Dungeon Design Do's and Don'ts

[ArtBane]

I stopped playing Dark Cloud after the first boss. The randomly generated dungeons were far too dull to navigate. That usually is the problem with these type of dungeons. They look bland and lack the imaginative design of dungeons that were planned out. My recommendation would be to plan out your dungeons yourself and think of more creative ways to retrieve the key rather than just defeating a random monster. If you must have the monster with the key you can at least use hints to help the player track the monster down.

 

[KhaoticErase]

Hmmm... Thanks for the advice, but the total number of dungeon floors in my game is 61. That's 61 unique floors. NOT HAPPENIN'.

However, I may apply puzzles to certain floors. Maybe even make it so that when you defeat a monster, it tells you which direction the key is in. Maybe some riddles, some switches, multiple keys that only one of works, etc.

 

[Calibre]

Considering that rmxp battle engines are generally not as fun as commercial games, that would be my nightmare... I think it kinda did work for dark cloud/chronicle, but that was a 3D ABS, I prefer the PS1 era of FF / Wild arm dungeons, and find the FF12 dungeons boring...

 

[KhaoticErase]

Yeah well, that's 61 floors spread across 15 dungeons mind you. That's an average of only 4 floors a dungeon. And 21 of those floors are just small rooms with bosses and/or cutscenes. And 4 are just puzzle mazes. That leaves just 36 floors of monsters, with no more than 8 in any dungeon. Also, every floor will have a cutscene at the end, so I don't think it'll get boring.

 

[RobF]

INteresting thread.....some thoughts:

-I personally don't mind the default battle system of rmxp...as long you put some thought into your enemies and their subsequent means of defeat. I also (maybe it's just me) get more annoyed than impressed with alot of the various battle systems people put into their games.

-I can't stand random battles! I much prefer free-roaming events that represent the enemies. What I've done in my game is found a few "glowing orb"-type characters that I use to represent all of my enemies. It allows sooo much more freedom, plus a bit of the thrill of the chase as you try to make it off the map before the last enemy gets you. (another thing about using this instead of randomly generated battles is that you can set your enemies to run away from you once you reach a certain level or point in your game. So enemies you fought in your first dungeon actually flee from you when you've reached say.....level 20. Also, it makes it much easier to set up "kill counters" and then bestow things to your player as they slay more and more enemies, giving them more reason to sit through yet another battle.)

-When you go to dangerous places, expect dangerous things. However, what's really fun is to put dangerous things in not-so-dangerous places. I like to have a few enemies (such rabid dogs or even insane squirrels) running around my villages. Also, putting enemies inside houses (if done creatively) can be a big surprise to players. Try putting a monster in the baby's bed or under the sink.

 

[Calibre]

-I personally don't mind the default battle system of rmxp...as long you put some thought into your enemies and their subsequent means of defeat. I also (maybe it's just me) get more annoyed than impressed with alot of the various battle systems people put into their games..

Well, the main thing is balancing the battles and making them exciting, this isn't usually done with the default battles or any other systems, but I think a fresher system that gets that part right as well will be the best mix overall.

-I can't stand random battles! I much prefer free-roaming events that represent the enemies. What I've done in my game is found a few "glowing orb"-type characters that I use to represent all of my enemies.

Yeah I too considered using one charset for my enemies, or perhaps the colour of the orb could represent either difficulty or elemental status of an enemy. It's near impossible to find charsets to match all your non rtp enemies.

-When you go to dangerous places, expect dangerous things. However, what's really fun is to put dangerous things in not-so-dangerous places. I like to have a few enemies (such rabid dogs or even insane squirrels) running around my villages. Also, putting enemies inside houses (if done creatively) can be a big surprise to players. Try putting a monster in the baby's bed or under the sink.

That's something I wouldn't really like. When I play an rpg I'm glad that there are safe havens and to me villages are a different part of the game, unless battles are incorporated into the story or a cutscene, hidden bosses down wells and all that are fine too, just not enemies actually roaming on the map - for me anyway.

 

[RobF]

As for the enemies within villages...not every village, just a few. I dunno, I just like the carry-over feel that kinda helps break down the barrier between dungeon and village. I also like (usually through the occasional tent or hermit's house) putting NPC's within dungeons. One thing I've done in my game is to make a map with a river dividing in, the town is to the north and to the south is a woods infested with enemies. At the far south is a tent with a NPC you must talk to to advance. You use a jump event to hop across the river and it kinda helps blend the dungeon/village feel.

 

[ArtBane]

I feel we are getting a little off topic talking about battle systems and monsters in town. The one point I would like to discuss further is the method of presenting battles in dungeons. I also enjoy event triggered battles as they allow more freedom to the developer to control the rate of battles but lets not shrug off random battles either.

Since my game focuses on random battles I been trying to come up with ways to eliminate the tedium that is often associated with them. After talking to people I realized that a lot of the players would camp out near save points and fight around there to gain experience if they were having trouble proceeding in the game. This got me to thinking of perhaps making random battles more controlled. So maps that had save points on them became hot spots for battles while maps that were there for progressing through the dungeon had far fewer battles.

I have also tested with random battles mixed with events. There are points in my game where a battle could be triggered but there is a chance that it won't. If the battle is triggered then there is a chance that it could be a different encounter. This controlled randomness I think gives more value to the battle since the player directly or indirectly triggered it rather than had it come out of their ass. So there are more ways to go about doing random battles then just setting the encounters for the map.

I actually had a whole section about this in the original article but it didn't make it into the final. There are many different ways to handle encounters in dungeons and certainly would be interesting to explore more of them here.

 

[Calibre]

I think there has just been a wild arms script made that allows you to escape a battle in the dungeons on the map itself, without ever actually seeing it. If you were having standard random battles, I think that would be a great feature to use.

What I'm thinking about is how to have large maps populated with enemies with out A) Looking too sparce and not having enough encounters or B) Looking too crowded. I think most people just set an on screen enemy to erase after they are defeated, but instead I think there should be a shorter while, before they return, perhaps 200 frames. Then it's somewhere in between random battles and filed map enemies - in the way just because you have defeated them, they can still come back - however you can still see them.

Areas with hard puzzles should have no enemies, there is nothing more frustrating than running froms witch to switch back and forth with a battle every 2 seconds in between, especially when you have no clue how to solve the damn thing. That can turn a well thought out puzzle into a tiresome and tedious part of the game.

 

[Rhazdel]

Actually, Artbane, that is exactly what I do whenever I play a game with random encounters. I always power-level from a place of relative safety so that I can strong-arm my way through dungeons that I don't know what's coming, or think I might have to spend some time wandering around.

That can become a time-sucking chore, leaving me to constantly ask: "I wonder if I can easily survive the upcoming dungeon, yet..."

I think visible enemies on the map is a good idea (with Calibre's idea to have quick respawn times). Keep the players on their toes without jamming enemies down their throat.

Also, it's not hard to script an event before big bosses that checks player level, and if they are underleveled give them a warning of the upcoming difficult battle. That will just let the player know they need to level some more.

 

[ArtBane]

I think there has just been a wild arms script made that allows you to escape a battle in the dungeons on the map itself, without ever actually seeing it. If you were having standard random battles, I think that would be a great feature to use.

I almost feel like giving the player the option to escape before the battle even began would encourage people to avoid them. They no longer would see the monsters that they would have encountered so why risk it when they could just as easily avoid them? I am sure the script also has a chance to fail and in which you would begin the encounter but already your motivation for the battle has been weakned since your attempt to escape failed before it even began. I can see the advantages of this system but I am worried it would have negative impact on battles as well.

Also, it's not hard to script an event before big bosses that checks player level, and if they are underleveled give them a warning of the upcoming difficult battle. That will just let the player know they need to level some more.

Many a time I been asked what the recommended level is for bosses. I test my boss battles to make sure they are beatable even if the player is underleveled. I have talked to people who have actually beaten bosses way under the recommended level. It is an interesting idea to recommend a certain level the player should be for the boss but probably not necessary as long as they are still beatable if the player is under that level.

 

[Sol_Fury]

I almost feel like giving the player the option to escape before the battle even began would encourage people to avoid them. They no longer would see the monsters that they would have encountered so why risk it when they could just as easily avoid them? I am sure the script also has a chance to fail and in which you would begin the encounter but already your motivation for the battle has been weakned since your attempt to escape failed before it even began. I can see the advantages of this system but I am worried it would have negative impact on battles as well.

What the Wild Arms series did in this respect was to give you a set number of points - you could avoid a certain number of encounters (some encounters required more points than others) but if the points got too low, you were forced to fight. You regained your points by fighting battles. As you went through the game, you acquire items that raise your "Migrant Level" and fix it so certain encounters require less points to dodge, and some (usually ones in areas you've previously cleared where monsters are now a nuisence) can be freely cancelled without penalty.

It is a decent system, though I agree about it killing your motivation for fighting. I'm sure not every player is as combat mad as me, seeking out every last visible enemy for the extra practice (though I don't hang around and power level as I'll explain below)

Many a time I been asked what the recommended level is for bosses. I test my boss battles to make sure they are beatable even if the player is underleveled. I have talked to people who have actually beaten bosses way under the recommended level. It is an interesting idea to recommend a certain level the player should be for the boss but probably not necessary as long as they are still beatable if the player is under that level.

My personal ethos is to make a game where just by doing the dungeons and fighting every battle you end up at about the right level to handle any challenge - keeping extra levelling to a minimum. I dislike power levelling, though will probably make the ideal maybe one or two higher than the actual level so that people who do power level don't get too easy a ride. Sure, it doesn't make the main game all that tough, but that's what optional areas are for.

As regards puzzles, I personally like to put harder puzzles in "puzzle rooms" where there are either no encounters, or they're extremely rare, so the player's focus is on solving the puzzle, not on battles. In general, anything harder than throwing a bunch of switches I like to keep in puzzle rooms.

 

[Rhazdel]

It is an interesting idea to recommend a certain level the player should be for the boss but probably not necessary as long as they are still beatable if the player is under that level.

I totally agree. You should strive to balance your bosses as much as possible while still providing a challenge. But at the same time, while it may be totally possible to beat a boss while very underleveled, just a quick Player Touch event with a message like "I have a bad feeling about this..." or "Darkness looms up ahead. Are you sure you are ready?", just little verbal cues to inform the player and give them a chance to level up a little bit if you think they will have a hard time and they aren't hard to make, if you so choose.



Another option is to level your bosses. Create conditional based stat changes that increase boss stats for higher leveled players and lowers stats for underleveled players. This can help create a balance and even challenge those players that overleveled.

 

[KhaoticErase]

I totally agree. You should strive to balance your bosses as much as possible while still providing a challenge. But at the same time, while it may be totally possible to beat a boss while very underleveled, just a quick Player Touch event with a message like "I have a bad feeling about this..." or "Darkness looms up ahead. Are you sure you are ready?", just little verbal cues to inform the player and give them a chance to level up a little bit if you think they will have a hard time and they aren't hard to make, if you so choose.

100% agreed. I always give my players warnings whenever there's something big ahead, usually by placing a very noticeable save point.

And I don't have to worry about what characters MIGHT be at what levels because I KNOW what levels they'll be at. My game doesn't use EXP at all. You automatically gain a level upon fulfilling certain requirements, like defeating a boss. Some bosses, of course, will offer more levels than others.

My game is set up perfectly so that if you defeat all the bosses and complete all the side-quests, you will finish the game at Lv. 99!

 

[Grandor]

Excellent tutorial.

 

[blackiceadept]

Another option is to level your bosses. Create conditional based stat changes that increase boss stats for higher leveled players and lowers stats for underleveled players. This can help create a balance and even challenge those players that overleveled.

Didn't Seraph Sephiroth pull this stunt based on Cloud's level? Or was it the entire party's collective level? Either way its possible, but it would be annoying to make a variable just for that, maybe use it for something else like plot word changes or something.


Anyways, now that I'm done ranting. This thread has provided plenty of information for just about anyone in the RPG/Action-RPG genre of games, definitely a great thread with plenty of feedback.

 

[Kyoru]

About the "Give them a reason to come back" part. As I recall, only one game series has managed to make me visit "dungeons" a few times after beating it; Megaman.

I think it's the fact that "there are items which you can only get after attaining a variety of power" attracts players to return to them. I've noticed this with Lufia2 too. Although, the items were too subtle and somewhat unnoticable.

 

[ArtBane]

That section was actually more focused on how to make dungeons less of a chore during a second play through of a game. You are speaking more of the replayability of a dungeon. Having an item that is unattainable during the first playthrough of a dungeon is a pretty basic way of getting players to come back and extend gameplay time. Lots of RPG's have done it.

In the second arc of my project, people could return to dungeons to find more content had been added. There were short story tidbits that were not there before as well a secret boss battle and also events that would unlock a secret ending. There are many creative ways to give a player a reason to return to an old dungeon besides just items that were previously unattainable.

 

[KhaoticErase]

About the rule that states that there should be CS in the dungeon...

What if the main character is completely alone? Will monologue still make it interesting?

 

[Volrath]

What if the main character is completely alone? Will monologue still make it interesting?

I don't mean to butt into ArtBane's thread, but I do think you can work story into a dungeon even if said dungeon is being traversed by a solo player. Not just with monologue, cause that can get old if overused. You can have the character come across something that triggers a flashback....or have him meet other characters in the dungeon, even if they are not playable. Take a bit more creative thinking, but it's possible.