A friend of mine has at least 1 property of each colour and has 2 colour groups. Right now the game is not fun because she doesn't want to sell anything.

Is there a way I can force or convince her to sell the property?

  • 2
    Twist her arm till she screams? This seems to have nothing to do with the rules. Commented Jun 11, 2017 at 8:51
  • 4
    I believe that you have missed the entire point of Monopoly. They have the power and game position will get worse for you as turns pass until you are forced bankrupt.
    – Nij
    Commented Jun 11, 2017 at 18:34
  • 3
    If I owned 1 property of a group and you have 2 of that same group what incentive would I have to sell it? I would get a small amount of cash right away but would have to pay at least double (full group bonus) each time I landed on one of those properties. Unless you can give them a monopoly in return it is a really bad deal to sell or trade a property to let someone else have a monolopy
    – Joe W
    Commented Jun 11, 2017 at 18:54

5 Answers 5


Forcing players to trade is not part of the game. You can try to make her an offer. But she has the right to refuse it.

If a player has one of each color, they have a strong trade point because they can stop the formation of all combinations. I advise you to make her an offer she will benefit from. So to guarantee her at least one full set she can use to increase her wealth.

But maybe she likes your company and goes for the slow game.


Yes: like Toon Krijthe said:

Forcing players to trade is not part of the game. You can try to make her an offer. But she has the right to refuse it.

My method is to provide a tempting offer. If she has 2 of one color, try to obtain the third by auction/buying or simply trading with another player.

Another method if all else fails, besides offering a trade is to simply be the one to simple Bankrupt her and this will result in all her possessions (including the property you desire) delivered to you.

Official Rules for Bankruptcy:

If the bankrupt player owes another player, he or she must turn over all he or she has of value to that player and retire from the game.

Just my two cents :)

  • How can you bankrupt her when she is the only person who can build houses?
    – komodosp
    Commented Dec 29, 2021 at 0:31

The player has a won game. She has two monopolies that she can build houses and hotels on, and a "stopper" in every other group to prevent anyone else from getting a monopoly to compete with her.

The best way to shorten the game and get over the agony is to resign. Concede her the one game and start playing a new one.

One thing I have tried is to offer her all my property in exchange for the stopper to one monopoly. As in, "I"ll offer you all my property except St. James and Tennesee Avenues if you give me New York." I've had people take me up on it, but I have never won such a game. But at least such an offer recognizes what an advantageous position the other person is in. It was a quick form of "game suicide."


This is how monopoly is meant to be played under the full, actual and original rules. Your opponent is set up in a position to win, by owning the only monopolies and preventing any other monopolies on the board. The actual rules of monopoly (no free parking money, and auctioning off unwanted property) are designed to reward an early lead.

Historically the game was based on one designed in 1903 by an anti-monopolist, Elizabeth Magie. It was designed to show the dangers of systems like this, how difficult it is to recover from early setbacks, and how the rich get richer, the poor get poorer until they need to drop out of the game.

  • 1
    Yep it is house rules that change so much of the game even though they make small changes
    – Joe W
    Commented Dec 17, 2018 at 18:51

If this is a repeated pattern with a particular player across many games there is only one strong counter play: resign.

The meta-game of monopoly is playing a game with friends where you have a chance to have fun and compete on a large scale with tumultuous ups and downs. It's a waste of your time if someone isn't playing the same game as you. Part of the sub-game is in the middle is to perform intelligent trades to advance your victory, so you can't have a chance to tip the scales if you play the game only at that level.

In future games if they end up without exactly such a strong strangle-hold (they miss out on 1 or 2 stoppers) you can then leverage your participation in the game to force their hand into participating in a trade, lest you trade everything you have with another player and then resign and doom the other player to defeat. That being said, communication at some point over the course of all these games would make sense so hopefully you don't have to go this far.

  • 1
    I disagree here, if you are playing by the base rules it won’t really matter if you can’t complete monopoly’s because of a lack of trades. The reason games take forever and people think they need full sets is because of house rules.
    – Joe W
    Commented Dec 17, 2018 at 18:50
  • @JoeW This player has already won, but they've achieved it in a manner that sucks the fun out of the game, so what point is there in continuing to go through the motions of a game that's already over? I didn't propose any house-rules here either.
    – Skyler
    Commented Jan 30, 2020 at 8:05
  • If someone is making the game not fun to play either play without them or don't play at all. Don't blame them for following the rules, winning the game because you don't care for their play style.
    – Joe W
    Commented Jan 30, 2020 at 13:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .