Mutating Monopoly

    Over the years, many different games come and go.

    Every once in a while one stays around for generations. When this happens it's said to have withstood the "test of time". Only a small percentage of all games created remain, but those that do are quite varied - board games, toys, role playing, outdoor sports and recreation, strategic (verbal, written, puzzles, etc.)
    Examples of each of these types of games have found their way onto computers AND the Internet.


    When such a game gets passed on from generation to generation, there is a tendency for the rules to be changed or adapted.

    Most recently, games have had rule changes when they were adapted for use on the computer. One example is Scrabble: according to the rules, a nonword (or "phony") remains a valid play if no one challenges it off the board; but, on the computer, any such play is immediately flagged as not being in the dictionary.

    A more classic example is chess. In the oldest known form of the game, there was no castling or en passant pawn capture. Pawns did not have the two-square option on their first move, and when one reached the last rank, it could only be traded for a piece that had been captured. Bishops could move no more than two squares at a time. Queens could only move diagonally. Some manuscripts have the pieces starting advanced one position, leaving the first rank unoccupied at the beginning of the game. Substantially different game from the one we have now.

    Not only board games are subjet to rule changes. It's no secret that the rules for various sports - baseball, basketball, football, golf, hockey. soccer, etc. - are changed from time to time. Card games are affected by this, as well: the card game now known as bridge started out without bidding.

 

    Now, let's concentrate on one game in particular: Monopoly. What changes might be seen to this game in the future?
    Officially, the rules have remained constant since Parker Brothers first marketed the game. However, there have been rule variations adopted by players over the years. The most notable is a jackpot received for landing on Free Parking. Unfortunately, that causes an unfair advantage to a player landing there and diminishes the effectiveness of player strategy. Okay, this might be great for the kids, who would like the instant gratification and would be less interested in an academic approach to playing.
    But, one of the significant problems with the game has been the duration of a single session. Unless one player gets lucky enough to complete a color group early in the game, it tends to take a long time to deplete the funds of the player in the weakest position.
    The problem seems to be too much currency in distribution. So, a prudent solution might be to reduce the amount of "money" in play after the initial stages of play.

    Now for a proposal. One way to have less currency in play would be to establish what could be called a "retirement". Perhaps this could take place automatically once the bank has sold its last property. Upon retirement, the $200 salary would be eliminated. Thus, the same amount of funds would be available to players during the early stage of buying properties from the bank, and then there would be much less extra capital around later on.
    Having that, it might also be interesting to introduce another concept: "social security". The concept, for this, is to have the players pay into the program with a standard 25% of their wages, or $50. Then, once retired, the players would collect social security for passing GO, rather than a salary. A fair amount might be $100. It might be even more interesting to make social security an option that each player would decide whether to accept or reject prior to the first dice roll. Then, a player that paid into social security would collect for passing GO, but a player that kept his entire salary would get nothing.
    It might be tempting to also change the "Income Tax" as well, upon retirement. But, a player's income does not actually figure into the equation, especially for income from houses or hotels, so the term is really a misnomer. This space is beneficial for keeping down the total funds distributed among the players, so it would likely be best to leave it alone.
    Okay, this concept is untested and might not work out so well. Also, the actual amounts might need adjustment, to achieve the best results. But, that would require some actual games being played.             Outside of that, this might make for a better game or maybe not.

NOTE: "Monopoly" and "Scrabble", when used in reference to the board games, are trademarks of Hasbro, Inc.