Life Is A Game, Pick up the Controller
Life is a game, you just don’t know it. You’ve been playing some role at every moment in time, you just didn’t know the role. Because you didn’t know it, you probably performed without much strategy. Even without that strategy and by relying on your natural intuition and judgment, you likely got somewhere.
This sounds really reductive, and it is. For me, simplifying life has always been a goal. A goal, that until recently, I wasn’t able to fully articulate. But, after hours of playing board games, observing corporate stakeholders, and having endless conversations about how to best do something, I’ve realized that life, in the crudest form and the many experiences in it, can be reduced to games we play and choose not to play.
By games, I don’t mean ‘gaming’ a system. I mean recognizing that you are playing by some rules and then that there is some form of ‘winning’. This ‘winning’ can take many shapes, and however, you want to dice it up is up to you.
Moreover, not only is the definition of ‘winning’, to a large extent, up to you — the way you play is also at your discretion. This is where personalized gamification can be intertwined to create a dynamic that best aligns to your values and principles, while also respecting what the external world expected
Like games, in life, there are players, stated and unstated rules, and time bounds. Even more, games can be indefinite or finite (as written, by James B. Carse in his book by the same name).
Elucidating the games you do play will create clarity and strategy. The first step is defining the game, then defining what winning means to you, and ultimately, playing and pivoting as you go.
Infinite vs. Finite Games
Before getting into any definition, it’s first important to respect that games can last indefinitely or have some bounded end. In other words, some games last your entire life, others don’t. From that you can correlate, the only game that truly endures your entire life is life itself. Comparatively some games, like a career, a job, a project will end at some point.
Carse clearly outlines the difference between the two:
A finite game is played for the purpose of winning, an infinite game for the purpose of continuing the play.
He goes on to say that ‘winning’ is conceived by consensus. Which in crude terms, is true, but in reality, can be nuanced in the eye of the beholder.
Carse further distinguishes between the two types by mostly focusing on what a finite game is:
Just as it is essential for a finite game to have a definitive ending, it must also have a precise beginning. Therefore, we can speak of finite games as having temporal boundaries
Finite Games must be played in spatial AND numerical boundaries — meaning there should be marked boundaries and also a set number of players
The time and place of finite games are set externally
If finite games must be externally bounded by time, space, and number, they must also have internal limitations on what the players can do to and with each other. To agree on internal limitations is to establish rules of play.
In contrast, an infinite game is justthe opposite — there are no time bounds, its play can be located anywhere and everywhere, and rules are not agreed upon explicitly.
Even more intriguing is that finite games can exist within infinite games. But not vice versa.
What’s winning
Winning means different things to different people in different contexts. It’s one of the most challenging concepts in real-life games to define. To one person it may mean making the most money amongst peers, to another, it might be feeling satisfied by the work their doing. Safe to say, it’s a hairy topic.
In the context of finite games — ‘winning’ is defined from consensus. For example, winning in a corporate job is likely just having the most authoritative title and making the most money. It’s a hard thing to admit, but why do we vie for promotions? Why does ‘climbing the latter’ matter so much. It sounds simplistic, and sure, there are some nuances — but, ultimately, finite games have fairly clear objectives. Just look at what the herd is glorifying.
Even if this is the case — is this ‘winning’ to you? Winning could mean a lot of things from a personal perspective, and this is where it gets more complex. Well, because, you’re human and you’re complicated.
Even if consensus has been reached, it doesn’t mean you have to completely accept it. There is still room for you to define ‘winning.’
This is more important in infinite games where you have complete control over the definition of winning. There are no bounds, no rules, nothing constraining you to some pre-ordained concept of winning. Hell, ‘winning’, might not even be a concept here. Maybe ‘winning’ is just growing or evolving or just being happy.
Whatever it is, recognize the definition of winning varies between games, and there are degrees of control within each.
Winning on your terms
Something that’s intrigued me recently is the pseudo-academic approach to gamification taken by Yu-kai Chou in his Octalysis Framework. Though the model seems complicated at first, when you deconstruct it, it’s really about aligning core drives to core activities in the context of games.
Briefly, Chou describes each core drive:
Epic Meaning & Calling is the Core Drive where a player believes that he is doing something greater than himself or he was “chosen” to do something.
Development & Accomplishment is the internal drive of making progress, developing skills, and eventually overcoming challenges.
Empowerment of Creativity & Feedback is when users are engaged in a creative process where they have to repeatedly figure things out and try different combinations.
When a player feels ownership, she innately wants to make what she owns better and own even more.
Social Influence and Relatedness — This drive incorporates all the social elements that drive people, including: mentorship, acceptance, social responses, companionship, as well as competition and envy.
Scarcity — This is the drive of wanting something because you can’t have it.
Unpredictability and curiosity
Loss and avoidance — This core drive is based upon the avoidance of something negative happening.
To me, this concept blends well with the concepts/exercises of ‘workview’ and ‘lifeview’ as presented in Design Your Life, by Bill Burnett and Dave Evans.
Briefly, the authors describe your work view as:
A work view would address the critical issues related to what work is and means to you. It is not just a list of what you want from or out of work, but a general statement of your view of work. It’s your definition of what good work deserves to be.
Versus a life view, which is described as:
The key thing is to address those critical defining values and perspectives that provide the basis for your understanding of life, that create the platform that interprets and organizes how you see and understand the world and assign order and meaning to it. Your lifeview is that which provides your definition of matters of ultimate concern.
I did these exercises myself and came to some key realizations of why work matters, what it’s for and its meaning, and lastly what’s its role in society. Even deeper, the lifeview exercises helped me clarify my deep assumptions about life — why we’re here, what’s the meaning of it all, what is good/evil, etc.
Bringing these two concepts together helped me elucidate my core drives and core activities, based on how I saw the world.
For example, a workview of mine is ‘Work is for creating value for others. For creating value that without me creating it would potentially not be created.”
In the context of the Octalysis Framework, I’m aligned to two elements: Epic meaning & calling, but also social relatedness and influence.
So, then, how do I align this to core activities that give me the impression that I’m winning? Well, this is where I suggest we overlay the concept of finite and infinite games and their dynamics.
My core activities
If my workview is value-oriented, that means that all my work starts with a single question — “is this creating value” — and frankly, that is where I start.
Now, it’s much more complicated than just asking myself that single question — but starting with this helps me drive my core activities.
For example, at work, if I’m asked to put a presentation together to share some discovery work I’ve been doing — I start with how — how will the audience find this valuable? This leads me to think and craft according to value, rather than just putting something together that’s objectively depictive of my work.
Further, putting this into context — the type of ‘game’ I’m playing here is finite. I’m entering a room wherein ‘winning’ will be judged by how much value I’ve created in my recent work, and is time-bounded by the time of the meeting. This may blend into the more infinite game of work, but for this specific meeting, I know exactly what to focus on, how it aligns with my definition of winning, and how I can also win in the eyes of others.
Playing the game
Defining core activities takes some effort, but here are a few questions to help you along the way:
- What are your core drives for this particular activity? How can you tie them to core activities?
- What’s the game you’re in? Is it finite or infinite?
- If it’s infinite, how can you make it more finite so you can define it better?
Even if it takes some extra effort to go through this process, breaking down things into games and core activities makes doing the little things more engaging, enjoyable, fruitful, and personal.
