Economics and Games
The Landlord's Game
Lizzie Maggie was an extraordinary person. In addition to creating a game that would turn into an American classic, she was also a writer and a stand up comedian, in 1890. She was a feminist, abolitionist, and Georgist and created the Landlord's Game to teach people about Henry George's economic ideas. Patented in 1904, the Landlord's Game was a board game that people played to learn about the shortcomings of capitalism and the better alternative of what was called the Single Tax Method.
Henry George and the Single Tax Method
Henry George was a famous economist in late 19th century America. He wanted to understand why there was so much wealth inequality in the US.
He believed that part of the reason was that there were people and companies that had monopolies over natural resources, squeezing the common man. Landlords were able to extort large rents from people struggling with low wages. To him, this system of unrestrained capitalism didn't seem like an effective system. People laboring and working couldn't get ahead while people who inherited land or controlled natural resources made handsome profits without much effort. It was rewarding capital over labor which he felt was unjust and unproductive.
​
He came up with The Single Tax Method which was an idea that one tax could redistribute wealth among the citizenry and reward labor rightfully. He wanted work, invention and creation rewarded by not taxing income on those activities but people who profit from land, rent or natural resources should be taxed heavily. We should get to keep what we create but should equally share in the natural resources around us.
The Landlord's Game: Design breakdown
The Landlord's Game at first seems really similar to the game it would eventually morph into: Monopoly. But there are a few notable exceptions:
​
Players could move backwards and forwards allowing them some choice when rolling dice.
​
The first person to go around the board 5 times ended the game making it a much faster game than Monopoly when losing players usually beg the game to stop.
​
The price at the bottom either didn't exist or was suggested. When a player landed on a spot that wasn't owned yet, they could offer to purchase it but any other player could immediately outbid them. This is quite different from Monopoly where a player who lands on a spot pays and gets to keep the property, no questions asked. In the Landlord's Game players actively bid up property prices and they could demand rent payments immediately. This actually put the player who landed on the spot at a disadvantage because the rent would subsidize the bids of other players. This added a lot of complexity and some strategy. Players would have to weigh in the costs of acquiring too many properties too soon. And properties increased in value making that decision even more important. In the current day Monopoly, this really isn't a strategy. If you land on a spot and have money, you always buy it. The complexity of the game was greatly reduced to little more than mere luck in Monopoly.
​
Developing property didn't require sets. As soon as you own property you could build on it.
​
Free Parking wasn't really a thing in 1904, it was a park instead.
​
House rents and Land rents were separate, not the same. Houses cost the same to build no matter where they are placed on the board ($100) and they always pay out the same ($10). Houses also increase the land rent usually doubling it with every house. (A hotel being 5 houses).
In Monopoly this is changed to combine the two into one fee with the rent tripling with each house installed.
​
But the biggest change by far was that the Landlord's Game had two rule sets and at any time players could vote to enact the Single Tax Method. Under this rule set, all land rents belonged to the pot. Any rent paid went to the pot even if you used to own it. Any houses you made you still got to earn from. This is why the two were separated and why there are houses and hotels in the modern day Monopoly. It was to explain the Single Tax Method. You should profit from what you create as represented by the houses but no one should profit from the board space.
There were thresholds of amounts in the pot that would unlock things. First the pot would buy out the railroads from owners so everyone could travel for free. Then the Jail would be turned into a university so everyone could be educated, then money would be redistributed to players in the form of higher wages when they passed "Go".
​
She hoped that by having these systems side by side players could compare and contrast the two and decide for themselves which was the fairer system.
​
(Note that this writing is based on the 1906 published version of the Landlord's Game. Later versions had different rules.)
Design Flaws
The problem is while in life having a nice, fair, predictable, and equitable system is great; in a game where the winner is the one who has the most assets in the end... it just isn't all that interesting. Usually when highlighting the importance of equal systems among players, games tend to align toward co-op structures, meaning everyone wins or loses together.
​
Allowing for forward and backward movement on a dice roll makes the game somewhat interesting but clearly allows the game to be broken as players can move backward and forward over "Labor Upon Mother Earth Produces Wages" (Go). While this could offer a unique game winning strategy, I don't think this is what Lizze Maggie had in mind when designing the game.
​
Another surprising finding was the weird balancing decision made for houses and land rent. Because the land rent doubles with every house made and the rent you could charge for a house was so uneven, when the rule set switched over to The Single Tax Method, it was really unattractive to build houses. Kind of the whole point of the system was to say "hey this could work both ways". A simple rebalancing of money paid out vs land rent could have fixed this.
​
But it is clear that Lizzie Maggie didn't really have experience with balancing a game system. In her rule book she writes in a catch all: If something arises in the game, you players figure it out. Not really something game designers would be proud of.
​
Then again, she is designing this game at the turn of the century when most American board games were very basic. Games like District Messenger Boy or Office Boy were praising the new value system in American Society, one away from religion and more focused on economic gain, good work ethic and climbing the ranks within a company. These are not complex game systems but very basic linear racing games. Players advance along a track based on a teetotum (a spinner with numbers) or dice roll and whoever finishes first wins. Most games stressed elaborate themes and stories but little strategy or exploration. In the US most board game publishers were also book publishers. In contrast many European board game designers came from toy making and this might help explain the "Ameritrash" vs "Eurogame" divide that emerged. One stressing luck, theme and linear experiences, the other stressing strategy and exploration.
John Heap and Other Versions
She took her game and shared it with friends and family. Some of her friends worked as economic professors at universities. They would use her game to teach Georgest ideas and economic principles.​ Then the students would copy the game and play it in their frat houses.
The game also made its way through communities of Quakers and Georgests.
Between 1910, 20 and 30 dozens of versions were being made. Then changes started to happen. Players would need sets of properties before they could build, they would play to bankrupt each other and the Single Tax Method was soon forgotten. The games started to take on different names too: Monopoly, Finance, and Auction.
Charles Darrow and Monopoly
When he was introduced to the game he decided to make his own handmade versions. Using trinkets as pieces and making some spaces more iconographic, his version resembles the Monopoly common to us today. He sold his copy to Parker Brothers and took credit for the creation of the game. The only other change was the addition of a purchase price. This made the game easier to play because players didn't have to think about bargaining tactics everytime they land on a space but the strategy was removed. I'm not sure if this is something that Parker Brothers added in when they published the game since they were worried that it would make the game too complex for most game players to understand.
Design Iteration and Flaws
Monopoly became successful for a few reasons. Part was the timing. The Great Depression was making life hard and many people sought refuge in entertainment like movies or games. Games that provided an alternate reality where they could grow rich were very appealing.
The game itself had some design changes that made it more attractive to a larger audience.
There is some simplicity and fun when I land on a spot that isn't owned. I no longer have to calculate bidding strategies I can just get lucky and accumulate properties. This creates no loss aversion and lessens the cognitive load on players when they roll the dice. However, there is little strategy in the game but most American board games at the time had little in strategy and most in luck.
There is an interesting player dynamic that happens when players strike deals for matching property sets that seems to be even more engaging than just bidding up on a property.
Now that players have no choice for where they land, there is a sweet spot that happens that makes the game much like roulette. An anticipation of where people will land that can make it exciting for players.
​
But the game continues to play until everyone is bankrupt and this drags out the game diminishing the fun. If I am losing and cannot see a way out or a way to win, the game no longer is engaging. It just seems unfair. An unfair game system that seems mostly based on luck can produce rage. Almost everyone who has played Monopoly understands this. And this might be the biggest critic of our capitalistic system: the ability to produce rage among the players that are losing or feeling like they are losing with no improvement in sight.
​
Monopoly has come to represent everything our capitalistic society represents, quite the opposite of its original intention.
​
​
I talked about this and other early American board games in my 2015 GDC talk.