Even if Eric Berne—the founder of Transactional Analysis—had written about nothing else but psychological games (“Games People Play”), he would still have made his mark on human consciousness. Putting this subject down on paper was, for me, the perfect excuse to reread it and to realize that, thirty years after its publication, it has lost none of its relevance or effectiveness. For this reason, I can only recommend reading this work to anyone who has the opportunity, since my brief summary can only convey to a very limited extent what, from every perspective, represents the work of a genius.
Berne describes approximately 50 typical situations of social behavior; to make them understandable to the general public, he explains them using terms that anyone can understand.
Obviously, the specific details may vary, but the underlying mechanism remains the same, whether it’s a conversation between spouses or a meeting of the board of directors of a multinational corporation. Let’s remember that these are situations we don’t intentionally create and that tend to repeat themselves with an unpleasant regularity.
On the other hand, each of us tends to prefer certain games over others, depending on the setting and the person we’re talking to.
The “advantage” of a psychological game lies in the fact that the people involved experience an “intense” moment without anything actually improving or being resolved. Besides this, a significant number of “strokes” can be exchanged, avoiding the commitment required by “closeness,” and, above all, it somewhat resolves a problem that is quite stressful for many: how to spend time with others.
One final advantage—since it’s a psychological game and one of the best ways NOT to solve a problem—the protagonists can restart endlessly without changing their positions.
Let’s now look at some of the most common and easily recognizable games, from a general perspective.
In a future issue, we will examine these same mechanisms from the perspective of commercial negotiations and, to the extent possible, offer some advice on how to avoid getting caught up in these games which, as we have said before, yield no positive outcome for any of the parties involved.

“Mine is Better”

It is certainly one of the basic games, so widespread that its overwhelming presence can prevent us from seeing its stupidity and futility. It is a game in which the “I’m OK—You’re Not OK” stance becomes evident.
I (the Persecutor) try to prove to you that something about me, or something I possess, is better than who you are or what you have, and I put you in the position of the Victim. The variations are practically endless. It ranges from relatively harmless things like “my catalog is better, more complete, more up-to-date…,” “my pen,” “my coat,” to much more serious things: “my religion,” “my son,” “my skin color,” and further, to others situated between the two extremes: “my car,” “my college,” “my reading material,” “my friends,” etc.
Note: If I criticize someone’s car because I want to sell them mine, I’m not playing mind games; I’m employing a sales strategy (in my opinion, the most inappropriate one).
The defining feature of this type of game is that its sole purpose is to belittle the other person. Of course, the victim may in turn find something to criticize, and the game can continue with the roles reversed.

“Ain’t It Awful”

It consists of finding that “fellow sufferer” to whom you can complain about a specific situation and who will agree with you, support you, and, in turn, share a similar personal experience.
The subject of the complaints can vary as the mood strikes: the weather (“It’s never going to warm up!”), the government (“They’re all corrupt and incompetent”), the boss, today’s youth, government officials, taxi drivers, food, health…
Of course, no one will lift a finger to improve things, even when it would be possible. It’s a very common game, but not particularly harmful, even if it’s completely pointless (an old Peruvian proverb comes to mind: “If there’s a remedy, why complain? If there’s no remedy, why complain?”)

“Kick Me”

If given the chance, some people behave in public in a way that is completely inappropriate for the situation they find themselves in. In doing so, they provoke an aggressive response from those around them, who then become Persecutors and give them a “kick” (either physically—such as when someone is kicked out of a restaurant—or psychologically—“Don’t let me ever see you around here again”).
This allows them to cast themselves in the role of the Victim and easily find someone willing to play the role of the Savior.

“Look Ma, No Hands”

It’s a game we all play, I think, from time to time: we look for an audience in front of whom we can show off, even exaggerating our merits a little. It’s not a big deal, as long as it’s not a regular habit.

“I’m Only Trying to Help You”

A game resorted to by someone who shows excessive zeal in helping a family member, a coworker, etc. (Savior), until the object of such exaggerated attention is “smothered.” At this point, their role shifts to that of the Persecutor, blaming the Victim. (“How ungrateful you are, I’m just trying to help you!”) Subsequently, they might cast themselves in the role of the Victim, lamenting that no one appreciates their efforts.

“Now I’ve Got You, You SOB”

It involves observing how someone behaves (at work or in society) until a flaw is uncovered. This flaw is then used to call the person’s character into question and to deny all their previous achievements.
The person playing the role of the Persecutor is not at all interested, in this case, in the quality of the work (otherwise, they would collaborate to find a solution), but will only look for a pretext for criticism. You will be surprised to notice how many people, finding no fault in the work you do, will be disappointed and critical instead of congratulating you…

“Why Don’t You – Yes But”

The person asks for an opinion or advice, but systematically rejects everything offered to them, arguing—more or less logically—that the proposed solution won’t work in their case (“Yes, but…”). This continues until the people offering advice (the Rescuers) grow weary and slip into the role of Persecutors (“Nothing will ever work out for you. Too bad for you…”), and he slips into the role of the Victim (“No one understands me and no one really wants to help me”).

“Let’s You and Him Fight”
(at least 3 players)

A very insidious game, during which A will do everything possible to pit B and C against each other, then position himself outside the conflict (and thus move on to another game called “Now let’s see what you’ll do”). I said “insidious” because, as happens in all games, no one openly admits their objective, and A could deny at any moment that they deliberately provoked the other two.

“Courtroom”
(at least 3 players)

It is typically a “marital” game, but it occurs at all levels of business and professional life. A, who lives or works with B, takes advantage of the presence of others to harshly criticize B (who may or may not be present). The others take sides for or against B, who remains, in any case, isolated in the role of the victim.

“Wooden Leg”

The player, who in this case actually wears a prosthesis, places himself in the position of a victim (“How can I do anything? Can’t you see I have a wooden leg?”), hoping to find a Savior who will commit to solving his problems.
This example serves as a metaphor for all the real or perceived shortcomings we complain about and use as an excuse for inaction (“I’m too short,” “I’m Black,” “I don’t have money,” “I don’t have an education,” “I am…,” “I am not…,” “I don’t have…”), forgetting that others, in the same situation, have achieved the results they set out to achieve (more attentive readers will notice that I have now taken on the role of the Persecutor…).

“Rapo”

It’s the classic scenario where a woman teases a man only to back off afterward, calling him a maniac and a pervert and claiming she was misunderstood.
In fact, it is the treacherous game of power—played at every level—that involves feigning openness toward the other person, thereby coaxing them into revealing themselves, only to strike when they’ve let their guard down.
It is one of the most dangerous games, which usually provokes violent reactions.

“Alcoholic”

A social game in which many people can participate, in various roles.
The alcoholic (Victim) gets drunk because, in his view, life—or others—is persecuting him. His wife, a friend, or the family doctor consoles him (Rescuers) and tries to wean him off this vice.
Sometimes they succeed—for a short while, until the next binge—and then it all starts over. In the meantime, they won’t forget to torment the alcoholic (“Aren’t you ashamed? Look what you’re doing to our lives!”). This example serves as a metaphor for all unwanted habits, yet perceived by the person in question as inevitable (the chronic latecomer, the gambler, the obese person…) and which, in one way or another, hurt those close to them.
Of course, no one seriously commits to solving the “alcoholic” problem.

“May the neighbor’s goat die”

This game is not included in the official version of Transactional Analysis; rather, it is my own contribution, which took shape during a discussion with a particularly intelligent (Romanian) friend. Reading in the previous article the assertion that someone in the “I’m Not OK—You’re Not OK” position assumes a passive role and participates in games as a victim, he flatly contradicted me, demonstrating that it is possible to maintain that same position even while playing the active role of Persecutor. Or, as he explained to me, not only do many people take pleasure in and derive satisfaction from contemplating others’ misfortunes (a situation that occurs everywhere), but they also do everything in their power to ensure that those seeking to improve their situation fail in their endeavors, even if they gain nothing from it.
I had long been aware of this situation in post-communist Russia, where the first farmers who began doing business with foreigners found their homes set on fire by some envious neighbor, but I had hoped that Romania would remain immune to this problem.
If, from a psychological—or rather, psychiatric—point of view, there may be an explanation (the person who succeeds where, under the same conditions, I do not succeed, is clear proof of my own inadequacy and for this reason must be stopped or eliminated), from the standpoint of results I do not believe there is any need to demonstrate the folly of such behavior, which represents nothing other than a major obstacle to the creation of a functional and productive economic-political mechanism.
What can I say? As a guest in this country, I’d like to hope that my philosopher friend is a pessimist and that the situation isn’t quite like that. If, on the other hand, he’s right… well, then get out of this game immediately, and you’ll have everything to gain!

Often, when I lead seminars on the topic of games, some people say that life without games would be monotonous and boring. This confirms Berne’s view that people are attached to their own games and are not willing to give them up easily.
The truth is that, given the unconscious nature of participation and the primary goal of exchanging “strokes,” it can be very difficult to step out of a game. On top of that, the Adult state is not used correctly—the only state that would resolve situations effectively and allow us to realize that it is far more constructive to use our energy to solve real problems (which are certainly not lacking), rather than responding automatically, as we have been programmed to do: either by constantly complaining (Victim), or to try to make ourselves desirable by guessing others’ needs (Rescuer), or to criticize, attack, and belittle others (Persecutor).
As usual, I recommend that you use your powers of observation to learn to recognize “in real life” what I’ve only briefly summarized here, but… be careful—this time without actually playing “Transactional Analysis” (as Eric Berne humorously dubbed the game of someone who, after reading his book, devoted himself to uncovering others’ games without seeing his own…).