Sustainable Game Test
Choose rules people will keep playing across relationships and time.
- Difficulty
- Advanced
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 6
- Confidence
- 96%
Peterson frames values as rules for games of interaction. Many rules are imaginable, but far fewer create a game that people want to play and that improves rather than collapses through repetition. Define the interaction, the participants, and the proposed rule. Ask whether each person has a genuine reason to keep participating, then extend the test from today to tomorrow, next month, and later years. Include children, families, teams, or communities affected by the pattern. A rule fails when it secures one player's present advantage by exhausting trust, consent, or future cooperation. The framework does not prove one universal value system; it is a practical filter for whether a norm is voluntarily playable, durable across repeated rounds, and capable of supporting wider relationships.
Origin
Peterson uses the image of playable games while answering whether people can simply invent their own values. Extracted from The Diary of a CEO.
Core principles
- 01Possible rules are abundant, but sustainably playable rules are scarce.
- 02Every affected participant must have reason to keep cooperating.
- 03A workable game must survive beyond the present round.
- 04Good rules should support rather than consume future participation.
How to run it
- 1
Define the game
State the recurring interaction, its purpose, and everyone materially affected. Make clear what counts as continued participation and improvement.
Pro tip Describe the repeated pattern, not only the next transaction.
Watch out Do not call coercion voluntary participation.
- 2
State the proposed rule
Write the norm, agreement, or value in operational language. Explain what each participant is expected to do.
Pro tip Use a rule whose observance can be noticed by everyone involved.
Watch out Vague virtues can hide unequal expectations.
- 3
Test voluntary play
Ask whether each participant would knowingly choose to keep playing under the rule. Investigate whose benefit, burden, or voice has been omitted.
Pro tip Let affected people describe the rule in their own words.
Watch out Agreement under dependency or fear may not represent free acceptance.
- 4
Run the time test
Project the rule through repeated rounds: today, tomorrow, next month, and later years. Look for incentives that reward defection or gradually consume trust.
Pro tip Ask what happens after the hundredth repetition, not only the first.
Watch out Long-range projections remain uncertain and should be updated with evidence.
- 5
Expand the boundary
Include adjacent relationships and future participants affected by the game. A private agreement may still export costs to families, colleagues, or a wider community.
Pro tip Map second-order effects before declaring the rule self-contained.
- 6
Revise for durable cooperation
Change or reject rules that depend on one-sided extraction, deception, or exhausted trust. Retest the revised norm with the same participants and horizons.
Pro tip Prefer rules that make future cooperation more attractive, not merely possible.
In the wild
A startup proposes that everyone answer messages at all hours. The rule helps the founder immediately but becomes less playable across months, families, and health. The team replaces it with a daytime response standard and a rotating emergency contact.
→ The revised rule protects urgent coverage without consuming the willingness and capacity needed for continued cooperation.
Common mistakes
Optimizing the first round
A rule can look successful once while undermining the trust or capacity required for future rounds.
Testing only the winner
A sustainable game must consider whether all materially affected participants can continue voluntarily.
Ignoring exported costs
A rule may appear stable inside one relationship while shifting damage to families, teams, or future participants.
Is it for you?
Best for
Couples, teams, founders, and communities designing norms intended to last.
Not ideal for
Situations where safety, law, or basic rights cannot depend on every participant's willingness to cooperate.
From the transcript
“there's a very small number of games that people want to play”
“there's even a smaller number of games that sustain themselves and improve as you play them”
“both of you have to play a game that works today and tomorrow”
From the episode
Jordan B Peterson: You Need To Listen To Your Wife! We've Built A Lonely & Sexless Society! If You & Your Partner Do This, You'll Divorce!