The Two Most Important Principles of Level Design

Introduction

In this post, we take a look at what I consider to be the two most important principles of Level Design.

I should point out that I am being tongue in cheek here. I am such an amateur Level Designer and the discipline itself is so amorphous that it’s laughable that I would claim to know its most fundamental principles.

I nonetheless find it quite useful for myself, especially as a novice, to think in terms of general principles, and in my studies and reflections on Level Design over the years, I have consistently arrived at the following two principles which I think are core to the discipline.

Now here’s a caveat. I don’t claim that what I am about to present are metaphysical laws, analytical unpackings of concepts, or even prescriptions which should be adhered to by anyone other than myself. All I am doing here is presenting a pattern that I noticed in a lot of the Level Design that I like. By putting it into words, I hope that it will help me to internalize it and to craft levels more suited to my own aesthetic ideals. In some sense, I think that is precisely what art criticism aims to do: isolate in art that which one likes, abstract it into a principle, and then see how other work lives up to (or doesn’t live up to, or elaborates on) that principle. It’s pattern recognition, then measurement of other stuff according to the pattern.

In some sense, the principles that I am about to present are like the rules of thumb you might find being espoused by Stan Lee in “How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way” or Andrew Loomis in any of his figure drawing books. The kind of books that teach you in plain speak the rules of thumb, tricks, shortcuts, and pro tips of their respective disciplines. I’ve always been fond of that kind of presentation. Books that teach you the techne of the craft in question with pure economy of language and a healthy dose of humor.

So with that, let’s dive in.

The Principles

The two most important principles of Level Design are the following:

1. Principle of 3 or 4 Beat Progression

2. Principle of Alternation

If you want to be a Level Designer worth your salt, you should have these in your toolbelt. They are like your hammer and screwdriver (although maybe it would be better to compare them to blueprints and zoning laws).

Both of these principles can and should be applied constantly at all the granularities of Level Design. Whether you’re looking through a telescope at the macroscopic world (at the structure of a whole level), a magnifying glass at the mesoscopic world (at the structure of a self-contained section of a level), or a microscope at the microscopic world (at the structure of a level fragment or atomic beat), these principles apply.

Now I will explain the principles.

The Principle of 3 or 4 Beat Progression

I will assume that the notion of beat is understood. If it’s unfamiliar to you, I suggest checking out a Udemy course, Learn the ART of Level Design by Kevin Oxland.

The Principle of 3 or 4 Beat Progression is not unrelated to the Rule of 3, though it is less generic and superficial than that rule. The callout of “progression” is important. In the context of a level gimmick, the principle is simply that one should follow the structure of: (1) intro, (2) development, (3) harder development, and optionally, (4) twist/showcase/gauntlet.

At the macroscopic granularity of a whole level—and at the mesoscopic granularity of gimmick instances distributed within a level—this is essentially the Japanese Level Design philosophy of kishotenketsu, made famous by Koichi Hayashida of Nintendo. A level itself is structured as (1) intro, (2) development, (3) twist/showcase, and (4) conclusion. The distribution of gimmick instances within the level follows the same structure (often interlaced or blended w/ instances of other gimmicks).

One interesting thing to point out is how this principle is tied to the philosophy and aesthetics of narrative. It is not dissimilar from Walt Disney’s “story first” approach to theme park attraction design. After all, stories are commonly analyzed in terms of three beats (beginning, middle, end) or four beats (setup, rising action, crisis, and resolution). For all the credit Disney is given in terms of advancing Level Design principles via theme park attraction design (for example, principles of paths, weenies, foreshadowing, giving players option to pursue short term or long term goals, always having a reward at the end of a path even if it’s just a throwaway interaction, treating destinations as activities rather than mere spaces), I think this connection to narrative theory is underappreciated.

That the more specific 4-beat kishotenketsu structure is similar to Disney’s “story first” approach should be obvious—after all, kishotenketsu was, in its initial application, a narrative technique rather than a Level Design one. The player must go on a journey, they must have a progression of skill, a development of mastery; the development of successive, escalating instances of obstacles, enemies, and problems posed to a player is exactly that journey – this is the fundamental psychological crux of all game design; it could be the single most important thing for one to understand as a Level Designer.

I believe that any succession of challenges that follows this pattern will be fun in some sense. Anything presented in this way is inherently fun because it involves the player going on a natural journey. It is satisfying in a similar way as the story, but probably more intimately since there is a higher degree of participation on part of the person experiencing the art.

One can even draw an analogy between conclusions like the flagpole challenges in Mario games or the ring-the-bell style challenge at the end of Donkey Kong Country games and a denouement or epilogue in literature.

Now that we’ve explained the principle and given some armchair musings around it, let’s discuss some secondary points about it.

There are a few rules of thumb concerning the Principle of 3 or 4 Beat Progression.

1. The intro and first development beat are typically back to back. Rarely would you space out an intro and an initial development, unless it’s a larger, special gimmick (for example, the giant flowers in DKCR 1-1, which only occur in two beats)

2. The progression from intro to first development is milder than the progression from first to second development.

That’s it for the Principle of 3 or 4 Beat Progression. Now it’s time to look at the second principle.

Principle of Alternation

The Principle of Alternation holds that the most effective way to keep a player engaged is to alternate between two modalities.

Common alternations include:

1. stressed / unstressed

2. action / exploration (or action / puzzle solving, or even sometimes puzzle solving / exploration)

3. challenge / reward

4. timed challenges / leisurely go-at-your-own pace gameplay

5. interior / exterior

6. free flow / bottleneck

7. constant forward progress / stop and go

8. compression / release

9. narrow / wide

10. more generally, any 2 contrasting topologies (for example, ground & gaps, or islands & bridges)

11. inner flow / outer flow

If the first principle was related to the aesthetics of narrative, the second is more akin to the aesthetics of formal, metrical, poetry. We even speak of “stessed” vs. “unstessed” and this is less metaphorical  than you may think.

Consider how the iamb (which is just the poet’s term for an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable) is pleasing to the ear, and even more pleasing when strung together, as in a line of iambic pentameter (five iambs back to back).

In fair verona where we lay our scene…

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

At the microscopic level, you actually get naturally occurring transitions between action-orientated beats (for example, combat or tricky traversal) simply in virtue of the connective geometry of your level. Just consider, for example, a gap with two platforms spanning it. There is what is essentially a limit-case of alteration: ground, gap, ground, gap, ground.

At the mesoscopic level you get naturally occurring transitions as larger transitional areas between more action oriented sections.

For example, consider this progression of scenarios in a level:

1. gap

2. two gaps back to back

3. a gap w/ a timed hazard in it

The space between each of these situations is a natural and automatic counterpoint to the situations themselves, and it exists simply in virtue of the fact that the sections butt against each other thereby producing middle ground.

In short, this alternation is cheap and automatic, as stress free transitional moments exist naturally simply because of the existence of physical transitions between stressful situations. This should go some way toward justifying the Principle of Alternation, at least in the setting of character-driven 2D or 3D action or platforming games, albeit as a kind of a priori precondition of any Level Design at all.

But of course this cheap a apriori alternation is not the only kind. Take a look at almost any game in any genre and you will begin to see alternation everywhere, at every level of granularity. For example, in the core minute-to-minute gameplay loop, in the meta loop, in the topology of levels, and so on.

For example, in a mobile puzzle game, you might alternate between puzzles themselves and reward sequences, and in many other mobile games, in general, the player alternates between the inner and outer flow, with the outer flow now being a key aspect of the experience, whether it involves strategic thinking and management or simply tapping on UI elements to produce dopamine-inducing doobers.

Now that we’ve explained this principle and given yet more armchair musings around it, let’s discuss some secondary points about it.

There are a few rules of thumb concerning the Principle of Alternation.

The first is to Use Occasional Surprise/Variety To Break Up Monotony of Alternation.

To make pure alternation less monotonous, Level Designers designing levels for character-driven 2D and 3D games will often have one or two unique set pieces/wow moments peppered in each level. The analogy in metrical poetry would be an unexpected break in meter or unexpected rhyme, used sparingly but effectively to break up the monotony and surprise the reader.

This occasional surprise can also take the form of secondary or tertiary gameplay (for example, the bonus stages in DKC are focused on minigames or collection) and are often optional or low stakes.