[twoodfin]

In my experience Monopoly games played by the official rules with experienced players would drag endlessly due to trade negotiations. Typically, whenever a player was clearly in an advantageous position, the remaining players would form a loose alliance, shuffling properties and cash in an attempt to stymie the leader. The leader would fall back into the pack, a new leader would emerge, and the whole process would repeat. Every iteration would require a substantial amount of discussion, proposals and counter-proposals for an equitable but effective distribution of properties and cash amongst the "insurgents". Any thoughts on what we were doing wrong?

Catan at least has the advantage of monotonically increasing building and army points: Given enough time and even barely rational spending, a player is guaranteed to reach 10 points, no matter how alliances form and splinter.

The biggest problem we encountered in both games was the "spoiler": The player who was not in a position to win, but was in a position to determine the winner. Either you try to impose hard-to-adjudicate rules requiring "rational decisions" or you accept that a long-running game may be decided by caprice.

[ryanfreeborn]

Back when my friends and I played Catan a lot, we developed a simple way to avoid the spoiler effect: running point totals. Games are still played in regular fashion, but your victory points for each session are added up over time. Winning a game gave you an extra VP in the running totals. You can set the constraints to whatever you want: a year's time, 6 months, 10 games, whatever it may be...at the end of the time frame, whoever has the most victory points wins. Put some money down at the beginning, and you've got great sustained competition.

Obviously it only works if you play with the same people regularly, but in my experience that's actually the norm.

[philwelch]

The spoiler just adds a level of metagame. You can cripple me early in the game by repeatedly putting the robber on my best hex, but by doing so you've made an enemy for the rest of the game.

[nl]

*In my experience Monopoly games played by the official rules... Any thoughts on what we were doing wrong?"

I'm guessing you weren't actually following the rules[1]. If you do follow the rules you'll find liquidity gets sucked out of the game by continual reselling because you are only allowed to sell unimproved properties, and have to sell houses & hotels back to the bank at half price.

[1] http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/monorules.htm#sellingprope...

[twoodfin]

That rule was followed. Given that we were playing with 3-4 experienced players, monopolies were rare (everyone bought essentially every available property landed on that was still potentially monopolized) and most targeted the sweet spot of three houses. Monopolied properties weren't traded often, but even then that's not a lot of liquidity to sacrifice with ~$800/board cycle going into the game via passing Go.

Once a few monopolies did crop up, it was the remaining unimproved properties that would be swapped most often for ludicrous amounts of money to allow, say, a cash-poor player to build a few houses in the path of the current leader.

[Someone]

"The biggest problem we encountered in both games was the "spoiler": The player who was not in a position to win, but was in a position to determine the winner."

I guess you are not a fan of Diplomacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)), either.

Most, if not all, games of more than two players where players have some free choice eventually boil down to "you can't win it alone. You need help or a blooper from your enemy"

And that is true in sports, too. In any distance running, starting at 800m, athletes collectively make a choice whether to run a fast race or a slow race with a very fast finish. A fast sprinter will not win a fast race, so runners with lower top speed will try to make a fast race. Still, they won't want to be running in the front, they rather have another runner with lower top speed burn energy doing that.

This gets more evident the longer the distance and the larger the advantage of running in the slipstream of an opponent. Road races in cycling are perhaps the ultimate example. If "the peloton" doesn't want you to win, you have to be extremely good _and_ lucky to win.