Stuart 
I haven't played Monopoly for many years now. The last game was with three housemates at university. One housemate was winning and really enjoying his triumph over the rest of us. So I suggested to my other two housemates that we form a cooperative. We would let each other off rents on our properties. The standards rents would apply to anyone not in the coop. And you could leave the coop if you wanted. None of this is forbidden in the rules of Monopoly because it has little market regulation.
Within a remarkably short space of time the monopolist had lost his dominance and the rest of us had flourished. He went bankrupt and the rest of us agreed to end the game as joint victors. I felt as though we perhaps played it more to the spirit of the original game that Monopoly had been derived from and found a non-monopolist solution.
A few years ago I shared this story on Twitter and then had angry libertarian men complain that I'd cheated and had actually made a cartel, not a cooperative. They weren't happy that I pointed out that no rules had been broken. In fact it was the lack of market regulation in Monopoly that allowed us to do what we did. Plus we did it fully openly and the fourth player was able to join our coop if he'd wanted.
I still don't agree that we were a cartel as there was no secrecy, deceit, or defrauding going on. We were very open about forgiving rent and doing better deals within the coop than the 'official' prices outside the coop. Anyway it was funny to see libertarian men be unhappy about something happening due to very limited market regulation (no rules saying you couldn't discount rent or undercut the guide prices).
Although Monopoly is so often presented/framed as an individualistic game of capitalist dominance, it doesn't actually have to be played like that. The system might strongly encourage that but the players can behave differently. A better way is possible.
It did teach me that a bunch of libertarian men are all in favour of lower regulation until you use that lack of regulation to behave cooperatively to help each other.
Hackhörnchen@slowe I started that once.
We were four players and one of them had rushed to build a hotel on the cheapest streets, the one you can get sent to by drawing a card. I had put all my money towards the most expensive streets and didn't want to get booted out of the game.
So I offered a deal to not pay rent on the cheapest streets in exchange for them not paying rent on the most expensive streets.
They agreed. The others saw how we thrived and tried to team up, too. Too late though, we won.
We were four players and one of them had rushed to build a hotel on the cheapest streets, the one you can get sent to by drawing a card. I had put all my money towards the most expensive streets and didn't want to get booted out of the game.
So I offered a deal to not pay rent on the cheapest streets in exchange for them not paying rent on the most expensive streets.
They agreed. The others saw how we thrived and tried to team up, too. Too late though, we won.
@slowe It didn't even need rules for all the streets. We paid regular rent on all other properties. That one small deal already changed the whole game.
I really recommend trying it out. It might actually be a change that makes the game much more enjoyable. Phase one: Capitalist rampage, phase two: unionize and crush the dominating capitalist.
I really recommend trying it out. It might actually be a change that makes the game much more enjoyable. Phase one: Capitalist rampage, phase two: unionize and crush the dominating capitalist.