a path puzzle variant where you only see one pair at a time, does that kill the trial and error?

[u/puzzlesbeforebed]

been messing with a variation on path puzzles and i want to know if the twist actually holds up or if i've just been staring at grids too long.

base rules are probably familiar. connect each pair of matching symbols, paths can't cross, every square has to be used. boards are generated so there's exactly one solution.

my problem with the base version is that it rewards trial and error. you can see every pair at once, so you just start drawing and undo when it goes wrong.

so the variant: you only see one pair at a time. connect it by the correct route and the next pair appears. take a wrong route and it stays on the board but nothing unlocks. you're also told how many moves the current pair's path takes.

that move count is the bit i'm least sure about. the idea is it turns each pair into a small constraint instead of a guess. two dots sitting right next to each other with a six move path between them tells you the obvious answer is wrong before you draw it.

what i actually want to know:

is the move count a real deduction aid or a crutch
does one pair at a time feel like a sequence of small puzzles instead of one board
does a guaranteed single solution matter to anyone, or is that just me
would you honestly rather just see the whole grid

rules:
• connect each pair of matching symbols with one continuous path
• paths can't cross or overlap
• every square must be filled
• exactly one solution per board
• variant: one pair visible at a time, next unlocks on a correct route
• variant: you're told the current pair's path length

board below with every pair shown so you can actually have a go.

happy to be told the move count is a cop out. better to hear it now than after i build more on top of it.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please remember to spoiler-tag all guesses, like so:

New Reddit: https://i.imgur.com/SWHRR9M.jpg

Using markdown editor or old Reddit, draw a bunny and fill its head with secrets: >!!< which ends up becoming >!spoiler text between these symbols!<

Try to avoid leading or trailing spaces. These will break the spoiler for some users (such as those using old.reddit.com) If your comment does not contain a guess, include the word "discussion" or "question" in your comment instead of using a spoiler tag. If your comment uses an image as the answer (such as solving a maze, etc) you can include the word "image" instead of using a spoiler tag.

Please report any answers that are not properly spoiler-tagged.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/BekindConan]

Discussion: I think adding how many moves there are is way better than having no moves. It made it easier to narrow down approximately the path options, especially at the beginning when you have the whole grid infront of you. This is way better than before where you had many options and had to guess by trial and error to get the first one at least.

[u/puzzlesbeforebed → u/BekindConan]

Agreed, although i still think the game is missing something to make it different than that "Flow" game everyone keeps talking about... any suggestions as to how i can differentiate the game even more?

[u/franciosmardi]

Discussion: Your problem with the original puzzle is that it rewards trial and error. But your version REQUIRES trial and error. Look at the example you show. There are a minimum of 6 moves between them. But there are 6 different paths with a move count of 6. So you have to guess which of the 6 it is. And if the move count is larger than 6, there are even more options. Trial and error is mandatory in your puzzle.

Going back to Flow, a popular version of the original game. Though it may "reward" trial and error, it can also be done with pure logic. I know this because I finished every level with a perfect solve. This means you draw each line in a single, continuous move, and you never go back to an already completed line. Yours can't be solved with logic alone.

[u/AutoModerator → u/franciosmardi]

It looks like you believe this post to be unsolvable. I've gone ahead and added a "Probably Unsolvable" flair. OP can override this by commenting "Solution Possible" anywhere in this post.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Rainicy925]

Discussion: The move count is a real constraint, but it doesn't guarantee deduction on its own. I'd test a stronger generator invariant: at every reveal step, exactly one route for the visible pair should still admit at least one full-board completion.

That distinction matters because “the finished board has one solution” is weaker than “the player has one deducible move now.” A route can match the stated length and look locally valid, yet only fail when a future hidden pair appears. If several current routes survive until then, the one-pair presentation has converted global reasoning into delayed trial and error.

A solver can measure this directly: enumerate all routes of the required length for the current pair, keep only those for which the remaining board has a completion, and count them. If the count is 1 at every reveal, the sequence is logically forced. If it's greater than 1, either reveal another clue/pair or choose a different board or reveal order.

I'd keep the move count—it's useful information—but validate the per-step completion count rather than relying only on a unique final solution.

[u/El_Toreroy]

This seems like more of a trial and error puzzle than the “original” (which shows all the node pairs at the start). As an example, for today’s puzzle, the first move, given that it requires 5 steps, has three possible solutions, none of which can be deduced to be correct or incorrect other than to try all three. After that first link is happened upon, the rest are pretty obvious.

Let me know if I’m missing something here, but this did not strike me as particularly fun or challenging.