I kept no notes so here's my rough summary. The President (Brian) was elected unanimously and named a Secretary of Defense (Brenna), Chief of Staff (Steve) and Attorney General (me). We argued about how to respond to a terrorist attack on American soil getting new information every 20 minutes. By design, the game ended after an hour of gametime and the President had to decide what to do.

We talked a little bit about the game and what we liked. The biggest detracting point was having a "winner" which seems anathema to story games (glares at Shooting the Moon). Having hidden agendas was really cool but I'm with Steve that I've liked better if something was in place to make sure agendas (1) conflicted and (2) had relevance (my "conservation" was just kind of along for the ride).

One change I think I would make if making no others would, instead of just having agendas, weight them. The assigned agenda would be most important and the ones you pick would be assigned to slots (e.g. "weight-3," "weight-2" and "weight-1"). At the end when calculating effects of ups and downs, getting an up on your weight-4 agenda (that you support) would be four points; on your weight-3, three points; &c.

Also, I don't think any of us really understood how assertions were supposed to work so they just kind of hung out there as not really part of our game but it seems like if we'd understood them better, they could've been an interesting part of the game. Maybe it was just that this scenario didn't lend itself to them or maybe we didn't think big enough (e.g. by not asserting there would or would not be additional attacks).