Good dungeon layout and design

[r3jonwah85]

Hello guys, I have been thinking about this matter for quite some time since I am working on some stuff for my own game, but this is something I find quite interesting and I am guessing that there are a lot of opinions out there, especially since a lot of people feel that newer games dumb down dungeons to a single path (there was some discussion about Daggerfall vs Morrowind vs Skyrim).

What I am after here is technical level design stuff more than atmosphere etc. since I think the latter is pretty much essential.

Things to ponder:
- 2D maps with floors (Eye of the Beholder etc.) vs full 3D maps (e.g. Daggerfall), this is quite a delicate matter since I would say that full 3D can give you very nice environments but at the same time be fucking hell to navigate (map-wise), what do you like and why? Also, if 3D, do you find it important to have vertical gameplay, e.g. for overlapping rooms there are connection points in a vertical manner (holes in ground in cave, ladder in dungeon etc.).

- Reconnecting paths, are these beneficial/enjoyable or just confusing? I am talking about 2 or more paths that lead to the same place, making you go in circles essentially. They can be nice since they can make the dungeon feel more spacious and add artificial choice, but can also just be filler and confusing.

- Puzzles spread over several floors (if 2D on actual different floors, if 3D clearly marked segments). Is this enjoyable or just annoying since you have to move around a lot? Or would it feel more thrilling to find a piece in the bottom of a dungeon with a note that hints at stuff seen in the beginning of the dungeon?

- Dead end corridors (as in somewhat long section to walk but no room/treasure attached at other end), do these feel annoying or would you say that these are natural in a dungeon setting, e.g. not completely built or whatever.

- How do you feel about auto mapping? Is it essential or just a hand holder? Does this depend on the dungeon type/complexity?

- Teleports, should the use of these always be constrained to bonus/hidden content or could they be used for alternative paths (e.g. paths that benefits different skills). If the former , do you think alternative paths should always physically connect? Or do you not like alternative paths?

I could go on but my guess it that most people won't even read most of the above, so I stop here for now. In essence, discuss your preference and things you find important in dungeon design/layout and explain why.

 

[octavius]

Examples to follow:
2D maps with floors: Chaos Strikes Back. The whole game is one interconnected dungeon, instead of 13 separate levels.
Full 3D maps: Ultima Underworld
The first example is the "gamey" approach to level design, while the secons is a more "realistic" dungeon. I guess deciding if going for gamey or realistic is one of the first things you need to decide. Gamey can provide more mapping and puzzle challenges, while realistic is better if you want to focus more on story and atmosphere.

I like both 2D (or fake 3D) and full 3D, but what's best depends on wether the game is single character vs party and turn based vs real time. For single character and real time only 3D feels right, while for turn based and party 2D works just as well, or even better.

For 2D step based maps I prefer to make my own maps, as that is part of the challenge. For full 3D maps I definitely want an automap, since it's all but impossible to map by hand.

I like some puzzles to make you travel all over the dungeon, but to avoid too much back tracking Teleports are a nice tool.

 

[karfhud]

- Dead end corridors (as in somewhat long section to walk but no room/treasure attached at other end), do these feel annoying or would you say that these are natural in a dungeon setting, e.g. not completely built or whatever.

That's a no-no for me. Short dead-end corridors are fine, but making players walk these longer sections for nothing - that's just uncool, man. There's always something you can place there, fluff items, a small encounter, anything.

 

[r3jonwah85]

Examples to follow:
2D maps with floors: Chaos Strikes Back. The whole game is one interconnected dungeon, instead of 13 separate levels.
Full 3D maps: Ultima Underworld
The first example is the "gamey" approach to level design, while the secons is a more "realistic" dungeon. I guess deciding if going for gamey or realistic is one of the first things you need to decide. Gamey can provide more mapping and puzzle challenges, while realistic is better if you want to focus more on story and atmosphere.

I like both 2D (or fake 3D) and full 3D, but what's best depends on wether the game is single character vs party and turn based vs real time. For single character and real time only 3D feels right, while for turn based and party 2D works just as well, or even better.

For 2D step based maps I prefer to make my own maps, as that is part of the challenge. For full 3D maps I definitely want an automap, since it's all but impossible to map by hand.

I like some puzzles to make you travel all over the dungeon, but to avoid too much back tracking Teleports are a nice tool.

Me personally are going for a hybrid approach at the moment, generate 3D maps with vertical intersections but add floors that separates it into sections, that way you can sneak in rooms that are not vertically limited in the same way. This is an early example of one generated floor (looks a little messy but as mentioned it is hard to visualize 3D in a simple way, but the grey squares are for the auto mapping):

But yes, I do agree with you on the game vs real part. Some dungeons I really liked are some of the ones in Gothic 1, they weren't complex but felt real and really 3D and after a while you could find your way without map.
About teleports back to base points/entry I agree, that is one thing I really liked about the "dungeons" in Mass Effect, you almost never had to go back (say what you want about the series, but this was a thing they did), but if you add more secrets and stuff I think back tracking would not feel like a chore as much, you would give the player a reason to actually want to explore every crack. The same goes for puzzles (I include key hunting etc. here) I guess it have to make sense if you spread it out or else the player will feel like they are doing a chore.

Regarding the 3D mapping, has anyone ever seen it done well? My impression is that people did not like Daggerfall, Thunderscape seems ok but I have not played that, newer games such as Morrowind has mostly such small dungeons so that it is never a real problem, Ultima Underworld is pseudo 3D in that regard (levels are seperated), as do Arx Fatalis (might be wrong on this one, just looked at pictures on google).

- Dead end corridors (as in somewhat long section to walk but no room/treasure attached at other end), do these feel annoying or would you say that these are natural in a dungeon setting, e.g. not completely built or whatever.

That's a no-no for me. Short dead-end corridors are fine, but making players walk these longer sections for nothing - that's just uncool, man. There's always something you can place there, fluff items, a small encounter, anything.

Agreed, that is one thing I actually hate in my own generator that will go away, maybe 3-4 tiles is ok, after that it feels tedious.

 

[Dorateen]

Teleports are great. Both those that have random destination points, or simply meant as a disorientating device. Even better, sending a player to another dungeon level entirely, a place they Should Not Be. But also fixed teleports that can be utilized on subsequent runs to navigate the dungeon. There should be more than one way to crack a dungeon.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

I always like it when dungeons that are obviously made by intelligent beings make sense. That is, no random labyrinths but architecture that was built with purpose in mind. Doesn't matter too much for tombs and crypts, but for anything that was supposed to be inhabited there needs to be logical structure to it.

Same for puzzles. If it's someone's main entrance, would he really protect it with puzzle to solve each time he comes back home? Retrieving a key elsewhere may involve that puzzle instead.

 

[Lilura]

The "purpose in mind" could simply be to confuse, and to kill (intruders).
And to annoy and frustrate so they leave in a huff (deadends)

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Thunderscape seems ok

Oh no it doesn't. It's way worse than Daggerfall, as a matter of fact it looks a lot like the exemple you posted. If you can safely navigate a map like that (except bigger since dungeon levels are huge) then fine but I certainly had lots of trouble. The more so since you couldn't annotate anything on the map.

 

[mondblut]

Screw full 3d. Anything more complex to navigate than UUW is not worth it.

As for everything else, remember, "people don't just gather one day and decide to build a dungeon. they build a temple, or a crypt, or mines... then something bad happens and it becomes a "dungeon". If it used to be an abandoned mine, lots of "pointless" dead ends make perfect sense. Walking a long way to end up in shitstained latrines makes perfect sense. When the thing is being built, the excitement and entertainment of unauthorized and hostile visitors is the LAST thing they have in mind.

 

[karfhud]

Screw full 3d. Anything more complex to navigate than UUW is not worth it.

As for everything else, remember, "people don't just gather one day and decide to build a dungeon. they build a temple, or a crypt, or mines... then something bad happens and it becomes a "dungeon". If it used to be an abandoned mine, lots of "pointless" dead ends make perfect sense. Walking a long way to end up in shitstained latrines makes perfect sense. When the thing is being built, the excitement and entertainment of unauthorized and hostile visitors is the LAST thing they have in mind.

You need to keep in mind that we're talking games here and, well, ultimately players should enjoy these dungeons, not curse at another dead end. Otherwise you could just implement a giant desert with literally nothing there, because hey, we've got Sahara

 

[mondblut]

You need to keep in mind that we're talking games here and, well, ultimately players should enjoy these dungeons, not curse at another dead end.

Fuck the players.

 

[Melan]

I wrote this piece on dungeon layout and design back in 2006. It is for tabletop RPGs, and it was never intended to be a rigorous essay (which is how some people have interpreted it), but I think much of it maps pretty well to computer games. There is a pleasant kind of complexity where a map facilitates exploration, decision-making and dynamic play, but does not turn into a frustrating experience like most hedge (or ''crossword'') mazes, and that's the kind of thing you should be looking for. It is not an exact science, but there is a lot of good practice to learn.

Justin Alexander wrote another insightful post on the subject in Jaquaying the Dungeon, named after Paul [now Jennell] Jaquays, who was the undisputed master of dungeon design in the late 1970s (e.g. Caverns of Thracia, The Dark Tower or Realm of the Slime God), and later went on to design levels for Quake. Worth reading.

 

[Dorateen]

I wrote this piece on dungeon layout and design back in 2006.

That was a good read, with some interesting design theory to digest. I tend to be forgiving of smaller, linear dungeons because they still constitute the heart of the RPG, at its most basic level. Which is why MMX did not bother me so much. But I remain truly in awe of the labrynthine masterpieces.

 

[r3jonwah85]

Teleports are great. Both those that have random destination points, or simply meant as a disorientating device. Even better, sending a player to another dungeon level entirely, a place they Should Not Be. But also fixed teleports that can be utilized on subsequent runs to navigate the dungeon. There should be more than one way to crack a dungeon.

Is this the general perception of the use of teleports? Using them would simplify procedural generation immensely, but it feels a bit "cheap" to patch pieces together using them. The best use seems to be is isolated secrets and the like, and I am going to keep the "disorientating device" in mind, I liked that concept (used in moderation).

I wrote this piece on dungeon layout and design back in 2006. It is for tabletop RPGs, and it was never intended to be a rigorous essay (which is how some people have interpreted it), but I think much of it maps pretty well to computer games. There is a pleasant kind of complexity where a map facilitates exploration, decision-making and dynamic play, but does not turn into a frustrating experience like most hedge (or ''crossword'') mazes, and that's the kind of thing you should be looking for. It is not an exact science, but there is a lot of good practice to learn.

Justin Alexander wrote another insightful post on the subject in Jaquaying the Dungeon, named after Paul [now Jennell] Jaquays, who was the undisputed master of dungeon design in the late 1970s (e.g. Caverns of Thracia, The Dark Tower or Realm of the Slime God), and later went on to design levels for Quake. Worth reading.

Wow, I have just glanced at it but that seems like a really nice discussions on the technical (and consequently perceptional) aspects that I was interested in, thanks a lot.

Staring at maps and after this brief discussions it seems like the Ultima Underworld path seems like one of the most practical, realistic and adventurous (fun) ways to go. One of the games that often are mentioned are also Eye of the Beholder, does anyone have good input on this one from a design perspective? And since it is related to EotB and uses procedural generation, what do people have to say on Dungeon Hack? Or is it mostly the combat that keeps that one alive?

 

[Damned Registrations]

Dead ends are fine as long as they feel like some sort of trap instead of just an afterthought. Walking to the end of a long hallway filled with caltrops (or some fantasy magic equivalent) will make the player less eager to go diving through the hallway that has the nice loot in it.

I think the best teleports are one way trips, preferably to a location that looks exactly like where you expected to be when stepping into that tile, with no sound or animation to indicate that you've teleported. You're just suddenly on the wrong part of the map and you don't even know it yet.

 

[Dorateen]

Teleports are great. Both those that have random destination points, or simply meant as a disorientating device. Even better, sending a player to another dungeon level entirely, a place they Should Not Be. But also fixed teleports that can be utilized on subsequent runs to navigate the dungeon. There should be more than one way to crack a dungeon.

Is this the general perception of the use of teleports?

Heh, I admit I had Demise:Ascension in mind when I mentioned the part about fixed teleporters. So that would be the case of a 30-some-odd level megadungeon, where the player might find a teleporter on level one, that takes them to 15. Starting characters would not intentionally take this, but it would be useful later on as they progress deeper into the dungeon. Of course, nothing says activation of such teleporters has to be easy.

 

[r3jonwah85]

Heh, I admit I had Demise:Ascension in mind when I mentioned the part about fixed teleporters. So that would be the case of a 30-some-odd level megadungeon, where the player might find a teleporter on level one, that takes them to 15. Starting characters would not intentionally take this, but it would be useful later on as they progress deeper into the dungeon. Of course, nothing says activation of such teleporters has to be easy.

Ok, thanks for the clarification, have not played the game but was actually looking at footage yesterday before you mentioned it.

Thanks to Humble Bundle I installed and played some Thief Gold for the first time since I played the demo I got on a PC GAMER disc, and at least some levels can be seen in the same way as a dungeon in essence (some are even fully dungeons?). The first level just pulls you in and gives you options in abundance, and some options really make you feel "smart" which is a good reward to keep up interest for the player. I am also looking at at lot of Doom and Quake levels which also can be seen as dungeon designs, and man some Quake levels are gorgeous. Going to try and find some general design documentation on those and see what they say.

 

[JarlFrank]

Heh, I admit I had Demise:Ascension in mind when I mentioned the part about fixed teleporters. So that would be the case of a 30-some-odd level megadungeon, where the player might find a teleporter on level one, that takes them to 15. Starting characters would not intentionally take this, but it would be useful later on as they progress deeper into the dungeon. Of course, nothing says activation of such teleporters has to be easy.

Ok, thanks for the clarification, have not played the game but was actually looking at footage yesterday before you mentioned it.

Thanks to Humble Bundle I installed and played some Thief Gold for the first time since I played the demo I got on a PC GAMER disc, and at least some levels can be seen in the same way as a dungeon in essence (some are even fully dungeons?). The first level just pulls you in and gives you options in abundance, and some options really make you feel "smart" which is a good reward to keep up interest for the player. I am also looking at at lot of Doom and Quake levels which also can be seen as dungeon designs, and man some Quake levels are gorgeous. Going to try and find some general design documentation on those and see what they say.

Thief is probably the best game ever made (I'm a fanboy ) and its Bonehoard mission is one of the most well-designed dungeon levels I've ever played.

I also immensely enjoyed Wizardry 8's monastery, the starting dungeon of that game. Buy it on GoG or torrent it or something if you haven't played it yet, this is a great example of a good 3D dungeon.

 

[Zombra]

I'm not a pro and haven't thought this out much, but here are some reactions off the top of my head.

- 2D maps with floors (Eye of the Beholder etc.) vs full 3D maps (e.g. Daggerfall), this is quite a delicate matter since I would say that full 3D can give you very nice environments but at the same time be fucking hell to navigate (map-wise), what do you like and why? Also, if 3D, do you find it important to have vertical gameplay, e.g. for overlapping rooms there are connection points in a vertical manner (holes in ground in cave, ladder in dungeon etc.).

I like 3D maps with some sloping and crossover. Daggerfall was fantastic, although those maps were freakin huge and very confusing.

I was always annoyed that the map screen in Daggerfall was better than anything in later Elder Scrolls games.

- Reconnecting paths, are these beneficial/enjoyable or just confusing? I am talking about 2 or more paths that lead to the same place, making you go in circles essentially. They can be nice since they can make the dungeon feel more spacious and add artificial choice, but can also just be filler and confusing.

Stop me if I get too weird here. Not only do I prefer multiple paths to the same place ... I generally prefer a layout where the "end" just doesn't take that long to get to. I find maps to be the most fun when they are more like a house with a bunch of rooms than a corridor with a "beginning" and an "end". Look at a game like Hitman: Blood Money for example. The objectives are just scattered around a map that feels like a real place; there's very little "filler" you have to get through to reach them. It's more about learning your way around and figuring out how things work than battering your way through a linear series of trash room after trash room. You know what I mean?

So yes, I think that in general, maps are best when they are nonlinear and make sense in a "we live here" kind of way. A room with goblins that only connects to a room with bears that only connects to a room with orcs? How do the bears get out to hunt? Do the orcs have to fight bears every time they want to go talk to the goblins? Just have all three rooms open onto the main courtyard and let me figure out what's in which on my own; you don't have to drag me through them one by one.

- Puzzles spread over several floors (if 2D on actual different floors, if 3D clearly marked segments). Is this enjoyable or just annoying since you have to move around a lot? Or would it feel more thrilling to find a piece in the bottom of a dungeon with a note that hints at stuff seen in the beginning of the dungeon?

Again, if the map is "organic" as I tried to describe above, if I find a hint to another area, I should be able to get to that area pretty quickly to piece things together. If it's a more "linear" type of situation where I have to go through 50 rooms between puzzle pieces, then no. I will have forgotten about it by then. A good in-game journal can help me remember.

- Dead end corridors (as in somewhat long section to walk but no room/treasure attached at other end), do these feel annoying or would you say that these are natural in a dungeon setting, e.g. not completely built or whatever.

Sometimes dead ends can be great, as long as they are cosmetically interesting and make sense to the area. The original Thief was the first game I remember doing this right. A long corridor to a blank wall? Bad. A section that leads to a well-used but currently abandoned kitchen area? Great, cool, and there doesn't have to be treasure there either. Why would there be?

- How do you feel about auto mapping? Is it essential or just a hand holder? Does this depend on the dungeon type/complexity?

I love auto mapping. I do think that good, recognizable design is more important: the player should be able to look at the walls, furniture, etc. at any time and remember where he is. Having lots of different wall textures and cosmetic items and so forth is crucial for this. But an automap is a great friend to me in any RPG.

I DO think it's fun in RPGs to have character skills related to mapping. See Cartography in M&M3. Basic cartography for a simple 'graph paper' layout, and higher skill levels adding more details to the map such as fountains, locked doors, other map elements, etc.

- Teleports, should the use of these always be constrained to bonus/hidden content or could they be used for alternative paths (e.g. paths that benefits different skills). If the former , do you think alternative paths should always physically connect? Or do you not like alternative paths?

I think that teleports are stupid unless there is a REALLY good reason for having them (e.g. a wizard puts his treasure buried in a secret room hidden under 200 tons of stone). Learning my way around a space until I can "feel" my way through is fun - teleports that turn me around or screw with my senses are annoying and make me want to stop trying. Again, once in a while this is OK, if the evil wizard wants me to trap me with an illusion so I can't find the door that leads out any more, but this should be a challenging exception and not a basic rule. When I can't trust my own instincts in learning my way around, it's not fun and I end up just running around randomly until I trip over the way out. Pretty boring.


Hope that helps!

 

[felipepepe]

One of my favorite dungeons is from Generations XTH:

Spoiler

There are four entrances, each with a different logic. As you advance, you'll start to connect them together and unlock the central area. This means you have always more than one approach, making it less frustrating.