is ever an issue among casual players of Monopoly though - creating a housing shortage is more of an advanced strategy, as I think people who play Monopoly more casually prefer the prestige of owning a string of beautiful red hotels, and just don't think of it. But thank you for pointing it out!
The rule that is almost never followed is the housing market limit of 32 house and 12 hotels. To be fair there are a number of complexities that the rule introduces that aren't fully explored (or at all) so you practically have to come up with house rules or house interpretations to make it work. Do you auction one house at a time? Can I make an offer for 3 houses and ONLY 3 houses? Can I buy houses at the point where another player needs houses in order to break their hotels down? Why or why not and point to the rule that says so :)
Another rule that is mostly not followed, because it almost certainly makes the game worse, is that you can build whenever you want, not just at the start of your turn. This strips a lot of the "pushing your luck" that actually provides some tension (and fun!) in the game -- just wait till you've successfully rolled your way past your opponent's hotels before building in front of their token. But it's the only way that the housing market can work, at least as written.
Another "bad" house rule is getting $500 when landing directly on Go instead of the $200 provided by the rules. The more money there is in the game the less value it has in making potential deals, leading to stagnation and increasing the role of luck.
The one thing about the mugging house rule is that going to Jail is usually preferred in the later stages of the game, unless your opponent has built on the Oranges. It could make for some interesting choices in the early game though.
We have used a free pass rule on some properties, but kept it simple, like, you're first 2 landings are free.
Interesting. Did you have to hold up your end of the deal? Could you renege and insist on rent, even with the deal in place?
Yes, it's not a perfect rule, but I thought it sounded fun, and you're right in that there would be some interesting early game possibilities...
@@LegendaryTactics I think we kept our deals. Integrity a little bit, lol.
I will write a strat that I used in my games and I love, most people want to trade their cheap light blue and brown cards so if you can to afford trading with someone that is willing todo this trade or You have them without trading whatsoever, NEVER, change them and just build the max amount of houses in this properties, the max amount of houses in the games is 32 with this strat you get 24 of them this means that almost no one will get to buy hotels and you are the player with one full row.
That's actually a really neat idea! Very smart
2:08 I play Monopoly a lot with my friend and we call situations like these “The Broke Discount”
Ha ha ha, very appropriate!
Most important rule of monopoly is to keep it in the box and play something else.
Ha ha ha, never!
I have been playing monopoly since I was 7 and we always played by free parking getting money and I think that makes the game funner
Yes, it's arguably more fun, but it does make the game last longer. I suppose if you're having fun playing it, though, you won't mind that!
Deal One Random Title Card to each player in the beginning of the game.
Each player will forced to pay that Property to the bank and start their Token in there.
The player farthest away to advance in Pass Go will take the first Turn in the game.
That is an interesting variant! Thanks for sharing!
My beast house rule is if you aldn on free paking you can choose chance or community chest I feel unlike the other free parking rule t is won't prolong the game as much
That's not a bad house rule, actually! Much better than the $500 in the middle
Oh, I’ve actually seen that Free Parking house rule that you’re using is also Monopoly Cheaters Edition!
Yes i don't understand why people don't play with Auctions...it's basically what makes the game different from playing Little Horses (that and negotiations but negotiations take into account the existence of Auctions (being left without money after a negotiation is a problem for a player potentially missing interesting auction deals later in the game (and vice-versa, going too hard in a Auction can mean losing negotiation opportunities if not well-thought in terms of cash inflow middle/long term )) lol . I always refuse to play without them (but then accept ONE house rule different from the vanilla -besides speed die if available, deciding to play with or without it does not count as a rule different from vanilla- (so in the end there is often an agreement about how to make the pooled money on the center "strategic" (with a rule that's NOT pooling money from taxes or fees, cause those simply make the game longer for nothing and ruin the "deflationary" economics of the game (but the idea of pooling money there only when you land on Free Parking and try to muggle someone could be funny -a funnily fitting mechanic for a Parking lot too XD- (that player can target anyone in the game in this case, free parking would trigger the option to try muggling basically (or play a die game against the bank for the pooled money, if any (if bank wins then the money stays in the middle)) , the player failing the muggle would get a choice between paying 100 to the center OR paying 50 to the center and going to jail ,adding a little bit of strategy to this because going to jail is a benefit in late game so having a choice between 2 good options without any penalty is not a good house rule (if a house rule fails at reducing randomness, fails at adding strategic choices or makes the game pointlessly longer without even an interesting strategic aspect to make up for the "lost" time, then it's a bad house rule (like not being able to buy Turn 1, which is an house rule that is often seen as "logical" but in practice stupid and doesn't solve the randomness problem at all -and can make it worse in some cases- (if people say that starting first is a big advantage, then i simply say "have "auction" to determine order, the one that pays the most gets 1st and so on" (only the last player get to the keep the money they proposed (unless they're last after a negotiation with money with other players to resolve the money tie with a die roll, then the difference between 0 and the lowest amount auctionned goes back to all players (at least one player should start with the vanilla amount of money, if ALL players end up with less money before the game even starts it breaks the vanilla mechanic (what's important is that some players pay more than others to be first so no reason to have let's say all players start with 0 dollars worse case scenario XD (also it would make the central pool too filled without any strategic reason and therefore unbalanced)), all of the others pay for their spots, but people can agree to roll die if there is a tie between money , or no money at all -which is possible in this case to make possible similar strategies with the same amount of money or negotiations, in a "if i put the same amount of money we can agree to roll a die because i don't want to pay too much to be first but i don't mind rolling instead of paying too much for risking starting second" way - (with the "auction" money going in the center too xd (so that the money doesn't leave the game (i think any money that would go to the bank due to a house rule should always stay in the middle instead because the vanilla game has its own natural way of slowly reducing the amount of money in-game long term, meaning in theory, putting money in the middle when it's not due to a vanilla mechanic doesn't make the game longer, no need to dry the money pool even more than that - i think it makes sense to have more stuff resolved with money/auctions rather than die rolls as much as possible, since auctions and negotiations are the core of the game-)) EDIT: gosh i gave this too much thought XD
Me and my friends make deals with interest and cutting cost by precent when you land lol
Way too math-y for me!
Everyone I've ever met has used the auction and mortgage rules. This video appears to have been inspired by a faulty premise.
If you play Monopoly at all, there's not much that can be done to help you. It's not a good game.
Well, it has certainly been a successful game, and it was at least typical and no worse than most games of that era (ie roll and move).
I think you roll with a different crowd than I - I have never known people who played with those rules, but I think it depends on who teaches the game. Almost no one reads the rulebook, so learning Monopoly has become an oral tradition, and almost like a game of telephone, where House rules get added and modified over time.
Well if it wasnt for me I will be playing monopoly with my friends with those rules, so your premise isnt wrong its just for some people. And also I find amazing that we played with exactly the same rules with oral tradition or whatever or maybe its just that somehow the game leads everyone to play in that way, i dont know.
Never heard of this mugging rule, and it sounds terrible.
Well, I thought it was a creative house rule, if nothing else. Not for competitive play, obviously.