Proactive or Reactive? Comparison of Dynamic Difficulty Adjustment Effects on Player Experience and Physical Effort in a Running Exergame

Don’t just ask how to adapt: ask when

From my CoG 2026 talk

• Timing is a design variable

  “Proactive (predictive) and reactive (retrospective) DDA are not interchangeable. The trigger point shapes how players experience challenge and competence.”

• Failure is not required to sustain effort

  “Preventing setbacks did not reduce heart rate or perceived exertion. Players still worked just as hard.”

• Match the trigger to what failure demands

  “If failure mainly asks for more physical output, intervene early. If failure opens strategic alternatives, reacting after failure may remain appropriate.”

Design the DDA trigger around the type of challenge

From my CoG 2026 talk

Proactive DDA is not always better: its value depends on what failure asks the player to do.

• When physical effort is the main way to overcome failure

  Proactive DDA is more beneficial

  “Prevents repeated setbacks, preserves movement continuity, supports competence, reduces punishment-recovery cycles. Best fit: locomotion-heavy exergames like “ExerWitch”.”

• When players have other ways to respond

  Reactive DDA can still work well

  “Failure provides diagnostic feedback, enables strategy change and learning, recovery need not rely on physical output, maintains meaningful risk and tension. Examples: rhythm games, adventure games with puzzles, team sports games.”