quote:

Me and two friends were playing a game of monopoly that took about 3-4 hours to get to the end. We all had hotels and money was going back and forth between us all; it was anyone’s game for most of it. Towards the end it was becoming clear that I was going to win, and finally one of the other players landed on my hotel. He did not have the money to pay, and according to the rules he at that point would have gone bankrupt and would have had to sell and hand over his properties. However this isn’t what happened.

Instead, both other players chose to end the game and forfeit. The reasons they chose to do this were as follows: the game was no longer fun, they were out of money and options, and that it was clear who the winner was going to be. They declared me the winner. The three of us argued for about an hour over this.

I argued that this was unfair, unsportsmanlike, and honestly seemed petty. The nature of the game monopoly is that you run out of money and options by then end. That is the intended way of losing; why would they agree to play monopoly if they weren’t prepared to lose (a 2/3 chance this case)?

Secondly, I believe they weren’t having fun specifically because they were losing, since they told me they were having fun in the beginning and middle of the game. If I were losing, I would finish the game out of mutual respect for the other players and so that the winner would get the benefits of winning (bragging rights and satisfaction of actually winning a game).

By leaving the game early, they rob the winner(me in this case) of that satisfaction. I didn’t actually win monopoly; I won by default because the other players forfeited. Leaving early in literally any other game is considered rude and unsportsmanlike, so why does this get a pass.

I think it was a selfish thing to do, even when 2/3 players were not having fun anymore. After all, most games only have one winner, and all three of us agreed to play the game.

Additionally the effort it would take to play out the last remaining rounds in minimal at most considering the game would move faster after a player is eliminated. I think it’s a common courtesy, but I’m not sure, aita?

Edit: there’s a lot of talk about the time spent playing and arguing but that is missing the point. We were all happy to spend that time playing, we were all aware of how long the game takes. It takes two to argue (3 in this case). Just because we spent a long time arguing doesn’t instantly make me the rear end in a top hat. I felt wronged and I wouldn’t have done what they did if I were in their shoes.

Edit 2: I believe there is a principal difference in winning a game by its intended way, and winning by forfeit. When you win a game by getting a checkmate or defeating all the enemies, and owning all the property, I believe the winner gets the satisfaction of a full game played and won to completion. I don’t believe this is the same as the opponent forfeiting, as they could concede for a variety of reasons.

If a player has a doctors appointment and has to leave, and they forfeit as a result, that win is far less fulfilling than an actual win. If someone forfeits just because they are upset about not winning, then they are a sore loser. If someone forfeits because they believe they will lose, even when the game has a formal process to end itself and determine the winner, then they weren’t actually interested in playing they game, they were interested in only winning - which is what I have a problem with.

Edit 3: I will not engage with replies that choose to insult me over a game of monopoly. It’s just a game guys, right?