Socially Present Board Game Opponents

  • André Pereira
  • Rui Prada
  • Ana Paiva
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7624)


The real challenge of creating believable and enjoyable board game artificial opponents lies no longer in analysing millions of moves per minute. Instead, it lies in creating opponents that are socially aware of their surroundings and that can interact socially with other players. In traditional board games, where face-to-face interactions, social actions and strategic reasoning are important components of the game, artificial opponents are still difficult to design. In this paper, we present an initial effort towards the design of board game opponents that are perceived as socially present and can socially interact with several human players. To accomplish this, we begin by an overview of board game artificial opponents. Then we describe design guidelines for developing empirically inspired social opponents for board games. These guidelines will be illustrated by concrete examples in a scenario where a digital table is used as a user interface, and an intelligent social robot plays Risk against three human opponents.


Social Presence Board Games Artificial Opponents 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Adalgeirsson, S., Breazeal, C.: Mebot: a robotic platform for socially embodied presence. In: Proceeding of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-robot Interaction, pp. 15–22. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bickmore, T., Picard, R.: Establishing and maintaining long-term human-computer relationships. TOCHI 12(2), 293–327 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biocca, F., Burgoon, J., Harms, C., Stoner, M.: Criteria and scope conditions for a theory and measure of social presence. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments (2001)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breazeal, C.: Designing sociable machines. In: Socially Intelligent Agents, pp. 149–156 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell, M., Hoane, A., et al.: Deep blue. Artificial Intelligence 134(1-2), 57–83 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cassell, J.: Embodied conversational interface agents. Communications of the ACM 43(4), 70–78 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Castellano, G., Leite, I., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Paiva, A., McOwan, P.: It’s all in the game: Towards an affect sensitive and context aware game companion. In: ACII, pp. 1–8. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Damasio, A.: Descartes’ error: Emotion. In: Reason and the Human Brain. Grosset/Putnam, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Ruyter, B., Saini, P., Markopoulos, P., Van Breemen, A.: Assessing the effects of building social intelligence in a robotic interface for the home. Interacting with Computers 17(5), 522–541 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ericsson, K.: Protocol analysis and expert thought: Concurrent verbalizations of thinking during experts’ performance on representative tasks. In: The Cambridge Handbook of Expertise and Expert Performance, pp. 223–241 (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eriksson, D., Peitz, J., Bjork, S.: Enhancing board games with electronics. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Pervasive Games-PerGames. Citeseer (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eriksson, D., Peitz, J., Bjork, S.: Socially adaptable games. In: Proceedings of DiGRA 2005 Conference: Changing Views–Worlds in Play (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gockley, R., Bruce, A., Forlizzi, J., Michalowski, M., Mundell, A., Rosenthal, S., Sellner, B., Simmons, R., Snipes, K., Schultz, A., et al.: Designing robots for long-term social interaction. In: IROS 2005, pp. 1338–1343. IEEE (2005)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gutwin, C., Greenberg, S.: The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In: Team Cognition: Understanding the Factors that Drive Process and Performance, p. 201 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Heerink, M., Ben, K., Evers, V., Wielinga, B.: The influence of social presence on acceptance of a companion robot by older people. Journal of Physical Agents 2(2), 33–40 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heider, F.: The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (1982)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Johansson, S.: On using multi-agent systems in playing board games. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pp. 569–576. ACM (2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jung, Y., Lee, K.: Effects of physical embodiment on social presence of social robots. In: Proceedings of Presence, pp. 80–87 (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karapanos, E., Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., Martens, J.: User experience over time: an initial framework, pp. 729–738. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kidd, C., Breazeal, C.: Effect of a robot on user perceptions. In: Proceedings of the Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS 2004), vol. 4, pp. 3559–3564. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Koda, T., Maes, P.: Agents with faces: The effect of personification. In: Robot and Human Communication, pp. 189–194. IEEE (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lazarus, R., Folkman, S.: Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company (1984)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leite, I., Castellano, G., Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Paiva, A., McOwan, P.: Designing a game companion for long-term social interaction. In: Proc. of Int. Workshop on Affective-Aware Virtual Agents and Social Robots, p. 10. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Leite, I., Martinho, C., Pereira, A., Paiva, A.: Icat: an affective game buddy based on anticipatory mechanisms. In: Proc. of the 7th AAMAS, vol. 3, pp. 1229–1232 (2008)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leite, I., Martinho, C., Pereira, A., Paiva, A.: As time goes by: Long-term evaluation of social presence in robotic companions. In: RO-MAN, pp. 669–674. IEEE (2009b)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Magerkurth, C., Cheok, A., Mandryk, R., Nilsen, T.: Pervasive games: bringing computer entertainment back to the real world. Computers in Entertainment (CIE) 3(3), 4 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Martinho, C., Paiva, A.: Using anticipation to create believable behavior. In: Proc. of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 21, p. 175. MIT Press (1999, 2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nass, C., Steuer, J.: Voices, boxes, and sources of messages. Human Communication Research 19(4), 504–527 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Neves, A., Brasāo, O., Rosa, A.: Learning the risk board game with classifier systems. In: Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 585–589. ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ortony, A., Clore, G., Collins, A.: The cognitive structure of emotions. Cambridge Univ. Pr. (1990)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Paiva, A., Dias, J., Sobral, D., Aylett, R., Sobreperez, P., Woods, S., Zoll, C., Hall, L.: Caring for agents and agents that care: Building empathic relations with synthetic agents. In: Proc. of 3rd AAMAS, vol. 1, pp. 194–201. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pereira, A., Leite, I., Mascarenhas, S., Martinho, C., Paiva, A.: Using Empathy to Improve Human-Robot Relationships. In: Lamers, M.H., Verbeek, F.J. (eds.) HRPR 2010. LNICST, vol. 59, pp. 130–138. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pereira, A., Martinho, C., Leite, I., Paiva, A.: icat, the chess player: the influence of embodiment in the enjoyment of a game. In: Proc. of the 7th AAMAS, vol. 3, pp. 1253–1256 (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pereira, A., Prada, R., Paiva, A.: Towards the next generation of board game opponents. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Foundations of Digital Games, FDG 2011, pp. 274–276. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reeves, B.: The media equation: how people treat computers, television, and new media. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Cambridge, Stanford (1996)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ribeiro, T., Leite, I., Kedziersski, J., Oleksy, A., Paiva, A.: Expressing Emotions on Robotic Companions with Limited Facial Expression Capabilities. In: Vilhjálmsson, H.H., Kopp, S., Marsella, S., Thórisson, K.R. (eds.) IVA 2011. LNCS, vol. 6895, pp. 466–467. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ribeiro, T., Paiva, A.: The illusion of robotic life: principles and practices of animation for robots. In: HRI, pp. 383–390 (2012)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rogers, Y., Lindley, S.: Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best? Interacting with Computers 16(6), 1133–1152 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Scherer, K.: Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. Appraisal Processes in Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research 92, 120 (2001)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Slater, M.: Place illusion and plausibility can lead to realistic behaviour in immersive virtual environments. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364(1535), 3549 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Taichi, K., Sugiura, J., Makoto, I., Arakawa, C.: A typology of speeches within board game players for analyzing the process of games (2007)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Van Veen, B., Buckley, K.: Beamforming: a versatile approach to spatial filtering. IEEE ASSP Magazine 5(2), 4–24 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yankelovich, N., Levow, G., Marx, M.: Designing speechacts: Issues in speech user interfaces. In: Proc. of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 369–376. ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Pereira
    • 1
  • Rui Prada
    • 1
  • Ana Paiva
    • 1
  1. 1.INESC-ID and Instituto Superior TécnicoTechnical University of LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations