Escape Room - ITU LAN Spring 2023

In spring 2023 I designed and built a set of physical puzzles for the escape room held during the ITU LAN event. Working with a small team, I was responsible for concepting, prototyping, and iterating on two of the room's puzzles using my 3D printer, running a pre-event test with players and implementing changes based on their feedback before the room opened to participants on the day.

My responsibilities:

  • Designed puzzle concepts and mechanics fitting the escape room's overall structure and narrative

  • Prototyped physical puzzle components using 3D printing, iterating on tolerances and fit across multiple print runs

  • Participated in a pre-event playtest, observing player behaviour and collecting feedback

  • Implemented design changes based on playtest findings before the live event

  • Monitored and supported puzzle operation across all teams on the day, including real-time problem solving when a component broke mid-event

Design issue examples

Issue 1 - Player guidance in the invisible labyrinth

Result:

The hint system worked across all subsequent teams. Players engaged with the overlay more confidently and the puzzle functioned as intended as a lead-in to the final cryptex box.

Problem:

The labyrinth puzzle required players to move a magnetic ball through a hidden maze, noting which numbers it passed and in what order. Early test players had the overlay and the ball but did not understand they were allowed to mark on it, and were not picking up on the non-magnetic pen placed on top as a hint.

Solution:

I added several pre-drawn walls to the paper overlay, both to reduce the coldness of the blank starting state and to signal more clearly that marking was permitted. The pen was kept in place as a secondary hint. Room monitors were also briefed to offer a verbal nudge to any team that had not reached that conclusion after a reasonable amount of time.

Issue 2 - Component durability under real event conditions

Result:

The final three teams were able to complete the full room experience without knowing anything had gone wrong. The contingency margin built into the design absorbed a real-world failure without affecting the event.

Problem:

Physical puzzles operated by many different teams across a full day carry wear and handling risks that are difficult to fully anticipate in prototyping. One of the cryptex pin columns was broken by a team being heavier-handed than expected, mid-event.

Solution:

During the design phase I had chosen to build the cryptex with four columns while only using three for the actual puzzle, keeping the fourth as a spare. When the column broke, a quick repair with instant glue and a rotation of the box to place the repaired column in the unused position allowed the room to continue running without interruption.

Lessons learned

Getting 3D printing tolerances right requires iterative testing across smaller components before committing to a full print. That process maps directly to how I approach game and level design, testing the smallest useful version first, then scale up once the fundamentals hold.

Designing for players you have not yet observed requires assumptions about how they will behave. The playtest revealed those assumptions quickly, and the changes made as a result were straightforward once the actual behaviour was visible. The reminder that players need permission as well as possibility, not just the tools to do something, but a clear signal that they are allowed to, is one I carry into every design context.