Rakket’s team-building games are browser games for 4 to 60 people in which a team submits one answer built out of what everybody did, so they cannot be played alone. Most team-building exercises are an activity with a debrief bolted on; here the teamwork is the mechanic.
Three of the games take the arithmetic mean of a team’s blind inputs, and each turns disagreement differently. Siege Party spends it on extra projectiles, so a team that argues fires grapeshot instead of one boulder. Putt Together turns it into a cone the real shot is sampled from. Tower Trouble simply eats it, and the tower leans.
Nobody has to explain why that matters afterwards, because the room watches it happen on the screen. Democracy Dash is the plainest version: a team votes each tick on which way to move, the majority direction wins, and a team that will not commit walks into a wall together.
The shared screen holds the thing the team is arguing about: the tower, the fairway, the maze. Without it a team is discussing something it cannot see.
Teams stay together for a whole match and across a whole ladder, so people learn how their team decides. Reshuffling every round measures nothing.
The first run is people finding out what the controls do. The second is the one where the team actually decides something, and it is the one worth watching.
The screen already showed everyone what happened. A team that would not commit walked into a wall in front of the room; nobody needs that explained back to them.
Each of these fails loudly when a team does not commit, which is the useful part.
Crazy golf for teams. Everyone drags a line blind: agree and you putt where you meant to, argue and the ball picks a line out of your cone.
Pick where the falling piece should land: the server averages your whole team into one placement.
Vote your team through a maze race. Majority rules, literally.
Three of these games take the plain mean of a team’s blind inputs, which sounds like a compromise and is actually a measurement. Nobody sees anybody else’s answer before it is submitted, so what lands on the screen is the team’s real distribution rather than whatever the loudest person talked everyone into.
What differs is what each game charges for disagreement. Siege Party spends it on extra projectiles, so an argument fires grapeshot instead of one boulder and sometimes wins by accident. Putt Together turns it into a cone the real shot is sampled from. Tower Trouble simply eats it and the tower leans. Same arithmetic, three different lessons about when consensus is worth the time.
No. One person opens the display and hands the room a code. The games explain themselves before the first scored round.
Team games keep the same teams for the whole match, and a tournament keeps them across every heat, so nobody is reshuffled mid-session.
Both. You compete between teams and cooperate inside one: the score is a team score, and a team that does not agree scores badly.
Half an hour covers three games including the explanations. An away-day slot of ninety minutes covers the whole catalogue comfortably.
Less than in a discussion. Inputs are submitted blind and counted equally, so the loudest voice in the room does not automatically become the team’s answer.
That is the case these are best at. The games need agreement about a picture on a screen rather than shared history, so a table of strangers is not at a disadvantage.
Send us the headcount, the room and the slot, and we will suggest an order of play.
Talk to us