In Games People Play (1964), psychiatrist Eric Berne made an unsettling claim. He said that many human interactions are not spontaneous, honest exchanges. They are repetitive psychological “games” with a hidden agenda. These interactions have a predictable script with an emotional payoff for the person playing it.

Berne’s version of games seem a lot less fun to me than basketball or Ticket to Ride. They’re subconscious social scripts that look reasonable on the surface. Yet, they are set up to end in the same way every time. Typically with one party feeling frustration, guilt or resentment whilst the other party feels vindicated or morally superior.

The shocking part isn’t that people played these games in the 1960’s. It’s that they’re all pretty similar 62 years later in 2026. We just play them in different arenas now. Now it’s on platforms like Instagram, Slack, or Reddit. Rather than at the community meeting, cocktail party, or office. The reality is the scripts have changed very little.

What Is a Psychological Game?

Every game follows a familiar structure:

The Bait or “con” → Response → Switch → Payoff

The payoff isn’t always positive, but something that helps the person playing it to confirm a deeper life story that they have, either about other people or themselves, such as:

• “I’m helpless.”
• “People are cruel.”
• “No one understands me.”
• “I’m more moral.”

Games allow the people playing them to feel right (about themselves or others) without having to change.

The Most Common Games People Still Play

1. Why Don’t You — Yes, But

This is the most widespread game of all. The player presents a problem only to reject every solution presented to them.

1. The bait, con or gimmick: Player one complains about their burnout and “toxic” job.
2. The response: Player two genuinely tries to offer help and support. “Why don’t you try setting some boundaries with your boss? You could also update your LinkedIn to see what other possibilities are out there?”
3. The switch: Player one is insulted by the advice. “Yes, but my boss is a narcissist and won’t listen and the job market is terrible right now!”

Payoff:
Player one proves their situation is uniquely hopeless and avoids responsibility. Meanwhile, the advice-giver ends up feeling frustrated and inadequate. This game masquerades as openness. It’s actually resistance dressed as collaboration.

2. See What You Made Me Do

This is the game of displaced responsibility.

1. The bait or con: Player one is meant to be working from home. They have been slacking off and playing a game on their phone. Their partner walks in.
2. The response: Player two asks them what’s taking so long, what they would like for dinner and when they are going to be finished for the day.
3. The switch: Player one “accidentally” spills their drink or deletes the document they were working on. They then yell at their partner “see what you made me do! I can’t get anything done without you constantly interrupting me!”

Payoff:
Player one obtains relief from shame. Someone else becomes the guilty party or “persecutor” that has done the wrong thing.

3. Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch

This is a waiting game. The player quietly collects grievances until someone makes a small, undeniable mistake — then unleashes disproportionate outrage.

1. The bait or con: Player one (a manager) is normally quite agreeable and supportive towards their team. However, they feel like they take on too much work from others. They do not feel appreciated by their bosses. Resentment is building.
2. The response: Player two (a team member) submits a detailed 50-page report. It is really good work.
3. The switch: The manager worries that their team will get credit for this good work by their bosses, not them. They notice a small typo. They do not make a quick fix. Instead, they tag the entire leadership team in a comment thread to expose the team member’s lack of attention to detail.

Payoff:
Righteous anger and moral superiority. The mistake is small. The satisfaction is enormous.

4. Kick Me

This game invites rejection.

1. The bait or “con”: Player one posts a controversial “hot-take” on social media in a space where the comment won’t be well-received.
2. The response: Player two (the group) don’t respond well to the comment and player one is “dogpiled” or blocked.
3. The switch: Player one feels surprised and upset. “Why can’t anyone handle the truth? Everyone is always out to get me!””

Payoff:
Confirmation of a deep belief: “People are cruel and mean. I am unlovable.”

5. If It Weren’t For You

This is a relationship game that preserves unrealised potential.

1. The bait or con: Player one says that they would really like to quit their job and begin their own “start-up” business.
2. The response: Player two (their partner) explains why that wouldn’t be practical because of their kids, mortgage and car loan.
3. The switch: Player one blames their partner for not supporting them to realise their dreams. “I’d change careers and be happier — if it weren’t for you.”

Payoff:
The comfort of almost being someone — without ever having to try or see the limitations of their efforts. Maintaining the potential or illusion of what they could be without ever having to risk failure.

6. Ain’t It Awful

This is social bonding through shared misery. About Politics. Dating apps. The economy. The algorithm. The younger generation. The state of the world. The hopelessness of our future.

1. The bait or con: Player one comments on how it would be irresponsible to have a baby these days and bring them into the world.
2. The response: Player two says I’ve heard that our global population is actually going to start declining from 2100 onwards, and declining birth rates are going to lead to more difficulties for countries than overpopulation, especially in some countries.
3. The switch: Player one immediately disengages from the discussion of how things actually are or any potential solution and instead tries to find someone else who thinks as despairingly as they do.

Payoff:
Connection without vulnerability. No one has to reveal anything personal — just collective disgust and agreement that the world is terrible.

7. Wooden Leg

This is the most socially acceptable game today. A real difficulty becomes a permanent exemption.

1. The bait or con: Player one doesn’t organise or plan for an upcoming trip, leaving it all to their partner to figure it out.
2. The response: Player two gets annoyed and disappointed in their partner. “I need you to help me prepare more!”
3. The switch: Player one responds “I’m a Taurus and I have ADHD — you know I’m no good at planning… it’s just how I’m wired!”

Payoff:
Freedom from responsibility — without having to say no directly. It grants a free pass to avoid personal growth or having to work on something.

Why We Play Games

Berne was clear. People play games because they are hungry for recognition. Games provide structure, predictability and emotional certainty.

What they avoid is intimacy, which Berne defined as honest, unscripted contact without a hidden motive. Games keep us safe. They also keep us stuck.

How Games End (and How to Stop Playing)

Every game requires two players. And every game collapses when one person refuses the expected role. Berne called this the antithesis.

Examples:

• When someone plays Why Don’t You — Yes, But:
  → “That sounds hard. What do you plan to do?”
• When someone plays Ain’t It Awful:
  → “Yes. What do you think could help?”
• When someone plays If It Weren’t For You:
  → “Of course I want to support you to follow your dreams. How can we give it a go and make it work whilst also meeting our familial and financial obligations?”

No drama. No rescue. No attack.

The aim is to avoid taking on the role of the punitive parent and not treating the other person like they are a naughty child. Interact from your healthy adult mode and try to interact with their healthy adult, and see how they respond. It doesn’t guarantee a positive outcome or intimacy, but it gives it the best chance of it happening.

What Comes After Games: Autonomy

Berne believed the goal of psychological growth is autonomy, which consists of awareness, spontaneity and intimacy.

Awareness of the ability to recognise when a game is being played and what your role is in it. Spontaneity to respond to others genuinely and without a script. The intimacy of having honest contact without manipulation.

People don’t stop playing games because of the negative consequences that come from these. They stop playing games when they realise that games are actually substitutes for the life they actually want.

Given the choice, would you rather the predictability of getting the same payoff each time? Or to be aware, authentically yourself and connect with those that you care most about?

As far as I see it, the aim in 2026 remains the same as it was for Berne in 1964. To try to see if we can become someone who speaks plainly, takes responsibility for their actions and choices and doesn’t need hidden payoffs when interacting with others.

Dr Damon Ashworth

Clinical Psychologist