Is it safe to assume there’s a copy of Monopoly somewhere in your home? There is a copy or two at my parent’s house and one at my in-law’s house. You can find the regular version and the Georgia Tech version, Techopoly, at my house.
Do you enjoy playing Monopoly? Even though I will probably play the McDonald’s Monopoly game this week (returning October 6), I most likely won’t be playing the Monopoly board game any time soon.
Growing up in the 1980s, after maturing past Chutes & Ladders, Candy Land, and Life, Monopoly was the game everyone was playing. If you’re like me then the dad of your best friend won big every time you stayed over at your friend’s house. Or your already-college-aged cousin completely dominated you and your siblings at family gatherings on Sunday afternoons and holidays.
If I was going to play a game for hours on end and lose, could I at least be the race car? And who would ever want to be the thimble? Or the iron?
Monopoly seemed like the perfect game for families to play growing up in a capitalistic economy. It never seemed strange to me that the game promoted and rewarded something that was actually illegal - outright monopolies. I wouldn’t have even thought of that except that my parents also had a copy of the Mad Magazine Game released in 1979 by Parker Brothers. It was a Monopoly parody. You won by being the first player to lose all of your money. Mad Magazine itself was, after all, a satirical media trying to laugh with irreverence at popular society.
Satire presents you with humor and questions. Is Monopoly the game we ought to be playing? Is it time for a new game?
I’m glad you asked. If you have not heard of Catan, then it’s time to order a copy from Amazon. It’s also on the shelves at Wal-Mart, Target, Barnes and Noble, etc.
Catan doesn’t yet have the ubiquitous presence of Monopoly, but Catan has been steadily gaining market strength since its release in 1995. I highly recommend playing Catan with your family. Let me know if you need to demo the game with us at our house!
I love to play Catan (also known as The Settlers of Catan). I own a copy of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions. I would love to have one of the collectible 3-D editions, or a 1st edition. I also want to purchase a newly released 6th edition because, well, why not?
Why do I love this game so much? Probably because I am a nerd. But also because the game is exciting and fun. Each player is racing to ten victory points that you earn by settling the island of Catan. You must produce resources, and manage your resources well, so that you can build more settlements, turn your settlements into cities, build long roads, and have the largest army. Growth. Production. Expansion.
The board is too small, of course, for every player to be successful. You must play to win by subtly cutting off your opponents, indirectly dealing them damage and placing obstacles in their way. That’s what Eurogames are known for, indirect conflict.
Sometimes the conflict does not feel so subtle and indirect. There will probably be an argument about the robber, probably between spouses. Tempers might flare because another player takes all the ore, or wheat, right before you attempt to build a city.
I love the tension, the drama, and the suspense.
Many people (fellow nerds) have written about the gameplay differences in Monopoly and Catan. The most interesting difference to me is this. The way to win in Monopoly is to eliminate your opponents. Monopoly is direct. I will overpower. I will take all of your things. I will destroy you.
In Catan you are never eliminated. Even if you are stuck at three victory points while two other players are battling it out at eight or nine victory points, you still get to play. You still have a turn even if it’s clear you are going to lose the game.
As a result, the social economy in Catan plays a huge and dynamic role. Part of every player’s turn involves willingly trading resources with other players. In many Catan games the winning players can only win because of trades they make with the losing players.
Since you need each other to win, you do not behave arrogantly and you do not talk trash. Acting that way means, most likely, that no one in Catan will trade with you. No trades means no wins.
Side note for families: the lack of player elimination is also why Catan is a much better family game than Monopoly. Not only does Catan end in only 60-90 minutes, you never lose your seat at the table. You always still have a role to play even if you are on the losing side of things.
What does any of this have to do with a government shutdown?
Is it too big of a stretch to say we need our elected leaders to start playing a different game? I would like to suggest a game where they aren’t trying to eliminate each other all the time. Most certainly I want to suggest a game where they aren’t demonizing each other all the time.
I don’t know that much about government structure, so I wondered how the shutdown could even happen. Doesn’t one party currently control all parts of the federal government - the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives? Yes.
Isn’t it interesting, then, that keeping the government open requires seven voices of the currently losing team to trade and work with the currently winning team?
Almost every government leader I’ve heard, from almost every stance I’ve seen, currently seems to also be guilty of the criticism I am about to offer. Since the President is the leader at the top, however, I’ll focus the criticism on him for a minute.
What if the President’s approach had been different over the last stretch of months? What would it be like if he wasn’t name-calling all the time? What would it be like if he wasn’t marginalizing others so much? I know you’ve heard it (“liberal left lunatics,” “I hate my opponents,” “I deserve a Nobel Peace Prize,” “my heart is bigger than yours”). If the President’s rhetoric and actions had been full of respect and courtesy, do you think other people would be more willing to help him, now that he is stuck in a position that requires their help?
I am not talking about any policy or issue. I am not saying a Republican should be more progressive or that a Democrat should be more conservative. I don’t actually want to talk about progressive or conservative policies and positions at all. I just want to talk about the ways we talk about and treat each other.
As it is the President consistently, and somewhat constantly, goes out of his way to belittle, insult, vilify, and denigrate his opponents. Is it any surprise that the losing team isn’t willing to trade anything with him?
Unfortunately, the direct-conflict-Monopoly-approach has made the President extremely popular in America. Likewise, any leader willing to stoop to that same level grows in popularity. It appears that we are entertained by and attracted to hate-filled fights. We seem to be a blood-thirsty people.
Call me naive. Call me idealistic. I want change from all of our elected leaders. I want the leaders of our country to play a new game. I’ve grown weary of the old game.
I want the genuine concern of others to have incredibly more influence. I want our leaders to argue and disagree while simultaneously showing respect to each other. I want our leaders to offer courtesy and dignity to people they don’t represent. I want our leaders to assume the best about each other rather than constantly calling out the worst traits of each other.
I believe it’s better to play a new game, one where even the losing players are considered important.
No comments:
Post a Comment