How to choose a cooperative game for your team

Start with the objective, not the game

The most common mistake when picking a team-building activity is starting from "which one looks like the most fun?" instead of "what does my team actually need to practice?" Experiencia RPG's six cooperative games train different skills, and choosing well based on your real objective is what separates a session that produces change from one that's just a fun hour.

A quick guide by objective

If the problem is basic communication between roles or areas → Blind Operations. Five roles with information split between them that only move forward by precisely explaining what each person sees. Ideal for teams that just formed, or that notice "we didn't understand each other" friction in day-to-day work. We cover it in detail in our note on communication and asymmetric information.

If the problem is that areas don't share information with each other → Knowledge Files. Collaborative investigation, cross-referencing private evidence from different areas to reconstruct a root cause. Works really well when different departments work together but rarely dig into what the others know. See our full guide.

If the problem is that one area's decisions affect others without coordination → Dependency Network. Pure systems thinking: five interdependent areas, shared resources, chain-reaction consequences. Ideal for leadership teams prioritizing across departments. More in our note on systems thinking.

If the problem is how decisions get made under pressure → Crisis Room. A committee with confidential dossiers that has to decide in timed rounds when something goes wrong. Very useful for leadership teams that face strategic decisions often. More in our note on decisions under pressure.

If the problem is real-time coordination between highly specialized roles → Profundidad Silenciosa. A submarine crew where each station sees a different piece of the picture and phases chain together in real time. Ideal for technical teams with interdependent systems. More in our note on role coordination.

If the problem is that the team doesn't spot phishing attempts or verify odd requests through another channel → Firewall Humano. The team covers a shift with a shared inbox of emails, chats, texts and voice notes, with Inbox, Analyst and Context roles. Unlike the other five, it's our learning game: it has difficulty levels and gives a pass result per person. More in our note on learning to spot phishing by playing.

Questions to ask yourself before choosing

If you're not entirely sure which of the six problems best describes your team, these questions can help pin it down:

• Do meetings end with the feeling that "everyone understood something different"? → Blind Operations.
• When something goes wrong, does it take weeks to figure out why, because the explanation is scattered across areas? → Knowledge Files.
• Does one area speed up and unintentionally block another that depends on it? → Dependency Network.
• Does the leadership team discuss a lot but decide slowly under real pressure? → Crisis Room.
• Does the team run interdependent technical systems where a delay in one spot affects everything else in real time? → Profundidad Silenciosa.
• Has anyone on the team ever hesitated over a weird email and not been sure how to verify it? → Firewall Humano.

If more than one question rings true, that's fine: you can pick whichever game addresses the most urgent problem today and save the rest for future sessions. Most teams end up playing several of the six over the course of a year, each one focused on a different problem.

What if the team has different experience levels

Another variable to consider is difficulty. All six games let you adjust the challenge level, so a team with people of different seniority or experience can start at a more accessible level and raise the difficulty in later sessions, as the team's communication dynamic gets stronger. This is particularly useful for onboarding scenarios, where the first session should be a good experience rather than a frustration from too much difficulty.

Size and length matter too

The team-building games work with 4 to 20 people (Blind Operations and Profundidad Silenciosa up to 10), and run 15 to 90 minutes depending on the game and the difficulty chosen. Firewall Humano works with 1 to 12 people and runs 20 to 30 minutes. If you have a large team, most games let you split into several groups playing in parallel, each with its own match.

An example of how an organization might rotate through all six

A mid-sized company might plan its year like this: in January, Blind Operations sessions for teams forming after the end-of-year hires. Mid-year, ahead of a reorg, Dependency Network sessions so leadership teams feel the dependencies before making decisions. Ahead of a demanding launch season, Crisis Room to practice decisions under pressure. Whenever a tech area needs to work on real-time coordination, Profundidad Silenciosa. And ahead of a security-awareness push, Firewall Humano. There's no mandatory sequence — the idea is that each session responds to a real need at the time, not a fixed activity calendar.

You don't have to get it right the first time

No team needs to stick with a single game forever. Many organizations rotate through all six over the year, depending on which area they want to work on at any given moment: communication during onboarding, systems thinking ahead of a reorg, decisions under pressure ahead of a launch season, security awareness whenever it's due. You can see the full lineup of all six in the games section of the platform.

Try it before you gather the whole team

If you're not sure which one to pick, the fastest way to decide is to try it yourself first. Play any of the six in solo mode with bots: in 20 or 30 minutes you'll feel whether the mechanics fit what your team needs, before inviting anyone else. Once you know which one to pick, set up the full session from the platform.