Why does Monopoly destroy families?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: Why does Monopoly destroy families?
Position‹4 of 5›: Money is divisive
Argument‹2 of 2: The game requires little skill

What's more annoying than a relative demanding huge payouts simply because they drew a Chance card at the right moment? Winning Monopoly takes luck, not skill-a revelation often made after three frustrating hours and an upended game board.

The argument

Like many board games, Monopoly can be more frustrating than fun. What separates it from the rest is what a player is able to do about that frustration. Most other games allow for some kind of strategic decision-making, enabling the player to learn from their mistakes and get better, so a bad session becomes information and the next one goes differently. Monopoly, on the other hand, allows for no such strategizing, rewarding luck instead of skill. You can't be "good" at Monopoly; no matter how many times you play it. All you can do is buy properties and hope for the best, because the only decision on offer — whether to buy the square you happened to land on — has largely been made for you by the dice before you make it. Likewise, if you start losing, you can do essentially nothing to make a comeback, which means the game continues long after its result is settled and everyone at the table knows it. In this game, your fate is left to Chance (pun intended.) For this reason, Monopoly has earned its notoriety for tearing families apart. The luck-based nature of the game proves frustrating, especially to people who prefer games that rely more on skill and strategy, because there is no way to convert effort or attention into a better outcome and no way to accept a loss as deserved. In many cases, the lack of skill that Monopoly requires becomes apparent as the youngest child destroys the rest of the family in the game, purely due to dumb luck — a result that is funny once and grating thereafter, and one that nobody at the table can answer by playing better.

Premises

[P1]Unlike games that reward strategy, Monopoly rewards luck, so a player cannot get better or mount a comeback once losing. [P2] This luck-based nature proves deeply frustrating, especially to those who prefer games of skill. [P3] The frustration of watching money and property fall to chance — even the youngest child winning on dumb luck — turns players against each other. [C] Therefore, because the game requires little skill and leaves money to chance, Monopoly shows how money is divisive.

Counter-arguments

Many board games are based solely on luck but have none Monopoly's relationship ending connotations. For example, Chutes and Ladders, Sorry!, Hi-Ho Cherry-O, Go Fish, and even roulette require no skill, but none of them are considered as frustrating or pointless as Monopoly.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The claim that the game permits no strategy is overstated on the argument's own terms: acquisition, trading and building are decisions players make, and the premise names buying properties while denying that anything can be decided. [Rejecting P2] Frustration at luck is offered as the mechanism, but the counter-argument names several games that turn purely on chance and carry none of the same reputation. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion is that money is divisive, and the premises are about game design. Nothing here distinguishes frustration at a bad roll from frustration at losing the game's money, which is what the position actually requires.