Fairness with no veto
Dictator Game
You are handed a pile of money and told to split it with a stranger. They cannot reject the split. They cannot even speak. Whatever you keep, you keep. Whatever you give, they get.
The Dictator Game removes strategy almost entirely. You divide a pie. They get whatever you give. There is no rejection, no second mover, no threat. If the only motive is material self-interest, the gift is zero.
It is still one of the most-run experiments in economics, because people do give. The typical pattern is a spike at zero and a hump around a quarter of the pie. Researchers use that gap to study altruism, warm-glow giving, and how much of Ultimatum sharing was just fear of being turned down.
Play as the splitter to see what you keep when nobody can punish you. Play as the recipient to sit with a bot that is either greedy or fair — and notice how little 'strategy' there is left.
What theory predicts
A selfish dictator should give nothing. There is no strategic reason to share: the recipient has no veto, unlike the Ultimatum Game. Any positive gift is a pure transfer.
What people actually do
People still give. Modal gifts are often zero, but the mean is well above zero — commonly 20–30%. The dictator game is a workhorse for measuring altruism, warm-glow, and experimenter-demand effects, stripped of fear of rejection.