argument top image

Why does Monopoly destroy families?
Back to question

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. However, most other games allow for some kind of strategic decision-making, enabling the player to learn from their mistakes and get better. 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. Likewise, if you start losing, you can do essentially nothing to make a comeback. 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. 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.

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


This page was last edited on Saturday, 4 Jul 2020 at 06:08 UTC

Explore related arguments