According to Berne, founder of Transactional Analysis, social interactions are vital to human life (even in biological terms) but often follow unconscious patterns. Berne sets out to identify, define, and document this full list of games people play. “Blemish”, “I’m only trying to help”, or “Debtor” manifest a kaleidoscopic sample of human habits, mixed with manipulation and lack of awareness.
In the eponymous book “Games people play” (1964) he explains, and outlines these “life scripts”, “rituals”, “pastimes or “games” (and adds a full list of games people play). These games follow rules, but the rules can be dishonest, or lacking in awareness. The games tend to secure an “internal psychological gain” for the participants that is not always obvious, and helps maintain the game.
The games also, help people “structure time” a primal imperative for Berne that underpins game theory, particularly in social settings. We work, socialise and play, structuring time, trading “strokes”: everyday interactions, gestures all around us: a word with your boss, a conversation with a date / the neighbour, a knowing look, etc.
To Berne, these are vital to human life lest we perish psychologically and organically. However these patterns and Games are mostly unconscious, which means that when some of them are hurtful or toxic, we end up taking them on without being able to clearly observe them. As a result we cannot defend ourselves against them and end up losing self-worth, energy, compassion, etc.
And Games are to Berne where most of this unconscious, stunted, hurtful, often paradoxical communication happens. Some can be good, but as the full list of games people play will show, most end up destroying clarity, intimacy, safety, and damaging at least one of the actors. Such Games also prevent self-awareness that leads to growth, limit potential happiness and intimacy.
It is vitally important to note that “Games” here are not fun or typically fair or positive. They are simply the structured, socially programmed ways we have to interact with each other, to gain “strokes” but also status, outcomes, information, etc. They are often deluded or dishonest, but follow a form somewhat accepted on one plane at least.
Becoming more aware of which ones we play is a huge source of therapeutic gain, leading to self knowledge, problem solving and balanced meaningful living. Not becoming aware of them leads to repetitive stresses, stunted growth, poor real-world outcomes and growing existential despair.
Social/Party Games
Ain’t it awful
“Aint It Awful” (AIA) is a class of games bruising emotionally for the actor him/herself as well as for the recipient. A hard form is the ole “Kids nowadays!” which justifies in the actor’s view, their cynicism and criticism. Played intensively by a Parent this game can profoundly damage self esteem of their children. It is particularly dangerous as it makes it’s own law: Life was better/harder before so therefore what I say is the truth/better.
A softer variant is that of “Broken skin” where, literally a kid breaks skin and/or shows the result of some physical mishap. Concerned yelps are here more caring at least, but this form is also very predictable in shape. Kid shows gruesome wounds and scars, the worse the better, participants marvel/gross out at it and volunteer their own in turn.
Berne also finally mentions the “water cooler” variant, which is more akin to a collective whine “Seen what HR wants to do now? Argh… Will this ever end? So unfair!” Anyone who worked even furtively in an office will probably relate, and find material to observe the structure of the game if they so wish, it is a very marked, simple one.
Blemish
The full list of games people play would be seriously incomplete if it did not include Blemish, maybe the most common game.
Another bruising game, Blemish players aim to diminish their interlocutor to acquire a sense of control and/or superiority. Hard players of this game will not be able to relax authentically in the presence of someone whose weakness or “buttons” they have not figured out yet. They can also use that exact game for another class of “outcomes”: manipulating their partners and eroding their self worth, by discounting their contribution to the couple.
This is highly detrimental to couple life, as the Blemish player will find fault at different levels in their partner (with varying honesty) ranging from criticising their housework (to “blemish” it and “take back” some power in their view) all the way to toxic accusations.
“You hate everyone” when their partner is trying to problem solve and making honest exampled arguments. The end result of Blemish can only be depression (for one/both), resentment and bitterness, walking on eggshells and low problem-solving, low intimacy, low communication.
Players of the Game Blemish tend to be prone to depression, avoiding of intimacy and controllingly curious about their partners. Socially they can also play this to a 3rd party, when discussing someone for example, by “blemishing” them instantly “Oh So-and-So the boozer?”, “Yes, great guy shame he can’t hang on to a nickel” etc.
Schlemiel
Schlemiel is a Yiddish word for “cunning”. In this Game, someone will initiate an offence or other negative action (Berne uses the example of a woman “accidentally” spilling a cocktail on the hostess’ dress).
The game is often played in such public circumstances where the guest finds herself in a position where she then “cannot win”. Either she shows her upset and may come worse off socially, or she laughs it off publicly and is left seething inside. Most of us would laugh it off. But then Schlemiel does it again!
To growing unease the transaction becomes visibly “crossed” and paradoxical: On the social level the guest and host are “Adult” (she spilled a drink, no biggie). But on the real psychological level the relation is Child (inappropriate, egocentric) to Parent (outrage). That kind of “crossed transaction” is painful and bruising in the long term.
The actor who plays Schlemiel “gains” the pleasure of destructiveness as well as the enjoyment of forgiveness. The Host is in a worst position and may have lost a valued possession, as well as probably soon, a social relation too.
Beyond this obvious example, Schlemiel is played in a variety of more subtle or intangible ways at the office, in family, etc. It is a Game more likely to be observed in narcissistic, manipulative and/or delusional types. The full list of games people play below includes many related/variations of Blemish (Uproar, Blemish, etc.)
Why Don’t You, Yes But… (WDYYB)
A Game we’ve all played, probably at both ends. WDYB is played often at parties, whereby at some turn, person A, the central actor, mentions an impossible problem (say, “I cant get a job”). Soon enough someone will start volunteering a solution or help. Person B: “Why don’t you… try networking? There’s some great free events next week”. To which Person A immediately serves an explanation why that won’t work (“Yes but I’m too shy”, “Yes but I don’t drink” etc.)
Then Person C has a go “Why don’t you… Get some further certifications?”. A has the answer at the ready again: “Argh but I tried that but now I’m just too poor I can barely make ends meet”. And so on, D goes, E, etc. A hard player of WDYYB can see off any suggestion, with a realistic-sounding explanation.
This game is highly related to “Ain’t it Awful” as you can imagine. It is the reverse game often of “I’m only trying to help”, also. WDYB is not a bruising or aggressive game, rather a boring one, inducing self-helplessness in the actor and boredom in the secondary players trying to help. One of whom at some point is happy to move the topic on, to the typical dismay of the main actor.
It is a game for the main actor played out of the Child ego-stage (helplessness, tantrumy frustration). In its soft form, the actor may yet be swayed by a particularly intelligent suggestion, thereby returning to a reasoned position of humble rationalism and respect. But in harder forms, its actors use it to deny a variety of vital emotional needs: Always a reason to not speak truthfully, or show empathy or keep one’s word, or problem-solve, etc.
Existential/Life Games
Alcoholic
Berne agrees readily that some forms of alcoholism are advanced, without hangover anymore and/or so advanced that they rely more on medical intervention than psychological. However, he also singles out a repetitive pattern, that he calls the “Alcoholic” game: Someone, often a man, will through drink enjoy a variety of unsuspected micro-transactions. To that kind of alcoholic Berne contends, drinking is pleasant but secondary to the transactions and roles that Alcoholic will play.
Hangovers provide great social conversation material to Alcoholic and having to regularly secure forgiveness has its own oddly satisfying dynamic. Alcoholic is a game played by multiple partners, key of whom is the romantic partner. Other roles commonly include “Patsy” (who cleans up the mess and lives with the consequences – often the partner again) Persecutor (also typically by the partner, in turn), Agitator (the generous bar buddy), the understanding barman (Rescuer/enabler in AA terms).
Persecutor can, unbelievably, often be played by Alcoholic himself, alternating with Victim speech. All in all, it is quite dramatic and does, in a way, structure time.
Berne writes that the drinking is not the main element, rather an enjoyable step along the way, but only to build towards the hangover and the series of transactions it will trigger (asking for forgiveness, playing victim/ persecutor, eliciting sympathy, social conversational fodder, etc.) To Berne that kind of alcholic is also common.
Counter-intuitively (alcoholism is broadly considered horrible), the TA Alcoholic will pay the hangover as a trade-off to all the predictable and net-positive transactions (to him anyway) he will go through. In his book Berne explains that this game of Alcoholic also allows the drinker to avoid intimacy. These unconscious trade offs may in time prove more costly than their relative benefits (health, work, finances) given the addictive nature of drinking.
The cure according to the book is to get the Alcoholic “off” the roles entirely, rather than getting him to simply try to shift roles. To get the client to understand the extent to which they are hurting themselves in plain terms, and to stop rewarding poor behavior or accepting unreasonable drinking. For the partner or therapist to model extensively the Adult ego-state in their counselling and never go to Adult or Child.
Debtor
Debtor is a “meta” Game in the sense that it can be played very slowly for very long periods of time. Berne cites the example of the typical US family starting out. The man (Berne worked in the 50’s…) will get a mortgage and commit to a 30 year mortgage. In this way socially acceptable way, he is playing “Debtor” willingly and happily. Berne compares him to the poor countries where a man will pay a high price to effectively buy a bride, in a way they are playing a similar game, committing themselves for life in exchange of a great partner/situation/house.
To Berne there is an obvious contradiction in the real-world: The young man effectively signs off most of his productive years away, in that open transaction (for a bride, for a house/situation). In an objective view, it may not be as clearly a net-gain as what it is paraded as. But here it is, owning a house is socially programmed in many rich countries as an outcome worthy of social admiration and status.
Players of this game often find themselves a bit aimless once they repay their mortgage in their midlife or early later years. They derived status and occupation from repaying this debt and enjoying this asset at the expense of more enriching, satisfying pursuits.
Try and Collect
This is a very different form of “debtor” but is loosely related: In this form, the actor, a man typically, buys something on credit. Then does not pay. Expert in fibs the man manages to keep the creditor at bay for weeks or months. Sometimes this will simply be enough to ward off the angry creditor, who might decide to simply “draw a line under it”. The “wins” are obvious here for the actor, who gains both a real-life asset/outcome, as well as a malignant satisfaction of having “come out on top” typically considering their mental map.
However, some of the players are not so easy to brush off. In time it becomes apparent that the stubbornly honest creditors will sooner incur more costs if need be than the invoice size they can recover at all. Simply to stand on principle. In this case, the main actor typically switches very quickly once he understand he is going to have to pay somehow, going from avoiding stance to aggressive persecution syndrome.
In a last ditch attempt he tries to fly into an orgy of self-righteousness at the “graspiness” of the typical creditor, somehow managing to flip the situation on its head to anyone who listens: “At my work they came!! When creditors respect nothing like that you wonder, why pay them at all??” The win is double at that stage, the actor is both trying another channel to deter the creditor, but also should he have to pay in the end, already preparing some social gains, empathy, Ain’t It Awful, etc.
I’m only trying to help you
This game in its purest, most obvious form can be observed in therapy rooms, but this game is so prevalent across society that we include it here in the Life Games section.
In a therapy setting it can occur when a patient goes through therapy, receives advice and helpful feedback, but keep coming back reporting worse/no improvement. The therapist (typically rookie/insufficiently qualified) simply shrugs off the feedback, and follows what she knows is accepted protocol. The patient does not improve and the therapeutic protocol descends into gradual chaotic passive aggression.
For harder patients, they may around that time start throwing accusation such as “Look What You Made Me Do!” or “Uproar”, to which the panicking therapist will blurt “I’m Only Trying to Help You!”. In a therapeutic room, the responsibility for this game lies with the therapist. Patients are not reasonably expected to have always sound and balanced opinions, especially about their own behaviour and therapy.
Also, good therapists should not revert to IOTHY, and favour more helpful, honest and neutral expressions to describe their frustration such as “Let’s see what we can do about that” or “I am the therapist assigned to you, if you do not wish to have me anymore, let’s calmly report and see what we can do”. Saying I’m Only Trying to Help You is typically unhelpful and at least mildly inappropriate in a therapy.
IOTHY is actually played much more commonly in society. Abusive parents, hypocritical partners, manipulative narcissists and sociopathic types use that device extensively as in their view it both a) weakens and controls their interlocutor (clearly, you need help, If it weren’t for you, et.) and b) It also raises in their view their own standing (I am helping you). Used extensively IOTHY in families, at work, in society can be profoundly depressing and disturbing for the person it is played on, who will soon experience emotional dissonance, profound confusion and erosion to their self-worth.
Kick me
In one of his broader comments, Berne writes that this Game is often seen in men acting as if they were carrying a sign that says “Please Don’t Kick Me”. Berne writes that the temptation is too strong for most, who end up somehow “kicking him” to his great incredulity, because precisely, his attitude/sign meant “Pease Do NOT Kick Me” which he often follows with another Game, “Why does this Always Happens to Me”. The internal gains of victimisation and self-righteousness appear to him as net positive in the interaction. Net positive enough to not grow out of this Game.
Now I Got You You Son of a Bitch
This Game describes the jubilant pleasure of having someone “at your mercy” or “clearly wrong/beaten”. Berne uses two examples of different nature to illustrate:
- A house owner hires a tradesman to redo a patio and asks for an all-inclusive quote. Tradesman agrees and sends invoice for all, for $2600. House owner agrees and signs off. Tradesman carries out the work and realises half-way through it that he will also need special nails given the nature of the existing patio which he had not anticipated. He updates the invoice to $2604 at which point the home owner goes instantly ballistic “Now I Got You, You Son of a Bitch.
- Poker player A hits an unbeatable hand at poker, and faces off with a friend who has a great hand only (B). B naturally keeps betting, thinking he has a great chance. At this very stage, A, the true player of NIGYSOB is much more emotionally turned on by knowing he has B at his mercy, than by the play or the money on the table.
That Game of a paternalistic authoritarian disposition can be toxic and closely related to WAHM (“Why does This Always Happen to Me?”) as well as AIA (“Ain’t It Awful”) to create toxic psychological life experiences. NIGYSOB is often played “technically right” but emotionally hurtful and dishonest.
See what you make me do
This Game can be played occasionally all the way to lifelong. In its simple form it can be the man who likes to spend “cave time” at home, works on something then slips when someone opens the door and say “hi”. “Whoa look what you made me do!” he exclaims pitifully, inside however not completely displeased and aware that the interruption was only part of why he slipped. This is the simple, occasional form, which can erode intimacy but which typically is not overly dangerous.
It can however be turned into a lifelong script, and be more profoundly disconnecting and hurtful. A husband asks his wife where to go for dinner, conscious that from here on he cannot “lose”: Either the place is great, or it is not and in which case he can “console” himself by blaming her (see variant: “You Got Me Into This”). It is a game in its harder forms acted out aggressively everywhere, at work, in relations, to children brought up in paternalistic unloving homes. It is often correlated to “Im Only Trying to Help”
Couples/Marital Games
Corner
This is a great illustration for how Games are manipulative at heart, and typically destroy intimacy. In this one, Partner A in a relation may say, “let’s go to that nice restaurant”, to which partner B replies “Oh that’s a great idea”. Then a bit later B comments pointily on the state of the house, a topic known to be off limits as A cannot afford the repair and this has been recently argued over. Player A takes offence to that foul play and shows frustration.
Player B then says “Oh well if that’s how you’re gonna be I won’t go with you, may as well go alone then.” Player A by then typically calls the bluff and carries on with the crossed transaction: “Fine! I might as well then!” and leaves the house for a drink, see his friends, etc. leaving Player B nursing her hurt feelings and sense of victimisation.
The reason Games are so detrimental to intimacy is that they are very profoundly paradoxical, ironic or even hypocritical at times. In truth Player B knew very well not to mention the topic. Similarly, Player A also knew in a sense not to take her comment too seriously.
Both know that none of this would have happened had they avoided Parent (outrage) / Child (careless selfishness) ego-states, in favor of Adult ones in which case they would have not mentioned it and not reacted to it. This profound disconnect between the social and psychological paradigms is a source of a lot of confusion and stunted personal growth.
Courtroom
Courtroom is a game played three-handed: The two partners A and B in a relation and a third party (often the therapist in couples’ therapy as a classical example). The 3rd party is “judge” and in front of him/her the protagonists will make their claim, typically through plaintive and intense claims. A lists a long litany of exaggerated claims, to which B will reply in kind providing context and caveats. The game can go on and on, but at some point at least one of A or B ends up saying “Well, I am glad you could hear both sides of the story” to the 3rd party “judge”.
Playing Courtroom is different from reasonable argumentation or couples therapy, in these that at least one actor is loudly claiming moral victory whilst in truth not being honest. From that internal dissonance much friction appears, despair grows at the incredibly different positions of each protagonists. Couples become gradually encased in a “tit for tat” of technicalities and bitter petty squabbles.
Frigid woman
This Game is essential marital, and is a form of intimacy avoidance and “weaponising” of sex in a couple. According to Berne it typically involves a man making sexual advances to his female partner, and is rejected, often to the words of “That’s men for you, all they want! I want some affection!” The male partner gets pushed away thusly over weeks or months until he get resigned.
Then however Berne notes the woman playing this game will start being more and more suggestively, flirt with other men at parties, walk around naked at home, become increasingly affectionate with her male partner. Until the male feels secure again in his advances, to be typically brushed off to the words again of “Wow we were doing so great, and here again you have to be interested in only one thing: sex… For shame…” Berne writes that this is in effect another quick game, at the end of the transaction when the male is pushed away noisily called “Uproar”.
A couple involved in this game is likely to repeat this set of transactions at regular intervals until it becomes unbearable to accommodate this frustration with basic everday couple life. Hard players would sooner divorce than go into a transactional marital group where they may develop better habits and worldviews on their sexuality.
Harried
Harried is a game Berne noted more prominently among “housewives” as he writes. The premise is simple, the harried woman takes on all the roles and tasks that come along and even asks for more, until she runs herself ragged. At the party she is both manning the cocktails bar, hanging out with friends, welcoming guests, serving the nibbles, etc. At home she takes on all domestic chores and even external volunteering activities, applies perfectionist pressure on herself until collapsing middle of the day and “nothing gets done”.
In the soft form this Game can easily be alleviated by simple therapy, and general awareness building around what she can reasonably undertake or not. To only assume one role at a time (during a party) or during each day of the week, to compartment and balance simple activity.
In its hard form this Game is a lot harder to resolve to therapeutic gain, as the female partner in question may well have selected her male partner precisely because he has high domestic expectations. She is effectively emulating the idealised mother of her partner. And she finds psychic balance in this interaction. Because the lead driver in the interaction is not her husband, it is rather her own “contaminated Parent” that pushes her to act thusly.
If It Weren’t For You
“Argh if it weren’t for you think of what I’d be now!” IWFY is a cruel game, played my domineering paternalistic individuals typically who derive an excessive “gain” from that kind of interaction. In the mind of the actor of IWFY this simple blaming game avails two key benefits: a) excessive victimisation and responsibility shirking (because clearly they are not responsible for …) and b) establishes a highly controlling, self-righteous toxicity. Played often by emotionally distant parents towards their children, IWFY can have early, life-long influence.
Surprisingly the game is also played often from the female standpoint, who also selects her domineering partner who will typically bar her from doing certain things and go certain places. She may feel secret gratitude for this arrangement if she is not adventurous. She may also play that very same game “If it weren’t for him” with her female friends.
Look How Hard I’ve Tried
This is a fairly straight forward blaming/responsibility-shirking game, in some ways akin to IWFY above. Berne mentions that it is seen often in couple therapy rooms, usually played by the male. Typically the male will join the session begrudgingly and acting with just enough good faith that he can say to his wife “he is trying therapy” but little interest.
Beyond criticising his wife, he tends to also grow antagonistic to the therapist and alternating between blame and sullenness. In time he will initially fare better at home, then worse than ever. He will come to 5-10 sessions and then stop, go fishing, and force his wife to file for divorce. He can then use the therapy experience to claim triumphantly “Look how hard I’ve tried”.
There is no easy solution to this game as it is often played on the later stages of a relation. If a male clearly plays this game without owning it or any inclination to change it during therapy sessions, Berne recommends pursuing therapy only with the other, more collaborative partner. This reduces the scope of the intervention but, importantly, removes the excuse of “tring so hard” from the male in question which can be salutary. His wife can also then herself file for divorce with a more confident decision making.
Sweetheart
This is a couple Game as much as a party Game. A couple arrives at a party, or has friends over for brunch. At some point the man tells a disparaging anecdote about his wife. The story he recounts is technically true, and he signs off by saying “Isn’t that right sweetheart?” thereby forcing his spouse to smile sheepishly, caught between the veracity of the story and the feigned affection. It is also often seen in therapy rooms during early stage of couple therapy.
Berne argues that in that same example as above, the woman herself may have also chosen her male partner precisely because by exposing her shortcomings spares her the embarrassment of (in her view) potentially doing it herself.
In therapy that Game can become played more and more as the denouement appears, as the Game is about to be revealed in conclusive fashion. A simple resolution to to ban the use of “sweetheart” or equivalent. Or to allow a reply of “Oh yes honey!” sarcasm and all. Sweetheart is passive aggressive in nature and awkward to deal with but simple rules often help.
Intimacy/Sexual Games
Let’s you and him fight
This according to Berne is typically female psychology led, though it can also be male. This is a game that is very simple, often for the protagonists (the males fighting) and occasionally for the female who may feel obliged to go with someone she is not really attracted by, who may decamp on her promise to the frustration of the males, etc.
- As a low level maneuver it is romantic: The woman maneuvers or challenges two men into competing/fighting with the implied promise that she will surrender herself to the winner. If harsh and occasionally dangerous, this low level form still has the potential for an “honest” game / open transaction.
- As a ritual (part of custom for example) it tends to be tragic. Tradition might demand of the men that they fight for the woman, even if she does not want them to or has made her choice already. If the wrong man wins, she still needs to take him. In this scenario it is mostly society playing that ritual not the individual.
- As a game it is mostly comic. The woman sets up the game without serious intent to “go with the winner”, lets the men fight, and elopes with a 3rd one. A third party with whom she’ll enjoy the “gain” of forbidden fruit, the good anecdote, and the feeling of being “winners” in that honest competition is for losers.
Perversion
The term “perversion” is one of the more dated, in a therapeutic school such as TA, one showing most clearly it’s 50’s origin but still worth consideration. In this broad family Berne includes fetishism, sadism and masochisms as well as many variants. To him they all tie back to a confused child, and usually aim for social control and/or humiliation.
It is a game often hinging on self-sustained claims such as “I am so sexed what do you expect” as a sub-game of “Wooden leg”. The remedy to Berne is pretty straight forward, to refuse to engage in physical/verbal self harm and stick to traditional forms of coitus. In time the “pervert” will be forced to realise that coitus is of little interest to him, forcing a degree of ownership and hopefully problem-solving.
Rapo
Berne went to great lengths to make TA as accessible to the layman as possible, including in the naming of his Games. “Rapo” is a pretty vivid and surprising name, but it is also chosen as it resonates in Berne’s view with the nature of this Game itself. “Rapo” is a Game among the more intense, invested, potentially vulgar or dishonest and even dangerous.
The essential premise is that of a woman who seduces a man (typically) without honest intent at relation or intercourse. This Game is dangerous and yet relatively common, broken down in the real world into sub/types or softer/harder forms.
“Public flirt” or “Kiss off” is frequently observed at parties. Typically individual A is attractive and/or gifted for flirting (typically a female but not always) and derives pleasure from the interest shown. A then moves around the room, as soon as she feels she has secured attention and attraction she moves on to the next available male. Which also forces previous enamoured suitors to travel around the room after her, using justifications and devices of varying transparency.
“Indignation” is a similar game, save for the denouement: Here, when a seduced party flirts back and shows interest, A rejects him. The rejection is there the main “gain” from A’s inner mental map. It is here, also different in the sense that for Kiss off, the rejection is generally gentle and unspoken (just moves on), whilst with Indignation, the rejection is more elaborate and open, . The rejection, for A, becomes an enjoyable act by itself.
“Rapo” played in its hardest form essentially “builds” from Indignation in its structure, but takes it farther. A hard game of Rapo can potentially lead to physical violence, courtroom and prison and/or suicide. Here the female according to Berne leads the male into intimate contact, to (sometimes entirely after the sexual act) then accuse him of criminal assault/statutory rape.
This is obviously nothing aimed at invalidating the valid, honest, enormous human cost of sexual violence, only a rare counter perversion on that general topic. Rapo is an extremely dangerous for the average male led into this dishonest compromission.
He will typically incur substantial harm (emotional, physical) at the hand of the friends/family that the female Rapo player enlisted in her “revenge”. He will also often face law courts and regardless of outcome, incur substantial social/financial/reputational damage. It is also highly dangerous to the female who, soon found to be manipulative, will often become a victim of the anger she aroused in her “partners” during the initial stage.
This Game is often related to “Let’s You and Him Fight” and “Blemish”. It is a game of profound manipulation and narcissism.
The Stocking Game
The Stocking Game describes social inappropriateness: Person A (typically a woman) will at some point during a social gathering, expose herself. It happens according to Berne quite quickly, even in a social group where she might not know anyone. Soon into the social gathering the woman will raise her skirt, expose her stocking and typically complain “Oh gosh looks like I ran my stocking again”.
According to Berne this game is related to “Rapo” above, especially in how it plays out. If someone comments on the inappropriateness of the act, they are obviously immediately denied, they “see evil everywhere” etc. This paradoxical, manipulative and hypocritical stance, let alone the sexual nature of this game, makes it a close
The “gain” in the player of Stocking is double: To turn on the males and irritate the women present. Obviously, as for most Games, these immediate and visible gains are far outweighed by the costs involved. If the player can keep up appearances on an “official” plane, most of the group will indeed walk away thinking that she toxic / unfit for social encounters, etc.
Uproar
The full list of games people includes a very wide variety of games, but Uproar is maybe the most common, in different forms.
Uproar is a common, broad-ended game, of medium severity. In its most obvious form it is played by domineering fathers and rebellious teenage daughters, though it can exist in many contexts.
Father comes home from work, finds fault with his daughter / or the daughter provokes the father with an insolent comment. From here on the shape of the game is highly predictable: Voices rise, both protagonist escalate the interaction until either a) the father retires, slamming his bedroom door, or b) the daughter retires, slamming her door, or c) both do.
This distressing Game breaks intimacy, but in households with a domineering father and inhibited mother Berne writes, allows teenage daughter and domineering fathers to “get on” at all. The slamming of the doors is not anecdotical in this way, it is a highly meaningful symbol that each protagonist has still their own space and freedom.
The father may feel upset but enjoy also less obvious internal gains, such as not having to truly deal with the situation, while projecting a front of value and principle. The daughter also often enjoys not having to really discuss or reveal her life. She is upset, but bolstered by the feeling of rebellion. Unfortunately both fail to build intimacy and understanding, and by camping on their positions without sharing, will be less able to problem solve at the next actual crisis.
In more uncaring homes, Uproar can turn into a profoundly distressing and traumatising game. In this harder form, the father will wait for his teenage daughter to come home, inspect her in every way (physically in extreme cases) and ensure she has not “misbehaved”. Blowout arguments, daughter getting kicked out of the house at 2am, all sorts of traumatising damage can ensue. In time obviously the daughter will become sexually active, something the father will then latch on as a sign of “Wasn’t I right all along?”
“Uproar” a a Game is however played much more commonly in other settings. As general trends go it is commonly played between people who are trying to avoid intimacy. It is also commonly played by controlling, paternalistic or narcissistic types for whom it is “easier” to feel (mock/unwarranted) outrage. It is also observed in many societies through sport.
Many cultures and social strata consider “Uproar” unacceptable (particularly in public) but allowed at the stadium when “your team” does not get the referring decision wanted. Uproar is in this way much more frequently private than public, found in puritanical (outwardly), paternalistic, domineering settings. Played with high intensity and frequency it can be damaging to partners and children.
Counselling Games
The full list of games people play has grown to include multiple games, observed typically during therapy.
The act of going to a therapy (individual or maybe more so, group therapy) implies its own set of occasional roles, for clients as well as in some cases, therapists. Good counsellors are aware of these and manage them openly. Settings such as Group Therapy are ideally suited to Transactional Analysis: Clients get to share experiences in public and reintegrate a degree of “real social dimension” as they progress through therapy.
Greenhouse
This Game is most commonly observed in therapy groups but can also happen in a variety of other settings. Essentially Greenhouse describes an overly pompous “respect” towards someone else’s feelings.
It is often found therapist-side, when they are new to psychotherapy and overly tentative in their communication (good therapy requires a sound balance of empathic, but clear communication). It is also found in some clients themselves, who will often preface what they are about to say with warnings of exaggerated importance.
Left unchecked, it replaces authentic communication with undue solemnity. Each contribution or thought shared is treated with the minute attention usually reserved to archeological artefacts of huge brittleness, or as a very are and fragile flower kept “in a greenhouse”. The end result is that therapy becomes stilted more akin to a game of “Walking on eggshells” than sound, helpful therapy.
The gains are varied in this game, for the client it is a way ironically to not engage fully and not face the occasionally difficulty of therapy. For the rookie therapist it is an “insurance policy” against any potential backlash, and establishes in his view a cosmetic sense of expertise.
Greenhouse is a lower-intensity game, but can be hard to extricate. Feelings, especially traumatic ones, are always hurtful to revisit and express at the best of times, making it challenging to see clearly when Greenhouse may or may not be happening. A precautionary approach is typically well advised, but when it does become evident, it is then for the therapist to gently bring in the open and discuss with the patient.
Indigence
Indigence is a self-sabotaging Game to stay in a recurrent state of under-achievement. Berne cites a couple of real life examples, such as some young graduates who may be pretty broke but who do not send out applications. Or that of a client in a therapeutic circle who does not get better, but is assessed to be “progressing” by the therapist, on ongoing basis. Here it is played professionally by the therapist and existentially by the client.
The therapist gets continued income from the patient, who in return does not have to do very unpleasant self-reflection. Berne summarises these two examples as having a psychological/unspoken bond of “I’ll agree to pretend looking for work (as long as I don’t secure any)” and “I agree to come and pay for therapy” (as long as I don’t have to get better).
A medium intensity and damage Game, Indigence affects mostly its key player, unlike many other Games. It can still stunts lives and leads a variety of people in its orbit into low awareness, manipulativeness and missed opportunities.
A Game hypocritical in nature, Indigence is closely related to ITHY (I’m only Trying to Help You). Indigence can also be hard to spot in the sense that a hard player may have a whole set of premade excuses to justify his paradoxical situation. In the example of the jobseeker, early exploration may reveal he is only applying to a type of jobs he is most unsuited for, preserving a foolproof façade of honest intent.
Peasant
Peasant is a Game revolving around adulation and self-discount. Among the full list of games people play, it is one among the most extreme, especially in the sense that it deals damage mostly to the Peasant actor him/herself.
Berne uses the example of an extremely poor woman who per chance meets a great expert from the big city who writes her a prescription. Blinded by the aura of the expert, she takes her prescription home with religious reverence. She does not get it fulfilled though, since she cannot pay for it anyway but hangs on to the prescription devoutly.
One day twenty years later the expert is back through that city, she effusively gushes over his treatment. He is so flattered he does not realise she is limping worse than ever. They both happily carry on their ways.
Berne differentiates hard-form “Peasant” with “Gee you’re wonderful, Professor!” (GYWP) a kinder version. In this one, there is genuine expertise and appreciation and the famed doctor or artist is not necessarily elevated to inaccessible heights. Some other women for example may want to seduce the Professor and/or later confront him, to a Game of “Rapo” if they are hard players.
In the wider world, Games such as Peasant or GYWP can be hard to treat, especially if played intensely. Group and individual therapy must refuse to engage in the circle of adulation / self-neglect / manipulation.
Psychiatry
A Game essentially played around therapeutic protocols and counselling interactions. Psychiatry can be played with any known therapeutic framework, from Gestalt to TCA or Freudian psychoanalytical. The premise is simple: The therapist assumes the complete, official and undeniable position of “expert healer”.
The therapist is an expert (because it says here on the diploma) and shrouds his/her communications with expert psychobabble and exaggerated, dramatic and occasionally pompous feedback. If he/she is well trained and actually talented, this conceited position may still yield many therapeutic benefits to the patient. However it becomes often obvious that this degree of God-complex from a therapist can also often lead to missed opportunities, missed signs, missed value.
Sound therapy is a two-handed tool, between patient and therapist. The therapist listens, empathises, detects patterns, supports emotionally and speaks plainly. But the patient must also own their journey, their thoughts, their progress (or lack thereof) and are generally very much key actors in the therapy. No therapist should wrap themselves in dogma, or order specific actions for their patient. It is the patient who needs to process and test, and adopt different worldviews, values, behavioural options. They are part and parcel obviously in the therapeutic protocol.
Berne notes that Psychiatry can also be played in other settings: In Group therapy for example, where more experienced members may adopt some of its dogma-like communication. It can also happen simply the other way, from the patient to the therapist. In that case the inner gain for the patient is to cycle through (beginner, weak typically) therapists, demonstrate that they are “following the instructions” and yet not healing. As they refine their game of Psychiatry they can cycle through many therapists, and confirm themselves into not being “suited” for therapy.
I’m Stupid
The full list of games people play includes many games around dismissing others somehow (Blemish, Schlemiel, etc.) but it also includes games such as Stupid which revolves around self-dismissal.
Stupid is a Game that is played from a structurally depressed position: Believing / pretending to be stupid, to “gain” low expectations from everyone, low pressure to study or work, etc. The hard player can become very convincing (acting clumsily, playing the “clown” but without fun, etc.) in their goal to be perceived as stupid.
They will often share vivid anecdotes of acting stupidly, and invite openly the other player to believe so that they are “stupid” (and will even imply that not believing that is discouraged). This “laughter” based player of Stupid is slightly different from the “sullen” player, who rather plays the game to get commiseration and helpless frustration.
As for most Games hinging on high degrees of self-delusion, treatment can be slow. Telling the player that they are not stupid does not help as much as politely declining to engage in his ritual: not laughing at the stupid anecdotes, not validating the self-diagnosis of “stupidity”. Staying neutral, to usher in a more authentic interaction wherefrom therapeutic gain can occur.
The patient may indeed (or not) be of limited intellect, but that is not the point of the Game and is not even an issue per se. Many people with limited intellect have led meaningful and happy lives. Few who use such devices though have. The full list of games people play includes typically social games (AIA, WDYYB, etc.) where interactions are central, however in Stupid the participant essentially tries to avoid authentic contact, making this game harder to treat.
Wooden Leg
Similar to Stupid, this Game is played from a depressive state, to evade personal responsibility. “Wooden Leg” is a broad principle: Some kind of infirmity (usually real, not always) justifies in the player’s view, their inability to do this or that, to even try to better their lot, etc.
In one sentence, the whole premise can be summarised as “What do you expect with someone with a Wooden Leg?” That defence is often seen in courtrooms when accused go for the “plea of insanity”. It is also often seen in different cultures in specific contexts.
For example in Japan, a society marked with clear authority lines in general, it is accepted practice to say any odd negative crude feedback to one’s boss when one is drunk. “Would you take anything seriously from someone who’s had a dozen beers?” This exception, the “objective” explanation of drunkenness typically “excuses” the insulting or inappropriate feedback.
In real life, similar to Stupid, playing Wooden Leg is severely handicapping to one’s life, prospects, sense of self-worth and social life. For in truth, many people with actual wooden legs (to take the extreme example) did manage to lead productive life, learn to dance, achieved and conquered. The wooden leg in question is not as damaging as the actual game of Wooden leg.
Full list of Games people play – Summary
Transactional Analysis and Game theory by Berne are less known than the major works of other prominent psychologists (Freud, Jung, Perls, etc.) and it is an interesting question as to why. The immediate answer seems to be that by its own simplifying nature, Transactional Analysis may never been taken as seriously as “depth psychology” such as psychodynamic or Jungian.
Games people play and Transactional Analysis have arguably had however, a similarly massive impact in every day psychology and mental health. This simple system, easy to learn, practice and feedback on has helped millions, becoming more aware of some of their most problematic behaviours. When conducted in group therapy settings, Games people play type Transactional Analysis can be extremely effective at building awareness, coping strategies, and make better decisions.
The simplicity of game theory is, ironically, its power. The full list of games people play is a set of vivid games easy to visualise. Similarly, providing only 3 basic roles (Parent / Adult / Child) allows participants to easily model and parse games through in therapy. In group therapy particulalry, participants can very quickly identify real life situations, how to act better, more adult, or how to detect manipulation earlier.
In that sense games people play may have been more of a silent revolution, not aiming at lofty explanations of subconscious thought like Freud, but rather equipping participants to navigate common problematic situations. We at O&S see no benefits to snobbery as part of psychotherapy, and would argue that the impact of game theory may have been as large as psychodynamic or Jungian thought.
Games people play were also a tool that was used in therapists since the 70’s but also commonly at support groups and volunteering community centers. It may not have had the glamorous status of expensive psycho-dynamic “shrinks” but its impact on society’s mental health remains enormous. Transactional Analysis is still commonly used in challenging settings such as psychotherapy to inmates, where it remains one of the most effective tools.
