The Game Lens
Depersonalize decisions by naming the players, rules, and outcomes
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 97%
The Game Lens reframes a project or system as an interaction among multiple players, rules, and outcomes. Naming these elements makes the situation easier to inspect and helps a person choose moves strategically rather than treating every result as a verdict on their identity. The model applies even when the stakes are serious: Godin uses kidney-allocation waiting lists to show that resource allocation still has rules and strategic consequences. In creative work, the lens separates the person from the role they perform. A listener can reject a podcast episode without rejecting its host as a human being. The mechanism is depersonalization: clearer system boundaries reduce defensive reactions and make deliberate action easier.
Origin
Jasmine Star highlighted Godin's argument that calling a project a game depersonalizes the work; he defined a game through players, rules, and outcomes.
Core principles
- 01Every game has players, rules, and outcomes
- 02Seeing the game improves strategic choices
- 03A role can be criticized without defining the person
- 04Playing changes the game
How to run it
- 1
Identify the players
List who can act, respond, allocate resources, or affect the result.
Pro tip Include institutions and audiences when they shape the outcome.
- 2
Map the rules
Write down the formal constraints and the informal conventions that govern available moves.
Watch out Do not assume the rules stay unchanged as people play.
- 3
Define outcomes
Specify the results different players seek and the resources they can allocate toward them.
Pro tip Distinguish a preferred outcome from a life-or-death judgment about yourself.
- 4
Separate role from identity
Interpret feedback as a response to what was offered or to the role you played, not automatically as rejection of you.
Watch out Depersonalizing feedback does not mean refusing useful criticism.
- 5
Make the next move
Choose a move that fits the rules and advances the outcome, then reassess because the game may have changed.
In the wild
Godin tells Jasmine Star that a person who says they hated her podcast is rejecting the role and offer presented in that episode, not necessarily rejecting her as a person.
→ The criticism becomes information about the offer rather than a personal verdict.
Godin describes separate kidney waiting lists in different districts. Moving between districts may change a patient's position, so understanding the allocation system matters even though the stakes are life or death.
→ Mapping the system makes resource decisions easier to understand and navigate.
Common mistakes
Making every result personal
Treating criticism of an offer as hatred of the person obscures useful information and makes decisions heavier.
Ignoring changing rules
A strategy becomes stale when it assumes that play leaves the surrounding game unchanged.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for people making strategic choices inside systems with identifiable participants, constraints, and outcomes.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal as an excuse to ignore real human consequences or ethical responsibilities.
From the transcript
“A game is simple. It's multiple players, rules, outcomes”
“allocating our resources to engage in a system where we might get where we want Is easier to understand and play if we don't have…”
“They're not saying I hate you. They're saying the role you play when you do your podcast is not a role that I want to…”
From the episode
Big Business Growth: Strategy Marketing with Seth Godin (a.k.a. Willy Wonka)
Seth Godin