Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Role-plays with educational agents allow to embed information and educational goals into a
narrative context. These agents do not only have to come across as believable and lifelike, they also
have to embody the pedagogical principles and educational goals of the application domain. In this
paper, we argue that theatrical concepts, namely concepts derived from improvisational theater and
meta-theater, can guide the design of educational agents. We illustrate this by presenting two
systems: Puppet provides young children with improvisational agents to promote early learning
through educational role-plays and CrossTalk uses interactive performances with virtual actors
to demonstrate the basic principles that govern automatic dialogue generation. For both systems,
we show how the theatrical concepts support a systematic approach to character design, behavior
modeling, and user interaction and how they help to increase the believability and lifelikeness of
our characters in an educational context.
&
414
M. Klesen
role-plays (Andre and Rist 2000). Role-plays with synthetic characters allow
to embed information and educational goals into a narrative context, making it possible to present information from different points of view or to
convey social aspects such as interpersonal relationships between characters
(Prendinger and Ishizuka 2001; Rist and Schmitt 2002).
In order to be successful in their respective application domain, these
agents have to meet certain behavioral objectives. Animated agents should
appear lifelike and believable, e.g., they should respond to changes in their
environment instantly and appropriately without mechanical repetition.
Their behavior should also be intelligible, i.e., the observer should be able
to read the agents goals and intentions and to interpret its behavior
accordingly. The challenge when building educational agents lies in the fact
that they do not only have to come across as believable and lifelike, but they
also have to embody the pedagogical principles and educational goals of the
application domain. Educational agents therefore also have to meet certain
structural objectives. The interaction between agents and the user should
follow a dramaturgical development or author-defined narrative structure
in order to achieve the pedagogical goals and to create a satisfying interaction experience for the user. The question is: How can we systematically
design synthetic agents so that their behavior meets our behavioral objectives and how can we systematically structure the interaction between synthetic agents and the user so that it meets our structural objectives?
Research in the agent community that has focused on creating lifelike
and believable agents has used models and principles from animation
design, biology, and psychology to endow synthetic characters with expressive bodies, physical needs, motivational drives, and computational models
of personality and emotions (Cassell et al. 2000; Kline and Blumberg 1999;
Trappl and Petta 1997). These concepts tend to control the behavior of an
agent on a local level, e.g., by generating appropriate actions and responses
on a moment by moment basis. To model and control the behavior of interactive animated agents on a more global level, some researchers in the last
few years have looked at the theater as a source of inspiration (Murray
2000). Using the computers as theater metaphor (Laurel 1993), drama
is not seen primarily as the performance of stories in front of an audience,
but as a general means of structuring the interaction between characters.
Dramaturgy provides concepts and methods for characterizing an actors
role (beliefs, desires, intentions, etc.) and for structuring the interaction
between actors to convey the plays dramaturgical structure (conflicts,
transformations, status changes, etc.).
In the Puppet and CrossTalk project, we have adopted this dramaturgical view. Instead of synthetic individuals, we want to create synthetic actors,
and instead of using motivational drives (fatigue, boredom, hunger, etc.),
we use theatrical concepts like status and attitude, role and meta-role as
415
416
M. Klesen
can base their decisions. To be able to improvise, one should know who am I
playing (character, role), where are the events taking place (setting, props),
what happens (task, status), and when (time, duration). Improvisational theater is often based on rules defining a set of dramaturgical constraints. Improvisational rules can be either explicitgiving a clear description of the
improvisational taskor implicitthe task has to be discovered during the
improvisation. They can be shared, i.e., all participants get the same information, or discrete, i.e., some improvisers get exclusive information. Improvisational rules are often used to create conflict-oriented dramaturgical structures
by provoking interesting clashes of opposed wills.
Another set of concepts used in improvisational theater is the status
and the attitude of a character. Status refers to a characters intrinsic way
of behaving both toward others and toward the surrounding space. It determines how dominant or submissive someone behaves in an interaction.
Johnstone teaches actors to play high status by erect posture, making
gestures of authority, and using or even abusing objects (Johnstone
1981). Status often parallels social status but is not identical (be low but play
high). It can be exploited for dramatic effect, e.g., through status changes
within a scene, and it can be used to determine the outcome of a conflict in
an improvisational scenario as shown in the next section. Attitude, on the
other hand, is a rather broad concept. Literally it means the position or
manner of standing of the body and a manner of feeling and behaving.1
We focus on the second meaning. In improvisational theater, attitude is
used as a practical device and as a means of reducing complexity. It helps
the actors in an improvisation if they know with which attitude to pursue
their goals and to interact with other participants. Attitude can therefore
be viewed as a device for choosing between different strategies when pursuing some goal. Defining both status and attitude for each participant allows
a dramaturge to frame a situation and to create a specific constellation
between characters without having to give detailed instructions.
Meta-Theater
In conventional theater, the actors on stage are separated from the
audience by an invisible fourth wall. An actors role confines its existence
to the fictional world of the play, i.e., the portrayed character is not aware of
the theatrical performance and the audience. Meta-theater is a variety of
conventional theater that recognizes and exploits its own fictionality. It creates a complex mixture of illusion and reality by providing actors with roles
and meta-roles. In meta-theater, actors may suddenly interrupt their performance and start arguing with their fellow actors about the authors
intentions or address the audience by giving explanations about the plays
or the characters background. Actors stepping out of their roles convey a
417
418
M. Klesen
re-enter the virtual world either as actor or as audience to hear the rerecorded sounds in context (Puppet 2002). In this section, we will focus
on the child as co-actor in an improvisational scenario.
Improvisation in Puppet
We have stated that Puppet aims to extend current forms of early learning
through educational role-plays. The challenge was thus to create situations
that would allow children to interact constantly with the synthetic actors in
the 3D virtual world and to build significance cumulatively during this interaction. Improvisational theater seems to be well-suited for this kind of scenario
by providing a theoretical framework for character interaction based on
improvisational rules. When talking about embodied, animated agents used
as improvisational actors, we share the view of Barbara Hayes-Roth: [The
agent] would accept directions from one or more exogenous sources, either
in real-time or in advance of a performance. The directions would constrain,
but not completely specify its behavior, for example assign the agent a role,
endow it with personality features, change its mood, or instruct it to perform
a kind of behavior (Hayes-Roth and van Gent 1997). In our case, these directions are mainly given by the improvisational frame. The improvisational
frame defines the basic characteristics of a character, e.g., its role, task, and
status. We view the improvisational frame as a collection of contextual constraints for a characters behavior, i.e., as a good means of restricting choices
while preserving the agents autonomy.
The scenario we have chosen for the VPT is a virtual farmyard inhabited
by two autonomous agents, a freedom-loving cow that wants to become
more humanlike and a farmer that wants to maintain order. A third character, the sheep, serves as the childs avatar. To ensure that there is a reasonable amount of interaction between the virtual characters even when the
child is passive, we decided to investigate a conflict-oriented play structure.
This is achieved by providing farmer and cow with conflicting goals. The
cow continually attempts to escape the confines of his pen, heading either
toward the farmers old gramophone to listen and dance to the music or
toward a bookshelf to recite some poems. The farmer, on the other hand,
is trying to recapture the cow when he detects that it has escaped. Such a
scenario is less likely to stagnate as each move by one agent will provoke
a counter move by the other agent. Based on these conflicting goals, a narrative cycle emerges, intending to capture the attention of the children and
get them to reflect upon the dissonance.
The behavior of the farmer and cow is determined by their current
status and attitude. A characters status can be high or low and determines
the outcome of the conflict. A characters attitude can be positive or negative and expresses a manner of feeling and behaving towards the other
419
agent. Both parameters are dynamic and change during the course of interaction as explained in Behavior Modeling.
Character Design in Puppet
The main objective for the character design in Puppet was that the
child must be able to read the characters behavior, i.e., their goals, their
status, and their attitude must be clearly expressed. Studies have shown that
there may be substantial differences between children and adults in the
ways that they perceive information and the visual cues that they rely on
when assigning meaning to a characters behavior (George and McIllhagga
2000). Virtual characters are primarily identified and categorized based on
their shape, i.e., how familiar their shape is to their real counterparts, quite
independent of the level of realism (e.g., making a cow wear glasses or
having a red sheep seems to be fun). Another important factor are the
proportions of a character. Young children find characters with childlike
proportions more attractive, i.e., characters that have an exaggerated size
of head (compared to adult proportions) are easier to process for children
because the primary visual cues (e.g., gaze and eyebrows) are better recognizable. This is in line with another finding, namely, that children seem
to rely primarily on facial expressions when trying to infer a characters
intentions and emotions (Reichenbach and Masters 1983). We therefore
decided to use 3D cartoon-style characters and to exaggerate the postures,
gestures, and facial expressions. Since the status and the attitude play
a dominant role in our scenario, they have to be clearly noticeable. Figure 1
shows the four different combinations of status and attitude for the cow.
Status is mainly expressed through a characters posture, as this is a strong
visual cue and can be displayed and recognized easily even on fairly simple cartoonlike characters. Attitude is mainly expressed by facial expression, e.g., the
cows face changing color to a light or deep red in negative attitude. Status
and attitude are not only expressed through posture but also through gait
and gibberish talk. We use different walking animations and idle time movements for each combination of status and attitude and some character-specific
animations (e.g., cow scraping hoof, farmer luring with right hand) to convey
their feelings and intentions. The sounds used by each agent have been
recorded by drama students based on available animations (e.g., farmer herding with little stick) and on verbal cues (e.g., cow in good mood on its way to
one of its favorite places).
Behavior Modeling in Puppet
We have already stated that the farmer and the cow have conflicting
goals in our improvisational scenario. They also have different strategies
420
M. Klesen
to achieve their respective goals. The farmer can try to lure the cow back
into the pen or he can try herding, e.g., by threatening it with a stick.
The cow on the other hand can ignore the farmer or try to avoid him or
it can confront him. The choice of strategy depends on the characters attitude. To create variations and build tension, we have implemented a set of
improvisational rules that changes these parameters during the course of
interaction. These rules take as input parameters the number of successes
(e.g., cow reaching one of its favorite places or farmer restoring order) and
the status and attitude of each character. We further defined an encounter as
a single interaction between farmer and cow. The minimum requirement
for an encounter is an action, e.g., the farmer shouts, and a reaction,
e.g., the cow stops and turns around. Encounters are used to increase variation when the agents meet several times within the same status and attitude. The following improvisational rule states that if the cow in high
status with negative attitude (H) has been approached once (encounter
> 1) by the farmer in high status with negative attitude (H), it will lower
its status if approached a second time.
IF (COW H AND FARMER H AND ENCOUNTER > 1)
THEN CHANGE STATUS OF COW TO L
Each rule also has an encounter-based action script associated with it that
gets executed when the rule is applied. These action-scripts are usually
421
422
M. Klesen
423
424
M. Klesen
425
426
M. Klesen
427
to create the illusion that the agents have full control over the system. This
is achieved by simulating technical problems (e.g., the screens go black, the
virtual stage has the wrong background image, etc.), which are then
solved by the agents themselves. We found that these effects, if sparsely
used, can have a strong impact on the audience and enhance the agents
believability and lifelikeness.
Behavior Modeling in CrossTalk
Agents in CrossTalk are not autonomous as they are in the Puppet
system. Their verbal and nonverbal behavior both in their role and in
their meta-role is specified through a multimodal script. This script is
divided into scenes, which specify for each agent what to say and what
to do. Transitions between scenes are defined in a scene flow graph.
The scene flow tells the system which scene should be played next during an interactive performance, e.g., when the user presses a button or
does not respond to a question (timeout). The scenes are either written
by a human author in a screenplaylike language or they are generated by
the system at runtime based on a domain and dialogue model. The simulated small talk in OFF mode is based on a multitude of pre-scripted
scenes (over 100 in English=German each), whereas the simulated car
sales dialogue of the exhibit is based on automatically generated scenes.
A detailed description of the authoring process can be found in Gebhard
et al. (2003).
In OFF mode, in their meta-role, the agents should be themselves
displaying rich personalities and a rich technical, geographical, and cultural background. For this purpose, we created a distinct character profile for each of the agents that was used by the human author to ensure
that their behavior was situationally and individually appropriate in all
scenes. Ritchie, for example, was characterized as professional and
slightly presumptuous. His jokes are sometimes anti-women and he likes
teasing Tina and questioning Cyberellas directions. In ON mode, however, the characters personalities are chosen by the user. He can decide
that Ritchie should play the salesperson as being polite and ill tempered
or as being impolite and good humored. There is, however, no clash or
misconception since we have the clear separation between role and
meta-role. This makes it also possible to exchange the exhibit, e.g., letting the agents discuss the best investment strategy for a given customer
profile instead of talking about cars. Exchanging the exhibit requires to
create new roles for Tina and Ritchie in ON mode. Their metaroles however do not change and this is it what makes CrossTalk a
generic exhibition framework providing a virtual stage for interactive
performances.
428
M. Klesen
429
430
M. Klesen
431
Klesen, M., M. Kipp, P. Gebhard, and T. Rist. 2003. Staging exhibitions: Methods and tools for modelling
narrative structure to produce interactive performances with virtual actors. Virtual Reality 7(1):
1729.
Kline, C. and B. Blumberg. 1999. Building believable synthetic characters. In Proceedings of the i3 Spring
Days Workshop on Behavior Planning for Life-Like Characters and Avatars, pages 6371.
Laurel, B. 1993. Computers as Theatre. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Marshall, P., Y. Rogers, and M. Scaife. 2002. Puppet: A virtual environment for children to act and direct
interactive narratives. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Narrative and Interactive
Learning Environments, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Mateas, M. and A. Stern. 2003. Integrating plot, character and natural language processing in the
interactive drama facade. In Proceedings of the Technologies for Interactive Digital Storytelling and
Entertainment (TIDSE) Conference, pages 139151.
Murray, J. H. 2000. Hamlet on the Holodeck: The Future of Narrative in Cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Prendinger, H. and M. Ishizuka. 2001. Social role awareness in animated agents. In Proceedings of the Fifth
Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 270377, New York: ACM Press.
Puppet. 2002. Final Report , ESPRIT, LTR, i3-ESE Project EP-29335 Puppet.
Reichenbach, I. and J. Masters. 1983. Childrens use of expressive and contextual cues in judgments of
emotion. Child Development 54:102141.
Rist, T. and M. Schmitt. 2002. Applying socio-psychological concepts of cognitive consistency to
negotiation dialog scenarios with embodied conversational characters. In Proceedings of the AISB02
Symposium on Animated Expressive Characters for Social Interactions, pages 7984.
Ryokai, K., C. Vaucelle, and J. Cassell. 2002. Literacy learning by storytelling with a virtual peer. In
Proceeding of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, Boulder, CO, pp. 352360.
Scaife, M. and the Puppet Project Team. 1999. Imagination, creativity and new forms of learning:
Designing a virtual theatre for young children. In Proceedings of the i3 Annual Conference, pages
173177.
Scaife, M. and Y. Rogers. 1996. External cognition: How do graphical representations work? International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies 45:185213.
Scheflen, A. E. 1964. The significance of posture in communication systems. Psychiatry 26:316331.
Spolin, V. 1999. Improvisation for the Theater, 3rd edition. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Swartout, W., et al. 2001. Towards the holodeck: Integrating graphics, sound, character and story. In
Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Autonomous Agents, pages 409416, New York: ACM Press.
Trappl, R. and P. Petta, eds. 1997. Creating personalities for synthetic actors: Towards autonomous
personality agents. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 1195, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York:
Springer-Verlag.