One interesting thing about the puzzle this week was how it threw into sharp relief the problem solving strategies of my various players. Three of my players are definitely analytical thinkers; they saw the puzzle for a process that had a clear path to solution. They sat down and began running a logic grid immediately. This had two problems; it turned out that the way they were working was only practical for three or at most four people. As a result, Cameron, the most intuitive player in the group, was rather left out. After about half an hour, he began working the puzzle his own way; making a very intuitive analysis, using scraps and clues the party had learned about but that they wouldn't use on their logic grid because they feared going down an incorrect path. Cameron, on the other hand, used a more guess-and-check approach, forming a potential solution, and checking it against all the clues to try to determine a viable solution that matched all the constraints.
As it turned out, he was very close when the logic grid team finished their solution. I am sure that it would've been a near thing if they had started at the same time; I could easily believe that Cameron would've come to a solution first.
That said, rather than bringing the party together as I hoped, the puzzle split it more severely than any activity I've set them to yet. I need to carefully consider the intuitive/analytic gap before I throw another one at them.
No comments:
Post a Comment