Open access peer-reviewed chapter - ONLINE FIRST

Pathways to Mastery: A Taxonomy of Player Progression Systems in Commercial Video Games

Written By

Tibor Guzsvinecz

Submitted: 24 March 2025 Reviewed: 11 June 2025 Published: 08 July 2025

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.1011500

From Pixels to Play - The Art and Science of Video Games IntechOpen
From Pixels to Play - The Art and Science of Video Games Edited by Tibor Guzsvinecz

From the Edited Volume

From Pixels to Play - The Art and Science of Video Games [Working Title]

Dr. Tibor Guzsvinecz

Chapter metrics overview

2 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Player progression systems are a central design element in digital games that shape how players experience growth, mastery, and engagement over time. This chapter proposes a taxonomy of the following six progression types: skill-based, XP-based, item-based, narrative, social, and hybrid. Special emphasis is placed on the transformative role of artificial intelligence (AI) that enables adaptive, personalized, and procedurally generated progression structures. Through structured SWOT analyses and detailed examples from representative games, the chapter provides information for researchers and developers seeking to analyze or construct progression systems. Future trends, which include meta-progression across platforms, AI-driven narrative generation, emotion-aware design, and ethical regulation, are also explored. By providing a framework, this taxonomy can serve as a reference for game designers, researchers, and industry professionals who seek to understand and optimize progression mechanics in video games.

Keywords

  • game design
  • intrinsic motivation
  • player progression
  • reward structures
  • taxonomy
  • video game

1. Introduction

Player progression is an important component of video game design that can directly influence how players interact with mechanics, experience growth, and remain engaged over time. While progression is not the sole contributor to an engaging gameplay experience, it serves as a critical scaffolding mechanism that shapes long-term motivation and a sense of achievement [1, 2, 3]. However, its implementation varies between different types of games [4]. In action games, progression might emphasize skill acquisition and reflex mastery, while in role-playing games (RPGs), it often hinges on numerical growth, narrative milestones, or social standing. Therefore, it is necessary to contextualize progression not as a monolithic construct, but as a multifaceted design strategy tailored to genre-specific goals.

This chapter focuses on player progression in entertainment-focused digital video games, mainly those spanning single-player and multiplayer genres such as RPGs, action-adventure games, open-world experiences, and competitive online games. While some theoretical studies may draw from formal game theory, the scope of this taxonomy is limited to empirical and practical game design models. The taxonomy does not apply to abstract, mathematical games (e.g., zero-sum games, coordination games) discussed in economic or decision theory literature.

Progression systems perform multiple psychological and functional roles in games. They provide players with goals, structure the gameplay experience, and regulate challenges. Cognitive Load Theory shows that well-designed progression systems reduce information overload by sequencing difficulty and content. Thus, they enable sustained engagement and learning [5]. Self-determination theory suggests that progression systems are most effective when they support psychological needs such as competence and autonomy [6, 7, 8]. Relatedness may also play a role, particularly in socially driven games, although its applicability is genre-dependent [9]. To further understand progression, Flow Theory illustrates how optimal challenge-skill balance can lead to deep immersion [10]. Operant Conditioning underpins many reward systems as players respond to structured incentives such as experience points (XP), loot, or achievements [2, 11, 12]. However, an overreliance on extrinsic rewards may promote compulsive behaviors rather than meaningful engagement [13]. It can also lead to prolonged play sessions [14].

Recent trends have added new dimensions to progression systems with the use of artificial intelligence (AI), procedural generation, and live-service models. AI enables adaptive difficulty, personalized content, and dynamic progression paths [15]. Procedural content generation and engagement-based reward systems have also changed how games sustain player interest across multiple sessions [16, 17]. Consequently, a modern taxonomy of progression systems must account not only for traditional mechanics but also for technological innovations that reshape player experiences.

Despite the existence of progression systems in commercial video games, a comprehensive, academically grounded taxonomy has not been widely established. This chapter aims to fill that gap by categorizing player progression into six key types: skill-based progression, XP-based numerical growth, item-based systems, narrative progression, social progression in multiplayer environments, and hybrid models that integrate multiple approaches. Each category is contextualized with historical evolution, design challenges, and best practices, with an emphasis on psychological, technological, and structural considerations.

By offering a taxonomy for understanding progression systems, this chapter serves as a resource for researchers, designers, and developers aiming to analyze or optimize progression mechanics in video games. The chapter is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a historical overview of progression systems; Section 3 presents the taxonomy and its six categories; Section 4 discusses AI integration; Section 5 speculates on future trends; and Section 6 concludes the results.

Advertisement

2. The evolution of player progression systems in video games

Player progression systems have undergone significant transformation since the early days of digital games. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, progression was rudimentary. It was mainly based on score accumulation and increased difficulty levels. Arcade games like Pac-Man (1980) and Donkey Kong (1981) had skill-based progression where continued survival and higher scores indicated mastery. These early systems did not retain player achievements between sessions. Consequently, this showed a transient and linear form of progression coupled with player reflexes and pattern recognition [8].

A paradigm shift occurred with the advent of RPGs, particularly those influenced by tabletop systems such as Dungeons and Dragons (1974). Titles like Final Fantasy (1987) introduced XP as a persistent metric for character development. XP-based progression became synonymous with RPGs that enabled players to level up their characters, allocate skill points, and unlock new abilities over time. This structured numerical growth provided clear and satisfying feedback loops, reinforcing behaviors aligned with in-game objectives [2].

By the late 1990s and early 2000s, progression systems became more diverse. Western RPGs such as Baldur’s Gate (1998) and The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (2002) merged XP accumulation with narrative branching and player choice. These titles expanded the scope of progression to include not just character stats but also storyline advancement, world exploration, and player agency. Simultaneously, item-based progression systems became prominent in games like Diablo II (2000), where randomized loot served as both a reward mechanism and power progression.

The increasing popularity of multiplayer games in the 2000s added a new dimension: social progression. Titles such as World of Warcraft (2004), League of Legends (2009), and Overwatch (2016) introduced ranking systems, guild structures, and persistent reputation mechanics. Progression in these contexts extended beyond individual achievement and reflected status within the community.

Hybrid models soon became the norm that integrated multiple progression systems to accommodate diverse player motivations. For example, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015) combined XP-based leveling, narrative progression, item acquisition, and skill customization. Genshin Impact (2020) even incorporated all major types: skill, XP, item, social, and narrative. These hybrid systems can mainly be found in open-world and live-service games where personalization and longevity are key design goals [17].

Recent advancements in AI and procedural content generation have further influenced progression mechanics. Games like Left 4 Dead (2008) and No Man’s Sky (2016) used AI to dynamically adjust difficulty and generate content based on player behavior. These systems enable adaptive progression paths that ensure sustained engagement without requiring static leveling curves or handcrafted content [15, 16].

Thus, the evolution of progression systems reflects a shift in game design from transient, reflex-driven challenges to persistent, complex experiences tailored to individual player preferences. As technological capabilities expand and player expectations evolve, progression systems are increasingly designed to support dynamic, player-centric gameplay experiences.

Advertisement

3. The taxonomy of player progression systems

Player progression systems are central to shaping user experience, mainly in how games structure long-term engagement and reward mechanisms. Drawing on genre conventions, psychological theories, and player typologies, this section presents a taxonomy consisting of six major progression types: skill-based, XP-based, item-based, narrative, social, and hybrid systems. Each subtype is examined with its definition, common usage contexts, key examples, design implications, and a SWOT analysis. The following subsections present these six progression types.

3.1 Skill-based progression

Skill-based progression refers to systems where advancement is tied to the player’s improvement regarding game mechanics. In these systems, progression reflects player learning, reaction, and strategic decision-making. While numerical upgrades or rewards can be present in this progression system, the emphasis is on skill. Skill-based progression is common in competitive and difficult games where challenge is a core part of the experience. Unlike RPGs where progression requires “grinding” (doing tasks multiple times to accumulate XP to get stronger), skill-based games require players to refine their abilities through trial and error.

  • Typical genres: Platformers, fighting games, puzzle games, soulslikes, competitive shooters.

  • Example games: Celeste, Street Fighter II, Dark Souls, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Super Meat Boy.

  • Required skills (depending on the game): Creative problem-solving, logical reasoning, pattern recognition, enemy AI adaptation, tactical positioning, aiming accuracy, perfect dodging, timing, memorizing level layouts, and combos.

Table 1 shows the SWOT analysis of skill-based progression systems.

StrengthsWeaknesses
High replayability due to mastery mechanicsCan frustrate new or casual players
Sense of achievement through skill growthRequires precise balancing of difficulty
OpportunitiesThreats
Enables deep skill expression and competitionRisk of steep learning curve causing player churn
Long-term engagement for expert playersPerceived unfairness if mechanics are not transparent

Table 1.

The SWOT analysis of skill-based progression systems.

Based on the SWOT analysis, the following design guidelines were formed for skill-based progression systems:

  • Introduce a gradual and adaptive difficulty curve;

  • Deliver actionable feedback that supports learning;

  • Ensure fair and consistent challenge scaling.

3.2 XP-based progression systems

XP-based progression is one of the most common progression systems in video games. In this case, players earn XP by completing certain actions. These can be combat encounters, exploration, quest completion, or other achievements. By accumulating XP, players can increase their level or rank. Consequently, they can improve their stats, learn new abilities, or receive expanded customization options. Unlike skill-based progression, XP-based systems create a numerical representation of growth. This approach can appeal to players who enjoy measurable progress that provides clear indicators of advancement. This type of progression is effective because it is similar to the Operant conditioning principles [2, 11, 12]: players are rewarded at regular intervals that reinforces dopamine-driven feedback. This cycle keeps players engaged and motivated to continue playing. This also makes this system effective in RPGs and live-service games.

  • Typical genres: RPGs, strategy games, massively multiplayer online (MMO) games, live-service titles.

  • Example games: Final Fantasy, Pokémon, The Division, World of Warcraft.

  • Figure 1 shows a summary of XP-based progression systems. Note that not all XP sources and rewards are mentioned, only the most common ones are presented.

Figure 1.

A summary of XP-based progression systems.

Table 2 presents the results of the SWOT analysis of XP-based progression systems.

StrengthsWeaknesses
Clear, quantifiable progressCan devolve into grinding
Structured reward systemCan reduce skill-based agency
OpportunitiesThreats
Appeals to goal-oriented playersStat inflation and artificial difficulty scaling
Easy to track and balanceRepetitiveness if XP sources lack variety

Table 2.

The SWOT analysis of XP-based progression systems.

Based on the SWOT analysis, the following design guidelines were formed for XP-based progression systems:

  • Diversify XP sources to support different playstyles;

  • Avoid grind loops that hinder pacing;

  • Link XP gain to meaningful in-game choices.

3.3 Item-based progression systems

Item-based progression refers to player advancement through gathering, crafting, or upgrading items such as weapons, armor, or other types of tools. Instead of relying on XP accumulation or skill mastery, item-based progression grants power and new abilities through objects obtained in the world of the video game. Item-based progression uses reward anticipation and the loot drop dopamine effect. It also has variable reward systems, focuses on player agency, and motivates exploration due to hidden gear. Item-based progression follows random reinforcement schedules that make rewards exciting but unpredictable. Unlike XP-based progression, this type offers choices since players can decide which weapons to craft, upgrade, or prioritize.

  • Typical genres: Action RPGs, survival games, looter shooters.

  • Example games: Monster Hunter: World, The Legend of Zelda, Diablo II, Borderlands.

It should be also noted that this type of progression system can have subcategories:

  • Tool-based progression: Players acquire key items that unlock new areas or abilities;

  • Loot-based progression: Players acquire randomized gear, with rarity tiers and stat improvements;

  • Crafting-based progression: Players gather materials and craft weapons, armor, and tools.

To better understand how such systems work, Figure 2 shows a summary of item-based progression systems.

Figure 2.

A summary of item-based progression systems.

Table 3 details the results of the SWOT analysis of item-based progression systems.

StrengthsWeaknesses
Tangible, immediate power increasesRandom number generation (RNG) can frustrate progression
Supports diverse builds and playstylesComplexity can overwhelm players
OpportunitiesThreats
Supports exploration and player agencyGrind or imbalance in loot systems
Promotes replayabilityPay-to-win risks in monetized systems

Table 3.

The SWOT analysis of item-based progression systems.

Based on the SWOT analysis, the following design guidelines were formed for item-based progression systems:

  • Combine random and deterministic item acquisition;

  • Offer meaningful differences between equipment types;

  • Balance rarity, utility, and accessibility.

3.4 Narrative progression systems

In these types of progression systems, player advancement occurs through story events, character development, and branching decisions instead of numerical stats or skill mastery. Progress is measured by how far a player has moved through a game’s storyline rather than by XP or gear upgrades. Thus, these types of systems focus on story engagement and character-driven decisions. These systems are mainly common in RPGs and adventure games since choices shape the game world and influence the experience of the players. Due to this, many games also offer multiple paths in the story. Interaction with non-playable characters (NPCs) also affects relationships, quests, and even endings. These types of progression systems have emotional engagement and decision-making psychology. For example, branching choices make players feel like they are co-authors of the story. Meanwhile, meaningful decisions create stronger emotional connections with the characters in the games. These progression systems also enhance the curiosity of the players since they replay narrative-driven games to see different outcomes of the story.

  • Typical genres: Story-driven RPGs, adventure games, visual novels.

  • Example games: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Life is Strange, Detroit: Become Human.

For an example of narrative storytelling, we should think of a hypothetical scenario which is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3.

A summary of narrative progression systems.

A mysterious stranger arrives in the town of the player character. He proposes the following deal for the player: “Find an ancient magic scroll, then bring it back to me or face my wrath”. Depending on the choice of the player, the following can happen: if the player declines this offer, the stranger calls his army and they destroy the hometown of the player character, resulting in a bad ending. If the player accepts, a new questline starts. Then, the player finds the scroll, but it is guarded by an ancient dragon. The game allows the player to fight the dragon or negotiate with it, and both decisions can yield two outcomes. The player can either be victorious or defeated. These two outcomes can consequently save the player character’s town or result in its destruction, respectively. Naturally, this hypothetical scenario is simplified since these narrative decision trees can be much more complex in today’s video games, and more than two endings can be reached.

To better understand these types of progression systems, a SWOT analysis was conducted. Its results can be seen in Table 4.

StrengthsWeaknesses
Deepens emotional engagementIllusion of choice if poorly designed
Encourages exploration and agencyLimited appeal for action-focused players
OpportunitiesThreats
High replay value via branching pathsHigh development costs and narrative complexity
Enhances immersionRisk of dissonance between story and mechanics

Table 4.

The SWOT analysis of narrative progression systems.

Based on the SWOT analysis, the following design guidelines were formed for narrative progression systems:

  • Ensure choices influence both the plot and game world;

  • Balance nonlinearity with narrative coherence;

  • Reflect player decisions through world and character responses.

3.5 Social progression systems

In the case of social progression systems, players advance through interactions with other players, reputation systems, multiplayer ranking, and community-driven achievements. Unlike the previous player progression systems, social progression is tied to the status and social influence of the player while engaging in cooperative or competitive tasks in the world of the game. These progression systems are most frequently found in multiplayer games, MMO games, and other, live-service titles. Here, the player’s growth is measured by their standing in the community. This standing can consist of ranking in competitive play or contribution to cooperative goals. Furthermore, unlike progression in single-player games, social progression persists beyond individual play sessions with evolving leaderboards and guild hierarchies.

  • Typical genres: MMOs, competitive online games, live-service games.

  • Example games: League of Legends, Fortnite, Call of Duty: Warzone, EVE Online.

Table 5 shows the SWOT analysis of social progression systems.

StrengthsWeaknesses
Drives community engagement and competitionToxic behavior and elitism
Encourages teamwork and cooperationHarder for new players to join established hierarchies
OpportunitiesThreats
Creates persistent progression loopsSocial pressure may discourage some players
Enables community-driven contentRequires constant moderation and balancing

Table 5.

The SWOT analysis of social progression systems.

Based on the SWOT analysis, the following design guidelines were formed for social progression systems:

  • Reward collaborative behavior and sportsmanship;

  • Balance competition with inclusivity;

  • Design transparent and fair progression metrics.

3.6 Hybrid progression systems

These types of progression systems combine two or more aforementioned progression types to create a more dynamic and engaging experience. Instead of relying on a single method of advancement, these systems offer multiple paths for player growth. Consequently, these allow individuals to engage with the game mechanics that suit their playstyle since diverse player preferences require flexible and layered progression systems [18, 19]. For example, based on player types, achievers engage with XP-based leveling, item rewards, and rank progression; explorers can benefit from open-ended progression systems; socializers prefer faction reputation, guild ranks, and social influence-based growth; and competitors focus on skill-based mastery and ranked leaderboards.

  • Typical genres: Open-world games, modern RPGs, sandbox games.

  • Example games: The Witcher 3 (Narrative + XP + Skill), Elden Ring (Skill + XP + Item + Narrative), Destiny 2 (Item + XP + Social), Final Fantasy VII (XP + Item + Narrative).

Table 6 presents the results of the SWOT analysis of hybrid progression systems.

StrengthsWeaknesses
Supports diverse player motivationsMay overwhelm new players
Flexible and customizable systemsRequires delicate balancing
OpportunitiesThreats
Increases replayability and depthRisk of feature bloat or redundancy
Enables personalized experiencesUneven emphasis on different progression tracks

Table 6.

The SWOT analysis of hybrid progression systems.

Based on the SWOT analysis, the following design guidelines were formed for hybrid progression systems:

  • Ensure synergy between different progression systems;

  • Avoid feature overload by streamlining redundant mechanics;

  • Let players prioritize progression paths that suit their playstyle.

Advertisement

4. Artificial intelligence in player progression

The integration of AI into player progression systems has influenced the evolution of modern game design. No longer limited to static structures such as fixed XP thresholds, linear narrative branches, or predetermined loot drops, progression mechanics can now be customized in real-time based on individual player behavior, cognitive load, and emotional state. The convergence of machine learning, procedural generation, and player modeling enables games to deliver adaptive and personalized progression systems that continuously respond to the player’s learning curve and engagement profile.

This section explores how AI technologies are currently being used in-game progression through six focal areas: dynamic difficulty adjustment (DDA), procedural content generation (PCG), personalized learning systems, reward system optimization, and ethical considerations.

4.1 AI-driven dynamic difficulty adjustment

Dynamic difficulty adjustment is one of the earliest and most impactful applications of AI in games. Rather than offering static difficulty levels selected at the outset of a game, DDA allows for in-the-moment recalibration of gameplay variables based on player performance metrics such as reaction time, accuracy, success-to-failure ratio, or input frequency. These adaptations may occur invisibly or be communicated explicitly through in-game feedback systems [20]. For example, in Resident Evil 4 (both in the original and its remake), the AI dynamically adjusts enemy density and item drops to maintain a balanced experience. Valve’s Left 4 Dead series created the “AI Director,” which modulates environmental tension, spawn rates, and item placements to maximize player immersion and team coordination [21].

Table 7 details the results of the SWOT analysis of AI-driven DDA.

StrengthsWeaknesses
Enables personalization without requiring extensive user input or manual configurationRisks undermining player agency and perceived skill mastery if adjustments are overly intrusive or opaque
Supports accessibility by adapting to diverse cognitive and motor skill levelsRelies on accurate, interpretable player modeling; errors in prediction can lead to maladaptive responses
OpportunitiesThreats
Applicability extends beyond entertainment to domains such as education, rehabilitation, and training simulationsPrivacy and ethical concerns regarding the collection and use of player data, mainly in the context of minors or biometric tracking
Potential for long-term adaptive profiles across platforms, enhancing cross-game personalizationRisk of misalignment between adaptive difficulty goals and commercial incentives (e.g., engagement vs. monetization)

Table 7.

The SWOT analysis of AI-driven DDA.

AI-based DDA systems have been shown to increase retention and satisfaction in both novice and expert players [22]. However, the literature shows that balance is the key if the system reduces difficulty too aggressively, players may feel their skill is undervalued. Conversely, poorly tuned increases can lead to frustration. Player modeling techniques such as behavior trees, fuzzy logic, and Bayesian inference are often used to make DDA more robust. For instance, Yannakakis and Hallam demonstrate how real-time adaptation mechanisms can dynamically adjust gameplay parameters such as challenge and curiosity to enhance player engagement [23]. Their work on the Bug Smasher game showed that even a simple gradient-ascent-based controller and player interaction data (e.g., response time, pressure variance, and input frequency) could significantly improve the entertainment value of a game. Moreover, their results indicate that maladaptive parameter changes correlate with decreased player preference. This shows the importance of precision in DDA design.

Recent advancements in AI-driven DDA have highlighted its evolution from heuristic-based systems to personalized mechanisms that enhance player engagement. For instance, Rahimi et al. introduced a continuous reinforcement learning-based DDA approach in a visual working memory game [24]. This improved player experience and performance compared to traditional rule-based methods. Similarly, Kristensen et al. used factorization machines to predict personalized game difficulty that enabled more accurately customized challenges to individual players [25]. Furthermore, adaptive systems using Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) algorithms have been developed to adjust game difficulty based on predicted player affective states, such as challenge and flow, enhancing overall player experience [26]. These developments illustrate that effective DDA is not merely about matching difficulty to performance metrics but involves a complex understanding of player behavior, preferences, and emotional states. As AI continues to advance, DDA systems are poised to become more responsive and personalized. Consequently, they contribute to more immersive and satisfying gaming experiences.

4.2 Procedural content generation in progression

Procedural content generation involves using algorithms to generate game assets such as maps, levels, enemies, and quests. With the use of AI, PCG can also incorporate player preferences, progress history, and behavior patterns to produce content that evolves alongside the user [27]. For example, No Man’s Sky uses a mathematical model and seeded randomness to generate over 18 quintillion planets with unique flora, fauna, and atmospheric conditions [28]. Roguelikes like Hades or Dead Cells use PCG to create dungeon layouts that adjust in difficulty and complexity as the player progresses.

Recent approaches in PCG via machine learning (PCGML) have allowed for the generation of levels that adapt not only structurally but also semantically. In other words, the content serves specific learning objectives or engagement patterns [16]. Reinforcement learning, generative adversarial networks (GANs), and Markov decision processes (MDPs) are among the key techniques enabling these innovations. For instance, Khalifa et al. introduced PCGRL that is a framework that uses reinforced learning to train level-designing agents [29]. This enables the creation of game levels that adapt to player performance and preferences. Meanwhile, Liu et al. provided a survey on the use of deep learning for procedural content generation while highlighting methods like convolutional neural networks and recurrent neural networks for generating complex game elements [30]. These innovations signify a shift toward more intelligent and adaptive content generation in games. By integrating machine learning techniques, PCG systems can produce content that not only varies structurally but also aligns with the semantic and experiential aspects of gameplay, offering personalized and engaging experiences for players. As research in this area continues to evolve, we can anticipate even more sophisticated PCG systems that seamlessly blend algorithmic generation with player-centric design principles.

4.3 Personalized progression paths through AI

One of AI’s most promising contributions is in supporting individualized player journeys. AI can segment players based on behavioral telemetry such as movement patterns, combat preferences, and exploration tendencies and provide progression paths that match these patterns [31]. This is not just difficulty scaling; it allows for changes in narrative delivery, mission objectives, upgrade paths, and even the emotional tone of gameplay. The Nemesis system of Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor is a prime example. In that system, AI-generated enemies evolve in personality and tactics based on previous encounters. In educational games, intelligent tutoring systems can adjust challenge levels to align with Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive skills that results in higher learning retention and flow [32].

Furthermore, the role of AI in player segmentation has been important in understanding and predicting player behavior. By analyzing in-game actions and preferences, developers can create more engaging and personalized experiences. This approach not only enhances player satisfaction but also informs game design decisions to cater to diverse player profiles. Zhu and Ontañón present a player-centered framework of AI for game personalization as they identify open problems and emphasize the need for collaboration between technological advancement and player experience design [33].

Overall, the integration of AI into game design paves the way for the creation of personalized progression paths that adapt to individual player behaviors and preferences. By leveraging behavioral telemetry, procedural content generation, and adaptive learning frameworks, AI enables dynamic and engaging experiences that evolve with the player. This marks an important shift from static game design to responsive, player-centric models.

4.4 The use of AI in reward systems

AI also transforms how players are rewarded by optimizing the timing, frequency, and type of feedback. Unlike traditional fixed-reward schedules (e.g., get 10 XP for every kill), AI-driven systems use engagement prediction models to identify when a player is at risk of disengaging and deploy appropriate incentives. These might include offering bonus objectives, providing rare loot, or introducing surprise narrative content [34]. For example, Destiny 2 dynamically adjusts loot drops based on a player’s recent reward history to prevent monotony or “loot fatigue.” Machine learning models trained on user retention metrics can detect when players are likely to churn and introduce corrective mechanisms such as progression boosts, narrative reminders, or social incentives.

Importantly, these mechanisms require careful calibration to avoid creating manipulative or addictive loops. While reinforcement learning and behavioral modeling are powerful, designers must be cautious not to exploit player vulnerabilities in pursuit of engagement metrics. To address these concerns, researchers advocate for the integration of ethical frameworks within AI systems. By incorporating machine ethics into reinforcement learning, developers can ensure that AI agents make decisions aligned with human values and norms. Thus, they can promote responsible and sustainable gaming practices [35].

4.5 Ethical considerations in AI-driven progression

The use of AI in progression systems raises critical ethical issues. A well-designed AI system should empower players. However, concerns arise when AI is used to impose artificial barriers such as slowing progression or manipulating challenge levels to steer players toward monetized options like microtransactions or paid boosters. Opacity is another issue as players are often unaware that an AI system is shaping their experience. Without transparency, trust in the system may erode, particularly in competitive environments where fairness is of crucial importance. The black-box nature of some AI systems makes it difficult for players to understand how decisions are made. This can further increase concerns about fairness and accountability.

Best practices suggest giving players visibility and control over AI-driven systems, including the ability to opt out of personalization or toggle transparency modes. Game designers must also navigate data privacy concerns, especially when integrating biometric or affective feedback systems into progression logic. The principles of explainable AI (XAI) and human-in-the-loop (HITL) design are becoming increasingly relevant in games to ensure that progression systems remain comprehensible and ethically sound [36]. Furthermore, data privacy is an important concern, mainly when AI systems use biometric or affective feedback to inform progression logic. Ensuring that players have control over their data and the ability to opt out of personalization features is essential to maintain ethical standards and comply with data protection regulations [37].

Advertisement

5. The possible future of player progression systems

Player progression systems have undergone significant transformation over the past decades, evolving from rudimentary XP mechanics and static skill trees to sophisticated, AI-driven models that offer dynamic and personalized experiences. Emerging technologies such as AI, machine learning ML, blockchain, cloud computing, and virtual reality (VR) are poised to further revolutionize these systems. This enables more immersive and adaptive gameplay [38]. Historically, progression in video games was linear and predefined that required players to follow fixed leveling curves and rigid upgrade paths. In contrast, contemporary developments have introduced dynamic progression models that afford greater player agency, adaptability, and persistent engagement across multiple platforms and game ecosystems.

This section examines how these AI-driven mechanics could affect player progression in the coming years. It discusses AI-powered adaptive difficulty, meta-progression across platforms, AI-generated quests and storylines, as well as the ethical challenges of progression design in an era of live-service models.

5.1 The shift toward AI-driven progression

Artificial intelligence is increasingly integral to the structuring and delivery of player progression. Moving beyond static skill trees and predefined leveling systems, future games are anticipated to use AI to create adaptive and personalized experiences. AI-driven progression systems can analyze player behavior in real time, adjusting skill recommendations, challenge levels, and rewards to align with individual playstyles. This paradigm shift from fixed RPG character development to adaptive progression models ensures that each player’s experience is unique. For instance, an AI assistant in a role-playing game could learn from a player’s combat style, preferred weapons, and movement patterns. Thus, it provides real-time suggestions that evolve alongside the player’s behavior. If a player frequently utilizes ranged attacks but struggles in melee combat, the AI could recommend ranged perks, suggest strategies, or adjust enemy behavior to accommodate the player’s strengths and weaknesses.

However, ethical considerations must be addressed in the design of such systems. AI-driven progression should enhance player agency rather than diminish it. Overly deterministic AI-generated suggestions may undermine the sense of accomplishment and personal investment, leading to a diminished gaming experience. Therefore, it is imperative to balance AI adaptability with meaningful player choices to maintain engagement and satisfaction.

5.2 Meta-progression and cross-game continuity

The transition toward cloud-based ecosystems and live-service models has elevated the relevance of meta-progression. These are progression systems that persist beyond a single game session, platform, or even franchise. Instead of restarting character growth with each new game, future progression models may enable players to maintain a persistent progression profile that carries over across multiple games. This concept was exemplified in the Mass Effect series (2007–2012), where players could transfer saved games between titles, allowing previous narrative choices to influence subsequent storylines. Looking forward, the development of interconnected universes could facilitate similar continuity on a broader scale.

An emerging and contentious area of in-game progression is blockchain-based persistence, wherein player-owned progression assets such as skills, ranks, and digital items exist independently of specific game servers. In theory, blockchain technology could enable ownership of in-game progression elements, cross-game asset transfers, and decentralized progression tracking. This approach could enhance player autonomy by allowing assets to retain value across different gaming environments. However, it also raises concerns regarding monetization, accessibility, and potential exploitation. The risk of pay-to-win economies necessitates careful consideration of the ethical implications of integrating blockchain into progression systems.

5.3 Procedural and AI-generated story progression

AI-driven narrative design is expected to redefine the nature of progression in story-rich games. Procedural quest generation, previously limited to fetch quests or randomized events is becoming more sophisticated through natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLMs) [39, 40]. These systems can dynamically generate branching story arcs, context-sensitive dialog, and evolving world states based on player actions.

In future games, the decisions of the players could not only shape immediate outcomes but also generate new plotlines and character relationships in real-time. Progression in such systems would be less about completing pre-authored content and more about co-creating narrative paths that reflect the unique playstyle, values, and history of the individual player.

5.4 Gamification beyond entertainment

The principles of player progression are increasingly being applied outside of entertainment in areas such as education, workplace training, mental health, and civic engagement. Serious games and gamified applications already use progression systems to motivate learning and behavior change [41]. With the support of AI, these systems can become more adaptive and impactful. For example, educational platforms may use procedural skill trees to guide students through personalized curricula. Fitness apps can deploy AI to recommend workout goals and dynamically adjust difficulty based on past performance. Even civic apps can track social contributions or sustainable behavior through progression metaphors like leveling or badges.

In these contexts, progression becomes a tool for long-term behavior reinforcement, but it must also preserve intrinsic motivation and avoid excessive gamification that may trivialize real-world issues.

5.5 Ethical considerations in future progression systems

As progression systems become more complex, persistent, and data-driven, they must adhere to evolving standards of digital ethics and regulation. Regulatory frameworks such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe already impact how games handle player data, especially in AI-driven personalization [42]. Designers and developers will need to establish best practices for fairness, transparency, and explainability. Player autonomy must remain a central design goal, particularly when progression systems adapt based on biometric or behavioral data.

Moreover, there is a growing demand for ethical AI audits and third-party validation of adaptive systems in games, especially those involving vulnerable populations such as minors. The future of player progression will depend not only on technological capabilities but also on the industry’s commitment to responsible innovation.

Overall, the following can be stated:

  • AI should be used to enhance progression, not throttle XP gain artificially to encourage microtransactions.

  • Games must ensure that progression remains rewarding rather than a grind that feels endless with no meaningful payoffs.

  • AI-driven skill recommendations must suggest and not force progression paths. This can allow players to experiment and find their own playstyle.

Advertisement

6. Conclusions

Player progression systems serve as the backbone of long-term engagement in video games, shaping not only the player’s moment-to-moment actions but also their broader sense of development, mastery, and identity. This chapter has provided a taxonomy of six key player progression types: skill-based, XP-based, item-based, narrative, social, and hybrid. By formalizing these systems, designers, and researchers can be offered a common vocabulary for analyzing and constructing progression mechanics.

Moreover, the integration of AI has redefined what progression can mean in a digital game context. From dynamic difficulty adjustment and procedural content generation to emotionally responsive and personalized progression paths, AI has enabled systems that adapt to the player’s style, preferences, and performance. These developments not only enhance player satisfaction but also present novel challenges in ethical design, transparency, and regulatory compliance.

Looking ahead, progression systems are poised to expand beyond individual games and even the entertainment domain itself. Persistent meta-progression across ecosystems, AI-generated narratives, and biometric feedback mechanisms all point toward increasingly sophisticated and immersive player journeys. Simultaneously, the adoption of gamified progression structures in education, health, and civic technologies highlights the versatility of these systems and the importance of designing them with care and responsibility.

As games continue to evolve as cultural, economic, and technological artifacts, player progression systems must remain both innovative and accountable. This requires collaboration between designers, data scientists, ethicists, and players themselves to ensure that progression mechanics serve diverse audiences, respect user autonomy, and foster meaningful engagement.

In summary, progression is not merely a structural element. It is a dynamic, multidimensional tool for shaping how players grow, both within and beyond the game world. Thoughtfully designed progression systems, especially those augmented by AI, have the potential to create not just better games, but better human experiences.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work has been implemented by the TKP2021-NVA-10 project with the support provided by the Ministry of Culture and Innovation of Hungary from the National Research, Development and Innovation Fund, financed under the 2021 Thematic Excellence Programme funding scheme.

Advertisement

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Advertisement

Appendix A: Methodology for SWOT Analyses

The SWOT analyses shown in this chapter were developed using a structured qualitative method designed to ensure practical relevance. The process combined expert input, targeted literature review, and comparative game analysis to derive a balanced set of evaluations for each progression system. They had the following four steps:

  • Step #1: For each progression type, 3–5 influential or genre-defining games were selected as reference points. The selection prioritized titles that are widely recognized in the academic literature, have detailed postmortems or developer insights available (e.g., through GDC talks), and exhibit progression systems representative of their category.

  • Step #2: Academic sources were consulted to identify theoretical advantages and drawbacks associated with each progression system. These included:

    • Game studies literature on player motivation and engagement (e.g., SDT, Flow Theory)

    • Technical design texts (e.g., Game Analytics, AI, and Games)

    • Empirical studies and player behavior analyses

  • Step #3: For each progression type, results from the literature and game examples were categorized into:

    • Strengths: Elements that increase player engagement, satisfaction, or retention

    • Weaknesses: Limitations that may reduce accessibility, depth, or balance

    • Opportunities: Design possibilities for future innovation or genre expansion

    • Threats: External or internal risks, including monetization pitfalls or design complexity

    • Each table was reviewed for balance to avoid overgeneralization and ensure that SWOT entries reflected diverse player experiences and use cases.

  • Step #4: After the initial tables were drafted, they were refined through internal peer feedback during the manuscript preparation. Adjustments were made to avoid overlap, sharpen definitions, and align terminology with current discourse in game design scholarship. This structured approach ensures that the SWOT analyses serve as both a pedagogical tool for taxonomy and a practical guide for game development and evaluation.

Advertisement

Appendix B: Game titles referenced by progression type

The following list includes the primary games analyzed to support the taxonomy and SWOT analyses in this chapter. Titles were selected based on their influence within their genre, innovative use of progression mechanics, and availability of developer commentary or academic discussion. Each game demonstrates the core characteristics of one or more progression types. This list is not exhaustive but reflects the core examples used to illustrate the variety and complexity of progression systems analyzed throughout the chapter.

  • Skill-based progression: Celeste (2018), Dark Souls (2011), Super Meat Boy (2010), Street Fighter II (1991), Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (2012).

  • XP-based progression: Final Fantasy series (1987–present), Pokémon series (1996–present), World of Warcraft (2004), Tom Clancy’s The Division (2016)

  • Item-based progression: Diablo II (2000), Monster Hunter: World (2018), The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild (2017), Borderlands 2 (2012)

  • Narrative progression: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015), Life is Strange (2015), Detroit: Become Human (2018), Mass Effect series (2007–2012)

  • Social progression: League of Legends (2009), EVE Online (2003), Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), Fortnite (2017)

  • Hybrid progression: Destiny 2 (2017), Elden Ring (2022), Final Fantasy VII Remake (2020), The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt (2015)

References

  1. 1. Juul J. A Casual Revolution: Reinventing Video Games and their Players. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press; 2012
  2. 2. Gee JP. What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. Computers in Entertainment. 2003;1(1):1-4. DOI: 10.1145/950566.950595
  3. 3. Sweetser P, Wyeth P. GameFlow: A model for evaluating player enjoyment in games. Computers in Entertainment. 2005;3(3):1-24. DOI: 10.1145/1077246.1077253
  4. 4. Przybylski AK, Rigby CS, Ryan RM. A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology. 2010;14(2):154-166. DOI: 10.1037/a0019440
  5. 5. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science. 1988;12(2):257-285. DOI: 10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4
  6. 6. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. 1985th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 1985
  7. 7. Ryan RM, Rigby CS, Przybylski A. The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion. 2006;30(4):344-360. DOI: 10.1007/s11031-006-9051-8
  8. 8. Salen, Tekinbas K, Zimmerman E. Rules of Play: Game Design Fundamentals. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: MIT Press; 2003
  9. 9. Gee J. Glued to games: How video games draw us in and hold us spellbound. American Journal of Play. 2012;4(4):510-511
  10. 10. Csikszentmihalyi M. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York, USA: Harper & Row; 1990
  11. 11. Skinner BF. Operant conditioning. The Encyclopedia of Education. 1971;7:29-33
  12. 12. Yee N. The gamer motivation profile: What we learned from 250,000 gamers. In: Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2016. p. 2
  13. 13. King DL, Delfabbro PH. Video game monetization (eg,‘loot boxes’): A blueprint for practical social responsibility measures. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction. 2019;17(1):166-179. DOI: 10.1007/s11469-018-0009-3
  14. 14. Anderson CA, Dill KE. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;78(4):772-790. DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772
  15. 15. Yannakakis GN, Togelius J. Artificial Intelligence and Games. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2018. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-63519-4
  16. 16. Summerville A, Snodgrass S, Guzdial M, Holmgard C, Hoover AK, Isaksen A, et al. Procedural content generation via machine learning (PCGML). IEEE Transactions on Games. 2018;10(3):257-270. DOI: 10.1109/tg.2018.2846639
  17. 17. El-Nasr MS, Nguyen T-HD, Canossa A, Drachen A. Game Data Science. London, England: Oxford University Press; 2021
  18. 18. Bartle R. Hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades: Players who suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research. 1996;1(1):1-27
  19. 19. Yee N. The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence (Camb). 2006;15(3):309-329. DOI: 10.1162/pres.15.3.309
  20. 20. Andrade G, Ramalho G, Santana H, Corruble V. Challenge-sensitive action selection: An application to game balancing. In: IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology. Compiegne, France: IEEE; 2006. pp. 194-200. DOI: 10.1109/IAT.2005.52
  21. 21. Booth M. The ai systems of left 4 dead. In: Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference at Stanford. Palo Alto, California, USA: AAAI Press; 2009
  22. 22. Hunicke R. The case for dynamic difficulty adjustment in games. In: Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCHI International Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2005. pp. 429-433. DOI: 10.1145/1178477.1178573
  23. 23. Yannakakis GN, Hallam J. Real-time game adaptation for optimizing player satisfaction. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence in AI and Games. 2009;1(2):121-133. DOI: 10.1109/tciaig.2009.2024533
  24. 24. Rahimi M, Moradi H, Vahabie A-H, Kebriaei H. Continuous reinforcement learning-based dynamic difficulty adjustment in a visual working memory game. arXiv. 2023:1-6. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2308.12726
  25. 25. Kristensen JT, Guckelsberger C, Burelli P, Hämäläinen P. Personalized game difficulty prediction using factorization machines. In: Proceedings of the 35th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2022. pp. 1-13. DOI: 10.1145/3526113.3545624
  26. 26. Moon J, Choi Y, Park T, Choi J, Hong J-H, Kim K-J. Diversifying dynamic difficulty adjustment agent by integrating player state models into Monte-Carlo tree search. Expert Systems with Applications. 2022;205(117677):117677. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2022.117677
  27. 27. Shaker N, Togelius J, Nelson MJ. Procedural Content Generation in Games. 1st ed. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-42716-4
  28. 28. Parkin S. No man’s sky: The game where you can explore 18 quintillion planets. The Guardian. 2015. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jul/12/no-mans-sky-18-quintillion-planets-hello-games
  29. 29. Khalifa A, Bontrager P, Earle S, Togelius J. PCGRL: Procedural content generation via reinforcement learning. Proceedings of the AAAI Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference. 2020;16(1):95-101. DOI: 10.1609/aiide.v16i1.7416
  30. 30. Liu J, Snodgrass S, Khalifa A, Risi S, Yannakakis GN, Togelius J. Deep learning for procedural content generation. Neural Computing and Applications. 2021;33(1):19-37. DOI: 10.1007/s00521-020-05383-8
  31. 31. Paraschos PD, Koulouriotis DE. Game difficulty adaptation and experience personalization: A literature review. International Journal of Human Computer Interaction. 2023;39(1):1-22. DOI: 10.1080/10447318.2021.2020008
  32. 32. Smith AM, Nelson MJ, Mateas M. LUDOCORE: A logical game engine for modeling videogames. In: Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games. Copenhagen, Denmark: IEEE; 2010. pp. 91-98. DOI: 10.1109/ITW.2010.5593368
  33. 33. Zhu J, Ontañón S. Player-centered AI for automatic game personalization: Open problems. In: International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2020. pp. 1-8. DOI: 10.1145/3402942.3402951
  34. 34. Holmgard C, Green MC, Liapis A, Togelius J. Automated playtesting with procedural personas through MCTS with evolved heuristics. IEEE Transactions on Games. 2019;11(4):352-362. DOI: 10.1109/tg.2018.2808198
  35. 35. Vishwanath A, Dennis LA, Slavkovik M. Reinforcement learning and machine ethics: A systematic review. arXiv. 2024:1-9. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.02425
  36. 36. Tsiakas K, Murray-Rust D. Using human-in-the-loop and explainable AI to envisage new future work practices. In: The15th International Conference on PErvasive Technologies Related to Assistive Environments. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2022. pp. 388-394. DOI: 10.1145/3529190.3534779
  37. 37. Seif El-Nasr M, Kleinman E. Data-driven game development: Ethical considerations. In: International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2020. pp. 1-10. DOI: 10.1145/3402942.3402964
  38. 38. Mehta N. The role of AI in game development and player experience. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2025:1-13. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.5101269
  39. 39. Kumaran V, Rowe J, Mott B, Lester J. SceneCraft: Automating interactive narrative scene generation in digital games with large language models. Proceedings of the AAAI Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference. 2023;19(1):86-96. DOI: 10.1609/aiide.v19i1.27504
  40. 40. Chung JJY, Kim W, Yoo KM, Lee H, Adar E, Chang M. TaleBrush: Sketching stories with generative pretrained language models. In: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York, NY, USA: ACM; 2022. pp. 1-19. DOI: 10.1145/3491102.3501819
  41. 41. Hamari J, Koivisto J. “Working out for likes”: An empirical study on social influence in exercise gamification. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015;50:333-347. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.018
  42. 42. Tsamados A, Aggarwal N, Cowls J, Morley J, Roberts H, Taddeo M, et al. The ethics of algorithms: Key problems and solutions. In: Philosophical Studies Series. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021. pp. 97-123. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-81907-1_8

Written By

Tibor Guzsvinecz

Submitted: 24 March 2025 Reviewed: 11 June 2025 Published: 08 July 2025