# Socio-Economic Decision Making and Emotion Elicitation with a Serious Game in the Wild
## 3 Game Design
### Socio-Economic Decision Making Interactions  
We have implemented four different socio-economic scenarios or game paradigms as known in game theory [163; 164; 165], in the form of player-NPC interactions in our game. Combining multiple socio-economic game paradigms into player-NPC interactions in one cohesive storyline and gameplay is a novel factor of our implementation. These interactions are explained below, written in the order they appear in the game [8; 20; 22; 25; 26; 27; 28]:  
1. Ultimatum Game In this game, there are two players, a proposer and a responder. The proposer is given some money and is asked to propose a split amount with the responder. The responder can accept or reject the offer. If the responder accepts the offer, the two players split the amount according to the agreement, if the responder rejects the offer, the responder and the proposer do not get any money from the game. In our game, the NPC plays  
Figure 2: Map-view of the prototype level of the game. the role of the 'proposer' and the player character is the'responder'. Furthermore, the interaction is designed as such that the NPC makes an unfair offer and the polarity of the interaction is negative, meaning that the NPC dialogues are  condescending and slightly rude but not offensive, as such interactions in UG settings have been shown to produce more distinct negative emotional responses with higher valence [26; 151; 166]. Figure 3 shows a part of the dialogue between the NPC for this interaction and the player character. 2. Trust Game In this game, there are two players, a trustor and a trustee. The trustor is given some resource, e.g., money and is asked to propose a split amount with the trustee. The trustee can accept or reject the offer. Whatever amount is given to the trustee is double/tripled by the game. However, the trustee has the freedom to choose whether  
Figure 3: Ultimatum game interaction with NPC dialogue. or not to repay the trustor any amount from the income made from the game. In our game, the NPC plays the role of the 'trustee' and the player  character is the 'trustor'. Here, the interaction is designed as such that if the player chooses to trust the NPC with its resources (which is food for this interaction), the NPC chooses to reward the player for it and returns the player's share on the profit to the player. The polarity of the interaction is positive, meaning that the NPC dialogues are uplifting and indicating gratefulness of the NPC. This is due to two reasons, firstly to balance the negative approach of the NPC in the previous UG interaction, as prolonged negativity from NPCs can effect the decisions of the player [167] and secondly as positive polarity interactions in TG settings promote co-operation [168]. Figure 4 shows a part of the dialogue between the NPC for this interaction and the player's character. 3. Dictator Game In this game, there are two players, a dictator and a responder. The dictator is given some money and is asked to donate a fraction (or the whole amount) with the recipient. The responder has to accept the donation and has no other choice. The dictator also has the option of not donating any amount at all to the recipient and the recipient has no say in this game. In our game, the player  character plays the role of the 'dictator' and the NPC is the'responder'. This interaction is designed as such that if the player chooses to donate some of its resources (which is money for this interaction) to the NPC then the NPC expresses  its gratitude for the generosity of the player. Otherwise, the NPC is still polite and the interaction has a positive polarity. This interaction having a positive polarity is important as it will ensure that the prior TG interaction having a positive polarity will not seem like a one-off phenomenon in the game and will solidify the notion that not all NPCs in our game's world are rude.