Alliances in Monopoly

[spunkz]

so 4 of us were playing the game and two of them decide to make an alliance, which is totally fine with me. anyone can team up and make trades and so on, but here's where my problem is. this "alliance" was described as them sharing funds and property yet keeping two player pieces moving around the board. and if the other two of us went bankrupt, then they would both "win" as a group.

this pisses me off and it's why i hate playing monopoly with my friends. it totally sucks the fun out of the game for me if there is no winner at the end. they claimed to be following the rules, which made it even more frustrating. the rules say that the richest player wins, not group or merger or some crap like that. i don't even care if i win, i just want to see a good game played out with an actual winner. i just don't understand the type of person that can be happy declaring a "group win" in a game which is every man for himself.

 

[Xylitol]

i like risk more
alliances and talking is what wins you the game

 

[KLin]

Find some different friends to play Monopoly.

 

[mugs]

I'm sorry to hear you were playing Monopoly.

 

[aesthetics]

I have Ghettopoly. It's hilarious. Google it. I dominate.

 

[RapidSnail]

oligopoly

 

[xanis]

Usually I'm the asshole of the game because I try buy one of everything so that no one can own one set of anything.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
i like risk more
alliances and talking is what wins you the game

Risk sucks. You should try Axis+Allies

And then you should try Diplomacy

Both of these games >>>>>>>>> Risk

 

[spunkz]

Originally posted by: Xylitol
i like risk more
alliances and talking is what wins you the game

but wouldn't it piss you off if some alliance decided to end the game when they had defeated everyone? i would want to see them turn on each other and see who comes out on top. that's the fun of it for me.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: spunkz
so 4 of us were playing the game and two of them decide to make an alliance, which is totally fine with me. anyone can team up and make trades and so on, but here's where my problem is. this "alliance" was described as them sharing funds and property yet keeping two player pieces moving around the board. and if the other two of us went bankrupt, then they would both "win" as a group.

this pisses me off and it's why i hate playing monopoly with my friends. it totally sucks the fun out of the game for me if there is no winner at the end. they claimed to be following the rules, which made it even more frustrating. the rules say that the richest player wins, not group or merger or some crap like that. i don't even care if i win, i just want to see a good game played out with an actual winner. i just don't understand the type of person that can be happy declaring a "group win" in a game which is every man for himself.

Wait until this fall.

You'll make a whole new set of friends in Junior High School.

It'll be fun!

 

[l0cke]

I have this game called "Go for broke" where you start off stinking rich and try to loose all of your money by gambling and such.

My friends always get mad at me when I secretly insert my money into their piles and they don't notice. I mean, the rules don't say you can't cheat!

 

[Slew Foot]

Your friends must be Democrats.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: Perknose
Wait until this fall. You'll make a whole new set of friends in Junior High School.
It'll be fun!

Fucking Win!