1. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIO Social Game Representation Josh McCoy

2. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Definition of Social Game A pattern of multi-agent interactions whose function is to modify the social state existing within and across the participants.

3. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Problems with definition.  Not all dramaturgical performances are multi- agent.  Cleaning up is a social performance that can be done with one agent.  Possible solution is to consider the audience to be a future audience or to consider this as a game within a hierarchy of games.  Social state is vague.  Social is a vague term; does it encompass non-social emotions?  It does encompass the physical world.

4. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Categorization of Social Games  Change in agent’s internal social state.  State within participant.  Social emotions; self efficacy; presentation of self to self.  Change in social state across agents.  Status, reputation, conception of agent by others.  Presentation of self to others.  No intended social state change.  Previously called “functional” social games.  Social scripts for doing everyday interactions.  May have small social change (like becoming less wealthy via purchasing lunch).  Could fall beneath our social state change threshold.

5. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Representation of social games. Dramaturgical Description Roles Setting Teams Audience World and Social State Preconditions Completion Effects Dependency Graph of Social Game Events Initial Event Event Final Event

6. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Event structure.  Participating actors.  Temporal properties: delay to start action after previous action. Other timing considerations are taken care of by the event graph.  Actions taken: the barebones of what actions need to happen to make the social game happen.  Functional world change: update to physical world.  Social fact change: update to social facts database.

7. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Social game example: Fish for Compliments  Dramaturgical Qualities  Setting: no audience, communication channel between role1 and role2  Role1: feels guilt or envy  Role2: shares close social relation with role1  Focus: the object of the guilt or envy  Completion Effects:  The feeling of guilt or envy felt by role1 lessens.  Role1 increases reciprocity debt to role2.  Game to change role1’s internal social state.

8. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Fish for Compliments event graph. T: Initial event P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 to role2 about focus. F: S: T: Immediate P: Role1, Role2 A: Compliment to role1 from role2. F: S: T: Conversation response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Role1 thanks role2. F: S: T: Immediate P: Role1, Role2 A: Compliment to role1 from role2 about focus. F: S:

9. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Social game example: Introduction  Dramaturgical Qualities  Role1: knows role3, does not know role2  Role2: knows role3, does not know role1  Role3: knows role1 and knows role2  Setting: Line of communication between all roles.  Completion Effect:  Role1 and role2 are acquainted.  Social game about social effects across participants.  Status modification.

10. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Introduction event graph. T: Initial event P: Role1, Role2, Role3 A: Discourse act of Role3 declaring intent to introduce role1 and role2. F: S: T: immediate P: Role1, Role2 A: Role1 and role2 give attention to role3. F: Role1 and role2 face role3 S: T: Conv response time P: Role1, Role2, Role3 A: Role3 formally introduces role1 to role2. F: S: T: Initial event P: Role1, Role2 A: Role1 and role2 greet each other. F: S: T: Conv response time P: Role1, Role2, Role3 A: Role3 formally introduces role2 to role1. F: S:

11. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Social game example: Clerk-Customer Purchase  Dramaturgical Qualities  Role1: service status.  Role2: customer status.  Setting: Location where role1 and role2’s statuses hold.  Focus: item or service to be exchanged from role1 to role2, compensation for role1 from role2.  Precondition:  Role1 and role2 possess proper focus items.  Completion Effects:  Focus objects exchanged by roles.  Social game with no social state change.

12. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Clerk-Customer Purchase event graph. T: Initial event P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 greeting role2. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role2 greeting role1. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role2 stating request to purchase focus item. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 stating cost for focus item. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Exchange of focus items. F: S: Ownership of focus items switch. T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 thanking role2. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Exit role2. F: S:

13. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Social game example: Not Like the Others  Dramaturgical Qualities  Role1/Team1: has a status not shared by team2.  Team2: members possess a status not shared by role1.  Preconditions:  Completion effects

14. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Not Like the Others event graph. T: Initial event P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 to role2 about focus. F: S:

15. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Social game example: Pep Talk  Dramaturgical Qualities  Role1: feels guilt or shame.  Role2: positive social connection with role1.  Setting: Line of communication between roles.  Focus: Object of guilt or shame.  Completion Effect  Depends on game outcome.  Looks like an internal social state game but should be initiated by role2 (the pep talker).  Social state across participants.

16. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Pep Talk event graph. T: Initial event P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role2 polling role1’s state with regards to focus. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 to role2 state with focus F: S: T: immediate P: Role1 A: Reluctant pause by role1. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role2 accepting role1’s state F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role2 devaluing focus. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role2 comforting role1 about focus. F: S: T: Initial event P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 to role2 about focus. F: S: T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 accepting role2’s help. F: S: Role1’s guilt or shame lessened. T: Conv response time. P: Role1, Role2 A: Discourse of role1 rejecting role2’s help. F: S: No change.

17. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Personality Description  Personality description as a result of performance variation across actors.  More work here.  Need to deeply study more related social games to see better personality description correlations to performance.

18. EXPRESSIVE INTELLIGENCE STUDIOUC SANTA CRUZ Additional Concerns  Abmiguity of classes of games.  Is most the variation at the game level or at the performance of a game level?  Structure of social games representation  Differences between dramaturgical parameters and preconditions.  Composition of events.  Dependency graphs; what form should these take? Really just need some structure to capture conditions and process flow.  How to make the decision between making two separate games or one game with more complex structure?  Conditional branches in dependency graphs: should these be broken into two games?  Does this depend on if the conditional changes the outcome of the social game to thwart the intent of a participating agent?  How much of this variance belongs in the social game level or the behavior realization level?