A Structural Taxonomy of Player Experience in Game Design: First Pass

This document enumerates the structural primitives of player experience in game design. It classifies what the player does, decides, learns, manages, and is gated by — not what they see, hear, or feel emotionally. Aesthetics (visual style, audio design, narrative content, mood) are out of scope. They matter for the total product but they are not gameplay. The taxonomy follows a three-axis framework: mechanisms (what the game presents and what the player does), properties (contracts about experience quality), and principles (rules governing design assembly). This framework is adapted from infrastructure systems taxonomy [@HOWL-INFRA-1-2026] and application architecture taxonomy [@HOWL-COMP-9-2026], which demonstrated that the three-axis separation — mechanism, property, principle as distinct kinds of thing — prevents the conflation that makes design reasoning imprecise. Game design vocabulary is in worse shape than infrastructure vocabulary. "Difficulty" names a mechanism (a difficulty selector), a property (the game is hard), and a principle (games should be appropriately challenging). "Progression" names a mechanism (an XP bar), a property (the player advances), and a principle (reward investment over time). "Balance" is used for everything. The qualification discipline from the infrastructure taxonomy — always say "difficulty mechanism" vs "difficulty property" vs "difficulty-related principle" — is needed here.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Open MIND
Published
2026-05-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20062618
Primary Topic
Digital Games and Media
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Structural Taxonomy of Player Experience in Game Design: First Pass

Geoffrey Howland
Open MIND
Digital Games and Media
article

A Structural Taxonomy of Player Experience in Game Design: First Pass

Geoffrey Howland
article en

Abstract

This document enumerates the structural primitives of player experience in game design. It classifies what the player does, decides, learns, manages, and is gated by — not what they see, hear, or feel emotionally. Aesthetics (visual style, audio design, narrative content, mood) are out of scope. They matter for the total product but they are not gameplay. The taxonomy follows a three-axis framework: mechanisms (what the game presents and what the player does), properties (contracts about experience quality), and principles (rules governing design assembly). This framework is adapted from infrastructure systems taxonomy [@HOWL-INFRA-1-2026] and application architecture taxonomy [@HOWL-COMP-9-2026], which demonstrated that the three-axis separation — mechanism, property, principle as distinct kinds of thing — prevents the conflation that makes design reasoning imprecise. Game design vocabulary is in worse shape than infrastructure vocabulary. "Difficulty" names a mechanism (a difficulty selector), a property (the game is hard), and a principle (games should be appropriately challenging). "Progression" names a mechanism (an XP bar), a property (the player advances), and a principle (reward investment over time). "Balance" is used for everything. The qualification discipline from the infrastructure taxonomy — always say "difficulty mechanism" vs "difficulty property" vs "difficulty-related principle" — is needed here.

Open MIND
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Digital Games and Media
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.