Oswald Summerton’s workshop on “Games People Play that Affect Relationships”

given at the International TA Conference held in Singapore in 2007

1. INTRODUCTION
When Dr Berne discovered a way to analyse games through transactional analysis, he
discovered a form of social psychiatry which focused on unhelpful, destructive and unhealthy
behaviours so as to replace these with healthy, constructive and productive behaviour.

My own experience has been that there is no end to delving into the caverns of Dr.
Eric Berne’s writing to support the thesis that, curing people is the goal of transactional
analysts (TAJ, Vol. 1), and therefore the goal of game analysis. For Berne, curing people,
meant training people to cure themselves. Therefore the more we professionals continue the
process of self curing through self training, the more skills we shall have in supporting our
loved ones, our clients, and our contemporaries to live satisfying lives. Taibi Kahler gave a
Silver Rule which says, “A therapist can help clients to help themselves generally just as far
as the therapist has helped himself or herself.” (p. 231, The Miniscript in Barnes)

So in this workshop are you ready to cure yourself and in the process of training get
close intellectually and emotionally to others present here? As you take charge of Game
playing will you support others in their search for successful, happy and healthy lives?

This workshop will include

1. Colloquial game analysis;
2. Four models of game analysis;
3. The importance of Contaminations in causing games;
4. The interface between the Drama Triangle and the Game Pentagon.

2. GAMES AND THE HIDDEN LEVEL OF COMMUNICATION

In Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy, with the subtitle A Systematic Individual
and Social Psychiatry Berne’s chapter on relationship analysis is the seedbed of his analysis
of transactions between two individuals the quality of which lies in their mutual stroking
patterns. His focus in this chapter was mainly to promote transactional counseling especially
to clients wanting help with marital problems. The process of counseling required an analysis
of their communication patterns. The nature of their transactions determined whether their
relationship was gamey or not. If the transactions were hidden or ulterior, their strokes would
advance the game patterns in their relationship.

The transactional analysis understanding of Games is based on the hidden levels of

communication. Communication can be open and straight or it can be complex. A general
guideline is that when communication is complex and people communicate with one another
at two levels, one open and the other hidden, it’s probable that each is involved in the play of
a psychological Game and this is connected to a relationship that exists between them or one
that they are initiating through the ulterior communication. Games are played through sets of
ulterior transactions between two or more people.

Berne’s first discovery of a psychological Game came as follows: as he was observing

the to and fro of conversation before one of his therapy groups began, he had a new
realization. As one person asked others for suggestions, she rejected each suggestion with a
“Yes But…”. From the discussion on the hidden levels of communication, namely, what
message underlies the “Yes But….” Transactional Game Analysis, TGA was born. Hyacinth
had told the group about her resentment and disappointment at someone else organizing a
party that she wanted to do herself. When Camelia gave a possible solution Hyacinth replied,
"yes but then it wouldn't be a birthday party." The process of others offering suggestions and
Hyacinth's "yes-butting" them continued for some time. Commenting on the process, Berne
wrote: "In the guise of an Adult seeking information, Hyacinth "cons" the other members into
responding so that she can reject their suggestions.

Within a few years, Eric Berne’s book “Games People Play” was an international
favourite. After all, Games, whether one-time or permanent, are part of most relationships,
and thanks to Berne, the players can learn to clean up any harmful or hurtful communication.
All models of Games are closely connected to Life Scripts.

My own induction into Game Analysis came when I witnessed a small drama among
the participants at the end of a TA workshop with Muriel James; one that was filled with
hidden levels of communication: anecdote of “I have to get to the railway station.”

Dr Berne defined a transactional game in his book "Games People Play" in Chapter
Five, as follows, "A game is an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions
progressing to a well-defined, predictable outcome. Descriptively it is a recurring set of
transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more
colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or "gimmick"." In "Principles of Group
Treatment" he wrote, "The most important thing to remember is that the definition of a game
is quite precise, and unless a series of transactions is ulterior and has a definite pay-off it does
not constitute a game." Since Berne's time there have been many ways of describing the
dynamics and essence of a game, each way depending on the outlook of the author.

3. COLLOQUIAL ANALYSIS OF GAMES

Here are a few colloquial names of popular Games: Poor Me, See How Hard I Tried,
What Can I Do?, Do Me Something, If It Weren’t For You, I Only Wanted To Help, Now I’ve
Got You, Blemish, Let’s You And Him Fight, Uproar, Kick Me, Wooden Leg, Tiffin Carrier,
Harried, Schlemiel, See What You Made Me Do, Stupid, Rapo, Social Rapo, Alcoholic etc.
Below are some examples:

Ain't It Awful: This game is a favourite of many, and often it is only a pastime in which
people complain about things, people, etc. “Look how the politicians are behaving,” “See
how prices are going up,” etc. It becomes a game when individual players pull a switch and
collect a bad feeling at the end with some such statement as, "What a waste of precious time",
etc.
If It Weren't For You: This is a blaming game, and can go on for months or minutes and
ends with feelings of frustration, depression, or whatever is the "favourite" feeling of the
player. “If it weren’t for the children I could finish my Ph. D.”
Now I've Got You, SOB: "How many times have I told you not to do that, and now I've
caught you doing it." This game is also called NIGYSOB, Now I've Got You You S of a B! It
is a revenge game, sadistically enjoying catching someone doing wrong.
Blemish: Did you ever work for someone who could take an excellent piece of work and in a
split second point out an error, mistake or blemish? And have you noticed how satisfied the
person appeared when she or he does this?
I'm Only Trying To Help: Usually with a plaintive voice, and once his help has been
neglected, the player will voice these words. The ITYH player often forces his or her help on
others who may not want it, and who by rejecting the help, act as a stimulus for the player to
pull his or her switch and collect the payoff.
Let's You And Him Fight: "I can get my mother and father to fight any time I want this",
says the little boy/girl. Have you ever found yourself fighting with your spouse over one of
the children? Next time you find yourself doing this, take a quick look at the child in
question.
Social Rapo: Joy invites Jan to come to the movies and Jan accepts. At the last moment Joy
contacts Jan and withdraws the invitation with some kind of excuse such as "My great
grandfather has come to town and I have to take him out". In summary: an invitation is given
and accepted, and then it is withdrawn.
Discussion: Recall the names of any other games you have come across in your experience
and share with your neighbour.

4. GAMES AND FEELINGS IN THE CHILD

The Colloquial approach to Games is an informal way of naming the major dynamic
of the Game and getting a sense of its psychological impact. This approach made Games
popular in the world. It is possible to play one of these to get many pleasant or unpleasant
strokes whether the final switch comes suddenly or after a long time or never. However, for
most people, Games end in some kind of unpleasant feeling. Two ways in which the outcome
of a game is described are "payoff" and "trading stamps". The word "payoff" is used about
the Game outcome to emphasize that there is something dishonest in games, and that the
outcome is arrived at as the result of dynamics that are intrinsically dishonest.

People often ask “What can I do to stop playing Games?” Once in a training group
Mary Goulding said, “You can get control of your Game by refusing the outcome and by
forcing yourself to feel any other feeling besides that bad feeling that brought the Game to an
end”. In addition, she added “Put something healthy in its place.” The negative feeling at the
end of the Game is called the payoff.

Many trainees who have begun to analyze their colloquial Games have enjoyed
discovering the accuracy of this advice. However, in addition to forcing oneself to have a
healthy feeling, one can self-help oneself by a replay of a Gamey interaction using one’s
Child, Parent and Adult. One’s triple constitution of Parent, Adult and Child, can discover
within the three ego states the elements of the Game and the direction it may be taking. This
may help you discover whether to continue a relationship, or to design alternatives to
optimize relationships. We therefore take a small excursion into ego states.
5. GAMES AND EGO STATES

Parental
Ego Parent
State

Adult
Ego Adult
State

Child
Ego Child
State

A Structural Diagram Simplified Form

Figure 1 STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM & SIMPLIFED FORM (GPP, p. 25)

Eric Berne wrote: “This represents, from the present viewpoint, a diagram of the
complete personality of any individual. It includes his Parental, Adult, and Child ego states.”
Thus, structure of the complete personality is with the three ego states and the sheath that
houses them. The Parent is borrowed from parental figures and so Games from this ego state
would repeat the games played by parents, grandparents, teachers, etc. The Adult ego state is
the reality based ego state and helps a person unveil the ulterior levels of communication.
Games are played outside the awareness of the Adult and the purpose of Game analysis is to
bring the Game into Adult awareness and Adult decision-making. The Child is the part of
personality which is brought forward from childhood and often feels the payoff, or end result
of the Game. It would replay Games that were designed or created in infancy and childhood.

We now do some activities to experience ego states in Games. Getting to know what
your Child really wants is important to understand Games and to break them.

Activity 1 “Why don’t you… yes but”

Stand up and move around looking for someone you do not know, or know partially.
Begin a play of “why don’t you… yes but”. When you get the signal to stop, go back to your
seats and
(1) write down what was your feeling at the end of the exercise.

Activity 2 Child pressure

Recall a situation of your doing something necessary to keep a commitment, and,
how, instead of keeping the commitment, you have followed the pressure exerted by your
Child ego state. One example of this might be a “social rapo” which means that you broke an
engagement suddenly because at the last moment something more pleasant came in the way
of that engagement.
(1) Identify a feeling or series of feelings during, and immediately afterwards when you are
reflecting on what occurred;
(2) focus on unhealthy feelings generated in your Child ego state whose cathexis tends to
overlap the Adult ego state.

6. MODEL ONE: THE GOULDING-KUPFER MODEL OF GAMES

Bob Goulding was one of Berne’s illustrious colleagues and the creator of TA
Redecision therapy with his wife Mary Goulding and David Kupfer, another enthusiastic
Bernian, who designed this method together with Bob. The Goulding-Kupfer model
combines three elements of Games: the ulterior level, the identification of ego states
involved, especially the Child, and the negative feeling at the end of the Game. This model is
a one-handed method of Game analysis because it analyses the Game between two people
from one person’s view at a time. An individual identifies the ego state he/she is in. When
he/she believes that the other person’s meaning is unacceptable or unfriendly, he/she pulls a
psychological switch and collects a payoff of some negative feeling. In a personal
communication, Bob shared with me that Berne refused to publish his (Bob’s) method
because it was not strictly transactional! On the other hand, many trainees have discovered
clarity about their Games and Game playing, as a result of Bob or Mary’s use of this model in
their work.

In his article “New Directions in Transactional Analysis” Bob Goulding constructed a

conceptual framework from early childhood decisions made by children as a result of
Parental Injunctions, upon which a child would build up his/her on-going Life Script. Central
to the child’s living according to the Life Script were the Strokes or “units of recognition”
gleaned by the child through the Games that it learned. In short, he was concerned with how
the child can achieve recognition from parents as it grows up (p.107). Bob wrote “…once a
child has made a Decision, he has forfeited his autonomy.” (p.111). Games are ways of
getting recognition that advance the Script Decision. He states that a Game consists of:

1. Ostensible (usually) Adult stimulus

2. Secret Message
3. Response to secret message
4. Payoff of bad feelings
5. Entire series of transactions,which are not within awareness of Adult.

P P
2

1
A A
3

C C
4
 Figure 2 THE GOULDING-KUPFER MODEL

Bob Goulding acknowledges the assistance of Dave Kupfer who had died before he
wrote the article, and also of his wife Mary Goulding, in the development of the model the
first design of which appeared in “Progress in Group and Family Therapy”, pages 105-134,
edited by Sager and Kaplan and published by Brunner/Mazel in 1972)

13. BERNE’S VIEW OF RELATIONSHIPS

Berne analyzed games in order to cure people and to build healthy relationships. Once
we stop playing games then we get our legitimate needs met openly and build relationships
which are based on Steiner’s emotional literacy and positive stroke economy. Below is the
contrast between a gamey relationship and a fulfilled one.

Transactional Game analysis of the Game of “If it weren’t for you” is given below
showing how Berne diagrammed the two level communication. The game continues within
an on-going relationship which keeps the players bound in their unconscious scripts until one
of them deletes the social level, opens the hidden level and ends up with negative payoffs.

Here is the diagram of Mr and Mrs. Galli who have a secret agenda by which they
continue to meet their Child needs dishonestly. This diagram is Berne’s social psychiatric
model of Games.

P P

A A

C Psychological Level
C

Mr Mrs.

“Stay home” (I’m terrified) If it weren’t for you” (Protect me.)

(GPP p. 55. cfr. p. 117)

Once again he emphasizes the importance of the hidden level in Games: “Simple
complementary transactions most commonly occur in superficial working and social
relationships, and these are easily disturbed by simple crossed transactions… More complex
are ulterior transactions those involving the activity of more than two ego states
simultaneously and this category is the basis for Games.” (pp. 32 33). Muriel James also uses
this model in her description of TA Games.
Exercise 1
John James “Game Plan” is the famous TA method of eliciting the basic material for
game analysis. Read each of the seven items below and write down your responses to them.
John James’ Game Plan (TAJ 6, p.194)
1. What happens over and over and you end up with an unpleasant feeling?
2. Who are the persons involved?
3. How does it all start?
4. What happens next?
5. And next? and next?……
6. How does it all end?
7. What is everyone feeling? doing? What are you feeling? doing?
Exercise 2
Now use this data to analyze your Game on the Goulding-Kupfer model. Then make a
decision to change your payoff.
A practical tip by a client of mine which I share with you is a quote from a note sent to
me: “How I benefited most was my awareness that when I do something for someone or say
something to another one, and that person responds negatively, then I understand that I made
a play of one of my Games, and I can interiorly refuse the other person’s reaction and make
myself quietly and peacefully absent.”

7. MODEL TWO: TAIBI KAHLER’S MINISCRIPT

Kahler’s article was published in the TAJ January 1974, page 28 and he received the
1977 Eric Berne Scientific Award for his discovery of the Miniscript and the five Drivers.
Kahler regards Drivers as counterscript messages of the Life Script. They are socially
acceptable behaviours on the surface that are actually ineffective and do not support
successful goal-directed actions.

Kahler’s Miniscript is based upon the individual’s (your’s for example) childhood
perception of how you needed to make your parents proud of you or happy with you. Kahler
named five parental Drivers, namely, Be perfect, Try Hard, Please Me (the ‘me’ being
mother, father, or other strongly influential Parental figures), Be Strong, and Hurry Up. He
named these Drivers because they are pressures imposed on youngsters who wanted to please
parents or any authority figures for that matter. They can be regarded as Parental
Contaminations of the Adult. Please note that when you were feeling your parent’s love as
distinct from how they expressed love, then as a child you probably wanted to fulfill their
expectations by using the Drivers.

This method of Game analysis has been found useful where other models and
methods have failed. It consists of four steps. The first step is the Driver or Drivers under
which a person is operating. Once the person has initiated communication or activities based
on obeying the Driver messages, he/she may shift to the Stopper position which Kahler links
with the injunctions of the Life Script.
At the Stopper position, the client may choose to a) stay there, b)go immediately to
the Vengeful Child position, or c) go immediately to the Final Miniscript Payoff.
The third step is the Vengeful Child (VC)
The fourth step is Final Miniscript Payoff (FMP)
 The fifth step is the interlude followed by return to the Driver influence. The flow is
diagrammed as below:

The Driver I’llbe OK if ....

Vengeful Child

Final Miniscript Stopper

Payoff

Figure 3 TAIBI KAHLER’S NOT–OK MINISCRIPT

Case Study of the Miniscript

Pushpa’s discovered her Miniscript when she finished the phrase, “I’m Ok if ……..” She
said, “I’m OK if I try hard and if I please my mother.” Her Drivers were therefore Try Hard
and Please Me (i.e. Please mother). In the Driver position, Pushpa went out of her way to try
hard to help others, as this is what she had learned to do in childhood to be acceptable to her
mother. She would move from Driver to Stopper when she realised that she was not
succeeding she would experience fear. Normally Pushpa would feel sad and lonely, thus
ending up in the Final Miniscript Payoff position. Sometimes, though seldom, Pushpa got
angry and was in the Vengeful Child Position before finishing up in the Final Miniscript
Payoff of sadness. After some time she moved back to the Driver position to where the action
was.

The key to change is found in the question “How do I get out of the Miniscript?”
and “What do I put in its place?” The answer to this question is “I put an Allower in place
of the Driver.” Kahler wrote about the OK Miniscript which contains contracts for change
at each stage of the dynamic. Players learn that they can opt out of the Miniscript by refusing
the feeling as soon as they recognize that they are in any one of the Miniscript positions.
Kahler also suggests that we can identify the not-OK Critical Parent messages that trigger the
Miniscript dynamics and change the messages to OK Protective and Nurturing messages.

Exercise 3
a) Fill in the blank, “I’m OK if ………..” Then share with your neighbour the Drivers you
identify in yourself.
b) Use the data of your game to discover other drivers, and
c) make a contract for change.

Case study of historical roots of Drivers

I give you a first hand report from one of our trainees in India.

Dear Os,
Here is the work I did:
1. We began with a recap where we discussed the key elements of the mini-script.

2. I also brought up the three drivers I recognised in the previous

session, Try Hard, Please Me, Hurry Up.

3. You then asked me to think of instances from childhood for each and, that included the two
I left out -- Be Perfect and Be Strong.

4. Here are the instances I recollected:

Try Hard
I remember my father telling me that I cannot succeed unless I work very hard. He
used to stress the "very hard" part.

Please Me
I remember being asked to choose a T shirt to wear. When I chose a black T shirt, my
mother scolded me as black was not an auspicious colour to wear when travelling. I recollect
being angry about it because I was asked to choose and my choice was criticized.

Hurry Up
Perhaps the statement I heard most as a child. I remember being very small when I
was at a friend's house catching up on the class-work I had missed that day because of illness.
It was late evening and my father came looking for me. When he found that I was still
copying the day's lessons, he smacked me on the back, saying I was a "slow coach".
That was the first time I heard that word. I did not know what it meant then, but I knew it was
not something good and I was slow". It is a thought I have often carried with me.

Be Strong
When I asked my mother to write a note in my autograph book - she wrote only two
words “Be Brave". I often have heard her say it and have admired her courage to the extent
that I have wanted to be like her. Especially since I saw my father as weak and not in control
over his speech

Be Perfect
Scouting used to teach me to "Be Prepared" and I remember
reading an article (much later) saying you cannot be prepared for everything. Also, if I got 18
/ 20 in a test, my mother would ask me where I lost the two marks. She would often tell me
to be my best and once when we saw a TV programme, where JRD Tata said that the secret of
his success was that he wanted the best and nothing but the best. I remember my mother
saying "see I told you so".

5. Recollecting all this made me feel sad. I visualised my Child being sad but sitting close to
me -- my arm around him and he talking wide-eyed at you.

6. On your instructions, when I told him that I am here to work things out with him, he
immediately brightened and smiled through his tears. He felt much closer to me and had as it
were an arm resting on my lap. I felt much better after this conversation with my Child.

Case study of changing to Phenomenological Parent

 I have found Taibi Kahler’s miniscript helpful especially with couples who know they
are playing Games, but cannot discover a way to identify with other methods of Game
analysis. By identifying the emotional content of their interactions, some couples have
discovered that Kahler’s Miniscript gave them a way out of habitual Games by refusing to
accept any unpleasant feelings that they encounter and replace them with other feelings.

However young teachers have used the miniscript to change their skull Games which
originate from messages in the Parent ego state. By separating the Historical Parent from
their own Contemporary Parent (Phenomenological Parent) they have been able to change
Gamey behaviours and create healthy lifestyles.

This case study is of a young woman who is a teacher trainee of Mumbai University.
She, Asha, had many “problems” with her mother. A major problem occurred each night as
she was completing her assignments of the day. Asha had the habit of working near the
television. During the time for completing assignments she watched for her favourite
programme. Her habit was to close her books once the chosen time came, promising to
herself to finish the assignment after the programme, or, getting up early in the morning so as
to complete her work. The plan was faulty, plus, she had a heavier problem. Frequently her
mother would appear and tell her to hurry up and complete her work. An argument would
begin. Asha fought back, disagreeing with mother, and demanding her right to choose her
timings for completing her work. Sometimes unfortunately (for Asha) mother would not
leave until she settled into her work.

Asha described this problem during a class on transactional analysis. She agreed to set
three chairs face to face, representing one for Parent, one for Adult, and one for Child. She
then began her conversation between her three ego states. Child and Adult, talking to Parent,
continued their rebellion against completing the homework. Asha admitted that while she felt
bad at what she was doing, she was going to continue to close her books and watch the
television. She left after class, fixed in her decision.

At the start of the next class Asha described what she had done when she got home
after the previous class. After closing her door she had set up three chairs in her room, and
began to repeat the conversation between the three ego states. On repeating what she had
done in my class, she found that Mother Parent in the privacy of her room was quite different
from the Mother Parent of the classroom. On this occasion, she experienced that her Mother
ego state at home was her’s, and not Mother. When her own inner Mother ego state put the
case to her, her Child and Adult accepted their discovery of their own personal Mother ego
state who was understanding and positively nurturing. As a result the Try Hard Driver was
replaced by a Go Ahead and a do it Allover. Asha reported that to her amazement she had
completed her assignments that night, then decided not to watch late-night TV, and instead
went straight to sleep. She also experienced a very good feeling because she was doing
something healthy and in her favour. Besides she felt differently towards her mother. She
hugged and thanked her mother. Their relationship improved as a result. Her classmates
applauded her change. She had demonstrated how three ego state work supports the change
from Gamey behaviour to healthy behaviour.

Activity 3 Parent messages and drivers

In groups of three or four, write down your answer to the following questions and
discuss :
a) Is there any area in the case studies of drivers with which you can identify?
b) Do you postpone actions, forget, or half do any tasks?
c) What does your Historical Parent (mother or father) say about this?
d) What can your new Parent say instead?

9. MODEL THREE: STEPHEN KARMPAN’S DRAMA TRIANGLE OF RESCUER,

VICTIM, PERSECUTOR
Dr. Steve Karpman’s drama triangle was originally meant as his contribution to
script analysis. His triangle with its three roles, is probably the most popular form of
individual Game analysis used by TA folk worldwide. Karpman was given well deserved
appreciation by Eric Berne. In a long and brilliant article printed in Transactional Analysis
Bulletin, 1968, 7(29) 38-43, entitled Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis he presented
theory that would clarify script analysis, especially role analysis and drama analysis. (Of less
relevance here, he also described a location diagram). He wrote that only three action roles
were required to depict the action in drama - Persecutor, Rescuer, and Victim, or P, R, V in
the diagram. Finally he pointed out the very important fact that a switch in the roles was
found in a good drama. Karpman was awarded the Eric Berne Memorial Award in 1973. In
his acceptance speech, Karpman described the process by which he came to make this
contribution to the analysis of life scripts. However this did not stop his accepting the many
strokes he got for inventing a popular model of Game analysis.

Persecutor Rescuer

Victim

Figure 4 KARPMAN’S DRAMA TRIANGLE

Here is an example of how Sushila played “I was only trying to help.” She was
staying for a time of training in a corporate training centre. She had the habit of offering help,
especially for answering the telephone. She developed the habit of waiting till her Director
was busy, and then give him a message. After some time, she started getting unpleasant
strokes because her help was untimely. She stopped the habit until, one day there was an
urgent message. As the Director was leaving she began to give the message to him; the
Director told her to give the message after his return. Sushila remained silent and had a small
smile on her face. She had moved out of the Rescuer Role, bypassed the customary Victim
role, and happily waited (in the Persecutor role) when the Director, on returning asked for the
message. Sushila replied “It was to tell you that the meeting was cancelled.”
 Sushila

Director

Figure 5 SUSHILA’S ROLE ON THE DRAMA TRIANGLE

Keep the following points in mind when using this model of game analysis.

1. Depending on the individual, the movement from one role to another can be instantaneous.
In the example of Sushila and the Director, the shift was quick, and Sushila stayed in the role
of Persecutor and enjoyed the experience until, frustrated that the meeting had been
postponed the Director had returned. Then Sushila had her moment of triumph. Alternatively,
the Victim may internally switch to Persecutor or Rescuer for a future relationship.
2. The three roles on the Drama Triangle can be switched rapidly, or occupied for long
periods of time.
3. The three roles fit well into Franklin Ernst’s “The Grid for Get–On–With”, widely known
as the OK Corral.
4. When faced with the question, “How can I get out of the triangle?” you can learn to
recognize when you are about to get on to a role of the triangle, you can learn to get off the
triangle if you find yourself on it. A quick way to do this is to use the “Get–On–With”
position, namely, move into the “I’m OK You’re OK with me”, to stop your part of the Game.
You can do the latter by using Franklin Ernst’s “The OK Corral (TAJ, 1, Oct.1971)”.
5. We will help ourselves if we add to Karpman’s trio of Persecuter, Rescuer, and Victim,
the role of OUT of the triangle, which means being in charge of our three selves (P, A, and
C) when at home or elsewhere.

Operation Operation
Get–Away–From (GAF) Get-On-With (GOW)
Position Resulting Position Resulting
I–Am–Not–Okay–With–Me–AND– I–Am–Okay–With–Me–AND–
You–Are–Okay–With–Me You–Are–Okay–With–Me

Operation
Operation
Get–Nowhere–With– (GNW) Get–Rid–Of (GRO)

Position Resulting Position Resulting

I–Am–Not–Okay–With–Me–AND– I–Am–Okay–With–Me–AND–
You–Are–Not–Okay–With–Me You–Are–Not–Okay–With–Me
 Figure 6 THE OK CORRAL OF FRANKLIN ERNST

I give below an excerpt of Dr Karpman’s recent views on Games, expressed on the net
in 2006:
“Yes, ... TA norms of Personal Responsibility, Assertiveness, and OKness... "
are good personal goals. But the best transactional goal I know came from a Joan Baez
quote (not referring to dysfunctional relationships though): "Our job is to not to let screwed
up people run our lives.” In dysfunctional relationships, the most screwed up person winds up
on top, in control, while the most sane person ends up on the bottom, not in control.……
Now, look in the mirror if you've allowed this at home or in the office. If you think this has
never applied to you, either way, I can sell you the Golden Gate Bridge real cheap. All major
Credit Cards accepted.”

Steve Karpman is still developing his ideas on games to date and uses the Compassion
Triangle which allows for six motivators: In that blank inside space, I sometimes write
"what's unsaid" - either awaiting opportunities to further escalate three ways, or in the
positive aspects of the energy, awaiting opportunities to repair the situation three ways…. In
the personal inner triangle, (inner dialogue), the inside R is self-protection, the inside P is
self-sabotage, the inside V is self-suffering, or variants of those.…Sometimes I might add a
tiny inner triangle, representing the script scene games of childhood: P takes on the script
injunction for revenge on the parent, R takes it on to help out the parent, and V is confused
and accepts it.”

Exercise 3
a)What is your favourite role on the triangle; which is your frequent switch ?
b) Place the data from your replies to John James’ Game Plan on to the triangle.

10. TRANSITION TO BI-DIMENSIONAL GAME ANALYSIS – SUMMERTON’S

MODEL OF THE GAME PENTAGON
This bi-dimensional approach helps individuals to operate in the group or family
situation by first getting rid of the tendency to slip into the dramatic roles of the triangle and
discount them for the moment. In drama there are at least two other roles of importance, the
role of spectators and the role of stage management.
A method of Game analysis which is complementary to Steve Karpman’s Drama
Triangle is my Game Pentagon. Called Summerton’s Pentagon, this model goes beyond the
three roles and describes a group phenomenon as part of a TA Game. Five roles are identified
which can be filled by group members; at any moment, all five roles do not need to be filled
at every moment of the group’s operating. These can be played by one player shifting into all
five roles and others occupying the roles of their choice five people can each occupy one role.
In summary, the triangle describes an individual’s Game whereas the pentagon describes a
group’s Game; and some of the participants of the group’s Game may, internally, be
emotionally dealing with an individual game being played through the Triangle.

First, a description of the roles on the Pentagon, and then the connection of the
Triangle and the Pentagon.
 Spectator Stage Manager

Sniper Saviour

Scapegoat

Figure 7 SUMMERTON’S GAME PENTAGON

The five roles of the pentagon are Stage-manager, Spectator, Sniper, Saviour and
Scapegoat.
1. The Stage-manager role is that of the originator or source of a social event in charge of
providing meeting place, furniture, and various requirements for the group to function. The
Stage-manager sets the stage for the drama by being an initiator in the proceedings. The
Stage-manager may be in a position of authority or acting under instructions from and
authority.

2. The Spectator has the role of audience in observing the action. The Spectator in this role
remains aloof avoiding responsibility or accountability for the event. The Spectator seems to
be unrelated to the event except for the fact of being present . The importance of recognizing
the Spectator is that it emphasizes the social responsibility of people who observe observing a
drama which they may be operating from.

3. The Sniper is the role of the openly decisive person in a group, be it that of the attacker,
defender, protector. The part of one who can offer critical comments about the process, give
direction, and prevent harmful outcomes is that of the Sniper.

4. The Saviour is the role of an ombudsman, who operates to bring justice, solve disputes
and save others from harm. The Saviour takes up social causes. He or she parries, protests
and prevents put-downs acting to remove the sources and products of put-downs. The Saviour
role can bring the group’s event to a constructive and harmonious end. The role of the
Saviour suggests action which promotes effective group activity without the negative
connotations of being a Rescuer on the Drama Triangle (Drego, 1980, p. 54)

5. The Scapegoat is the person that attracts the anger of a group as it works through its
conflicts. This person may bear the blame for others or suffer hard personal consequences on
behalf of and because of the group. The Scapegoat is punished instead of someone else.
 V

V
Figure 8 THE TRIANGLE AND THE PENTAGON

Note on the difference between roles on the triangle and those on the Pentagon
The roles of Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim, are played, fundamentally, in a one to
one relationship, whereas the roles of Stage-Manager, Spectator, Sniper, Saviour and
Scapegoat are fundamentally played in a group atmosphere. For example, a person who has
been in an unpleasant game, may carry around with him the aftermath of the payoff he got,
especially if he felt that he was the Victim; when he joins a group, then he is in a dangerous
situation of allowing himself to be scapegoated – he is in danger of acting under the influence
of his Victim position on the triangle that he is carrying in his head and ending up in the
Scapegoat position on the pentagon.

Case study of carrying a personal problem’s result into a meeting.

One day Pratap came for his weekly session with two problem areas, one concerning
his grownup son, and the other concerning his job in which there was serious staff trouble. He
was a middle level manager who had opponents among his peers.
A crisis had arisen in the factory where he was manager. He had gone into the meeting
after having had a very unpleasant session with his eighteen-year-old son, which ended when
he ended in the Victim position, with his son in the Persecutor role on the Triangle. He was
carrying this heavy experience of becoming a Victim into his work situation in which on that
day, he had a prominent role ahead of him. The company had been harmed by the actions of
one of his peers, and he had clear proof of this in his hand. However, the culprit had close
connections with the top boss, while he carried the burden of victimhood from his son’s
behaviour. His interactions in the company meeting were so affected by his inner helplessness
that by the time the meeting ended, in spite of his providing two options for solving the
company’s dilemma, he was being accused and blamed for what was not his fault. However,
this ‘victimhood’ felt completely different to the ‘victimhood’ he had taken from his son.
When he brought his problem for therapy, he himself understood that being scapegoated was
different from being victimized. He also realized that his intrapsychic Game led him to be
vulnerable to the organizational Game because he did not stand up for himself and for his
right to be acknowledged as Saviour.

11. MODEL FOUR: BERNE’S FORMULA G

In his last book, "What Do You Say After You Say 'Hello'?", Berne describes the
elements of a game through Formula-G which is not so popular in TA but is actually the
summit of Berne’s development of Game theory. It is expressed in the following code:
C + G = R - S - X - P

(1) The game begins with an open message called a "Con"; this "tactical manoeuvre" is
accompanied by
(2) a concealed motivation or "Gimmick".
(3) The transactions are complementary, and the game is in progress when the "Response"
pattern is set up.
(4) At any moment, the player may pull an invisible, unconscious "internal Switch" which
leads to a
(5) "Cross-up" or "moment of confusion", and finally to the
(6) "Payoff" of the Game.

Berne wrote, "Unless a set of transactions has these four features, it is not a game -
that is, the transactions must be ulterior so that there is a con, and the con must be followed
by a switch, a cross-up, and a payoff."At every stage of a play of the Game, a skilled observer
will be able to isolate and identify differing behaviours that accompany each movement in the
play.

Berne illustrates this with the games "Slug Him" and "I'm Only Trying To Help". A
patient asked, "Do you think I'll get better?", and the sentimental therapist replied, "Of course
you will." Instead of saying, "Thank you" as in a straight transaction, she pulled the switch
with, "What makes you think you know everything?" Berne wrote, "The con was the original
question, and the gimmick was the therapist's sentimentality. When the con hooked into the
gimmick, he responded in the way she expected. Then she pulled the switch, causing a cross-
up, after which each collected a payoff." The application of Games to counseling
relationships is found in the final sections of Pearl Drego’s book, “Towards the Illumined
Child - An Indian study of ego states”.

The intensity of Games depends on their social impact. For example, a first degree
Game is played in private and is part of the accepted dynamics of the family or group or
organization. Outsiders don't know about it. A second degree Game is more serious though
the damage is reparable. It is one that is played in public though the players might maintain
that they'd rather the outsiders did not know about it. A third degree Game is one that results
in irreparable damage such as suicide, bankruptcy, death, fire, war, etc. A zero degree game
is one that is played without much strength in the payoff, or one that is a "good" Game, i.e., a
series of transactions that ends with an unexpected positive outcome or minor negative
outcome.

12. USING ALL THE MODELS FOR ONE GAME

Transactionally, the first stage in the play of a Game consists in the duplex
transactions that are initiated when the player begins communicating with someone else. As
the figures show, the first stage is to be found in the opening transaction (Goulding), in the
driver (Kahler), in the con and gimmick which form the response pattern (Berne), in the role
occupied on the triangle (Karpman), etc.

The second stage in the play of a Game consists in the crossing of the transactions
when the hidden message is heard as a social message (transactional model), in the response
to the hidden message (Goulding), in the moving into stopper (Kahler), in the switch, cross-
up and payoff (Berne), in the change of roles (Karpman).

The third stage in the play of a Game consists in collecting the trading stamps (of bad
feelings) and cashing these in for parental strokes. This process though not formally seen as
part of Game analysis by Fanita English, is called racketeering if the strokes are obtained, or
a Game if the player collects another bad feeling because the strokes are refused. Parental
Strokes, is an add on to John James’ “Positive strokes”, or cashing in on “trading stamps” as
identified by Berne. Therefore once Games have been identified and stopped the vacuum has
to be filled by positive stroking:
Steiner’s Give, Ask, Receive, Refuse the negative and Stroke self is a sure cure after
cleaning out Games. Drego’s Permission ritual therapy, to empower the Parent and Child ego
state is another organized way of replacing Games with healthy living.

REFERENCES

Barnes, G. (1977), Transactional analysis after Eric Berne, New York: Harper’s College
Press
Berne, E. (1958), Transactional analysis: A New and effective method of group therapy,
reprinted in Berne,E.(1977), Intuition and ego states, San Francisco, Trans Pubs.
Berne, E. (1963), Structure and dynamics of organizations and groups, paperback ed. (1974),
New York, Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1964), Games people play, New York: Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1970), Sex and human loving, New York, Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1972), What do you say after you say hello? New York: Grove Press.
Drego, P. (1980), The OK Rescuer, Souvenir of the Indian TA conference, ITAC 3, Bombay,
pp.54-58.
Drego, P. (1994) Talk to me mum and dad – Permissions for young people, Bombay:
Alfreruby Publishers.
Drego, P. (2007/1979) Towards the Illumined Child – An Indian study of ego states, Bombay:
Alfreruby Publishers.
Goulding R. New directions in Transactional Analysis", in Sagar, C.J., and H.S.
Kaplan (eds.), Progress in Group and Family Therapy, New York, Brunner/Mazel, 1972.
Jacobs, A. (1987), Autocratic Power, Transactional Analysis Journal, 17(3), 59-71.
James, J. The Game Plan, Transactional Analysis Journal 6:3, 1973, p.194.
Karpman, S. (1968), Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis, Transactional Analysis Bulletin,
Vol.7,1968, 39-43; (cfr. Selected articles from volumes 1 through 9, 51-56.)
Karpman, S. (1973), 1972 Eric Berne Memorial Scientific Award Lecture, Transactional
Analysis Journal, 3(1), 73-76.
Steiner, C. (1971), Games Alcoholics Play, New York, Grove Press.
Steiner, C. (1971), The Stroke Economy, Transactional Analysis Journal, (1:3) 1971.
Steiner, C. (2003), Emotional Literacy, Intelligence with a Heart, Personhead Press,
Fawnskin, Ca. 92333.
Summerton, O. (1979), Transactional Game Analysis - Games since Eric Berne, New Delhi:
Manohar.
Summerton, O. (1980), The Pentagon, Souvenir of the Indian TA Conference, ITAC 3,
Bombay, p.59-63.
Summerton, O. (1992a), The game pentagon, Transactional Analysis Journal, 22(2),
p. 66-75.
Summerton, O. (1992b), Game analysis in two planes, Transactional Analysis
Journal, 22(4), p. 210-215.
Summerton, O. (1993a), Three-dimensional transactional analysis-The drama
triangle and the game pentagon, Transactional Analysis Journal, 23(1), p.
30-35.
Summerton, O. (1993b), Games in organisations, Transactional Analysis Journal,
23(2), p. 87-103.
Summerton, O. (2000), The development of game analysis, Transactional Analysis
Journal, 30(3), p. 207-218.