THE COMPLETE SECRETS AND

STRATEGIES
LEADER'S GUIDE
by
Burdick and Burnstein, copyright @ 2001
Npro1@ziplink.net
(617-738-9300)

INTRODUCTION
Secrets and Strategies, formerly "On the Same Plane", is both an easy-to-learn
framework for successful group problem solving and a very enjoyable game for teaching
players how to use the framework in their professional and everyday lives. "The Complete
Secrets and Strategies Leader's Guide" was written for any leader, teacher, trainer,
manager, fund-raiser or dinner host who might be interested in playing Secrets and
Strategies, the game. This guide includes: 1.an overview of the game and the problemsolving framework it teaches; 2.a step-by-step description of how to set up and run the
game; 3. suggestions for different ways to use the game, such as team building, fundraising and brainstorming retreats; and 5. a booklet of strategies for how to play the game
that can be given to players.

AN OVERVIEW OF
SECRETS AND STRATEGIES
First, Secrets and Strategies is a framework for solving real group problems
more creatively and more effectively. The framework is easy for you to teach, easy for
your players to learn and easy to use in a wide variety of situations in which two or more
people need each other's help to satisfy their own interests.
Second, Secrets and Strategies is a scoreable, competitive game by which the
framework is taught and learned. Players play the game to solve different Challenges
that test their ability to use the framework in different situations. In other words, you use
the game to teach this problem solving to others.
The game uses the metaphor of a plane of players flying around the world in sixty
minutes attempting to reach a unanimous agreement about how to solve the problem they
share before they land (or crash). The players are asked to fly around the world in seven
distinct legs that represent the seven strategies of the framework. The time to play the
game can easily be adjusted to accommodate your schedule. We will describe how you can
make these adjustments later. This section assumes your players are taking the sixtyminute flight. Here is how this trip looks.

During the flight the players in role are presented with a Challenge that they all
have an interest in solving. The game can address an unlimited number of multiparty
Challenges, e.g. planning a wedding, avoiding a strike, escaping an earthquake or
cleaning up a toxic waste site. We currently have over forty Challenges. Each
Challenge includes different roles for players to play in the challenging situation. For
instance, "Surviving a Plane Crash" portrays the players as the only survivors of a plane
crash in a remote part of central Alaska who have to negotiate a survival plan to which
they can all agree. The players each get the common "Challenge" card and a private
"Secrets" card which describes their role and gives them confidential information about
their interests, their standards of fairness, their knowledge of the situation and their
alternatives. In "Surviving a Plane Crash", the roles include the co-pilot, a nurse, a doctor,
a teacher, a fisher, a contractor, a homemaker, a sales person, a flight attendant and a
soldier. Each player earn Points toward winning the game when the unanimouslyapproved final agreement includes terms they value according to their "Secrets" card.
Secrets and Strategies capitalizes on the classic tension created by trying to
advance individual and group goals at the same time. The goal of the group in the game
is to unanimously agree to the most valuable overall solution to the Challenge before
they land. The goal of each individual player is to persuade the others to agree to the most
valuable solution for their role. Any agreement is worth something to each player, but
some agreements are more valuable than others. The player's goal is to get the most
valuable agreement for him or herself and for the group. The key to playing the game
successfully is figuring out how to fulfill both goals at the same time, an essential
skill for living in any democratic organization or society.
The sixty-minute version of the game requires the players to solve the Challenge
by working cooperatively together during the seven legs of their round-the-world flight.
Here are the seven legs or problem solving strategies.
1. "Introductions" (1 minute each): On the first leg called "Introductions", each
player has one minute to strategically introduce him or herself to the other players while
the plane flies to Europe.
2. "Group Planning" (5 minutes): During the second leg called "Group
Planning" the plane flies for five minutes to Asia, where the players list the "issues" they
want to address during the game and decide on the ground rules that will govern the way
they will work together while in the air.
3. "Clue Sharing" (10 minutes): During the third leg called "Clue Sharing", the
plane flies to Australia where for ten minutes the players strategically exchange the
confidential information on their Secrets cards, carefully weighing what to disclose,
what to withhold and what to ask the others.
4. "Matching Up" (5 minutes): During the fourth leg called "Matching Up", the
plane flies to Africa where for five minutes, players identify the common ground they
share by matching up their shared interests, their shared standards of fairness, their shared
facts and their shared alternatives.

5. "Brainstorming" (10 minutes): During the fifth leg called "Brainstorming",

the plane climbs higher while flying to Antarctica for ten minutes as the players find
creative options they might be able to use to improve the value of their solution to the
Challenge.
6. "Bargaining" (10 minutes): During the sixth leg called "Bargaining", the
plane begins its long descent toward the Finish Line flying over South America for ten
minutes. Proposals for solutions to the Challenge are exchanged in search of the most
valuable overall outcome that meets the needs of all the players adequately and each
individual player as well as possible.
7. "Finalizing" (10 minutes): During the final ten minute leg of the flight called
"Finalizing", the plane passes over North America in preparation for landing. The players
scramble to fasten their seat belts and to make sure the terms of the final agreement are
clear, acceptable to everyone and as valuable as they can be before landing.
Scoring and Debriefing After the game is over, if a unanimous agreement was
reached before time ran out, the players add up their individual Points by comparing the
terms of the agreement with the Points on their Secrets cards. The Winner is the player
who earned the most Points from the terms of the final agreement. The game is designed
to reward players for getting more than their "bottom lines". If they agree to a solution
that does not meet at least their "bottom line", they can't win. They earn Points for what is
actually included in the final solution to the Challenge, and not necessarily for how well
they performed during the game. However, their performance should make a significant
difference to the outcome if they played the game skillfully.

A STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION FOR

SETTING UP AND RUNNING THE GAME
STEP 1: Select the Challenge You Want to Play.
There are many Secrets and Strategies Challenges. The current list is in the
Appendix. Each Challenge has a "Challenge" card like the one from "Not In My
Backyard" in Figure 1 that describes the common problem the players face and the
different roles which the players can play. Each player gets his or her own confidential
"Secrets" card like the one from "Finding Buried Treasure" in Figure 2 which describes
who the player is and what he or she cares about during the game.

Figure 1

NOT IN MY BACKYARD
by
Burdick and Burstein, copyright 1997
Npro1@ziplink.net

The Challenge: You are all members of a Select Committee of interested parties asked by
the Zoning Board to respond to a request by General Services Corp. (GSC) for permission
to operate a transfer station for the transportation of solid waste to the site of the old
Rogers junk yard near Ball Square just off of Broadway. The solution you are seeking is
the best response to this proposal which best meets the interests of the all the parties most
affected. A transfer station is a place where rubbish is brought by truck to be compacted
and transferred to larger trucks and then transported to solid waste sites, in this case in the
western part of the state. This site has been unused for five years. It had been the location
of the Rogers Auto Junk Yard for over fifty years, and a target of environmentalists who
suspect many years of hazardous waste disposal of antifreeze, motor oil, gasoline, used
tires and other petroleum products. It borders a working class residential neighborhood in
Somerville composed mostly of multi-family houses, Amtrak train tracks, and a light
industrial park of small, relatively clean, manufacturing firms occupying three older
manufacturing plants. Your job as a group is to decide whether or not GSC should get the
variance that would permit it to use this site as a transfer station. If the answer is a
conditional "yes", you must then decide two issues:
The Players: The Players for this game include the President of the Somerville Chamber
of Commerce, the President of GSC, the President of the Ball Square Residents'
Association, the Somerville Chief of Public Safety, the Chair of the Somerville Board of

Health, the Mayor of Somerville, the Commissioner of the State Department of

Environmental Protection, and the President of Somerville Trash Company, (STC).
The Issues:

1. How much money will be spent on the site?

2. What limits will be placed on the operation of the site?

The Alternative: You should be aware that if you can't reach a unanimous agreement, the
Zoning Board will feel free to decide what it thinks is best without you.

Figure 2

INTERIOR'S SECRETS
Your Personality Profile: You are the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
You are an aggressive, successful business person who likes to take charge and get things
done, regardless of who you might offend.
Your Interests: You are interested in supporting any development project that
enhances the President's political ambitions, which means he must be able to take credit
for the outcome.
Your Standards of Fairness: You will do whatever is legal to get what you want.
Your Facts: Your agency is responsible for protecting the coastal waters of the
United States. Your jurisdiction includes all commercial activities on the beaches of
islands like Daufuskie Island off the southeastern coast of South Carolina. You also
represent the interests of the President of the United States who is running for office
again. The President is very anxious to portray himself as a skillful pro business/pro
environment leader. He sees the Daufuskie Island treasure hunt project as a wonderful
opportunity to demonstrate his ability to balance these two important interests and is
committed to supporting it with up to $5,000,000 in development money as long as it
furthers his political needs.
Your Alternative: You will do everything within your power to prevent this
project from happening if it appears to undermine your and the President's political goals.

Your Bottom Line: You will only vote "yes" for a final agreement which is
approved by the Hilton Head Developers and SOS and allows the President to take some
public credit for brokering the final deal.
Your Points: You will earn the following Points from the terms of the final
agreement:
1. 100 points for every $1,000,000 up to $5,000,000 the other parties will agree
to let you pay to support the long term project;
2. 1000 points if the other parties will agree that the President of the United
States was primarily instrumental in bringing this deal about;
3. 100 points for every realistic, creative idea actually included in the final deal
which furthers the environment protection interests of this region for which the President
can claim credit, regardless of whose idea it was.
STEP 2: Decide How Many Groups Will Play The Challenge And Where
They Will Play.
Most Challenges come with 8 roles in addition to the Team Leader. Some have
less. You need to decide how many groups you want to play the Challenge at the same
time. This decision may depend on the space available to play. The ideal setting is a small,
quiet room with a black or white board, or an easel, to write down roles, secrets, ground
rules, brainstormed options and proposals. Chairs should be moveable so players can
reorganize their space if they want to.
The playing of the game can get noisy and distracting. Having private space is
desirable, but noise doesn't seem to be a major obstacle to playing. We have successfully
played the game in less than desirable space many times. We have seen it work well with
four groups of sixth graders sitting around tables in the same classroom without black
boards. The Team Leaders helped keep the noise level down and took notes that they
shared with their own groups.
The ideal size for brainstorming is supposed to be 7 people. We have seen groups
as large as 11 work well together and as small as 4. We have seen as many as 4 groups of
6 players each in a traditional classroom play the game successfully. Each group sat
around a table on which they could write down ideas and take notes.
Each Challenge is designed so that some roles are less crucial to the play than
others in the event fewer than the ideal complement of players is available. We have
indicated the most dispensable roles in the description of the Challenges found in
Appendix. You can also assign more than one player to important roles.
STEP 3: Select The Team Leaders Who Will Lead Each Group Of Players
Through the Seven Legs Of The Game.

The game uses mediators to assist the other players in working together during the
seven legs. There are two ways this is done. First, you or the players can select a Team
Leader who does not get a Secrets card, but instead gets a "Team Leader's Plan" (See
Figure 3.) and who remains a non-partisan guide throughout the playing of the game. The
Team Leader is like a mediator in a multiparty negotiation whose job it is to help the
players come up with the best overall solution to the Challenge in sixty-minutes.
For first time players, the Team Leader's role is often critical to the group's
success. The Team Leader in effect teaches the other players how to play the game well as
it is being played. Time allowing, you may ask the Team Leaders to learn the rules of the
game ahead of time to enhance their ability to help teach the other players how to play. If
you have the time, you should coach the Team Leaders about the critical strategies to help
their groups. The "Team Leader's Plan" is a useful guide for what Team Leaders should
do during the game. Once you have seen the game played at least one time, you will
become more comfortable helping them play their role. We recommend picking your
natural leaders to be the Team Leaders the first time you play the game. Later we
recommend sharing this responsibility among all your players. An alternative is for
the teachers or trainers to play the role of Team Leaders. This gives teachers
greater control over how the Challenge will be experienced by the players and
insures that all players will participate to some degree. For instance, Teacher/Team
Leaders can steer the discussion to certain issues or topics they want their players to
consider. They can also call on the other players to insure more equal participation.

Figure 3
THE TEAM LEADER'S PLAN
You are responsible for your group's success. While each of the players has
confidential instructions to do the best he or she can for their role, your job is to help
the whole group work well to reach the best solution to the common Challenge to
which they can all agree. Here is how you fulfill your responsibility.
PREPARATIONS: Make sure everyone understands what is about to
happen. If they haven't had enough time to read their materials, let them so do now.
WHEN THEY ARE READY TO PLAY, ANNOUNCE THE DEADLINE. In the
sixty-minute version of the game, it will be one hour from the time you begin.
1. INTRODUCTIONS: (1 minute each) Invite each player, one at a time, to
introduce him or herself to the group for one minute. You can decide what order to
ask players to introduce themselves, or you can do it randomly by going around the
group in a circle. Ideally, the players should tell the others what role they are
playing in the game and about what they want regarding solving the Challenge.
Keep track of time and keep them moving on schedule. After listening to the
Introductions, you should try to summarize what the players appear to have in
common.
2. GROUP PLANNING: (5 minutes) For the next five minutes lead a
discussion of what issues the players feel they must address during the game in order
to reach a solution and the ground rules they want to use when playing the game.
Examples of ground rules include: a "no interruption" rule, a "no sarcasm" rule, a
"no lying" rule or an "everyone gets to contribute" rule. Be sure to keep track of
time.
3. CLUE SHARING: (10 minutes) For the next ten minutes lead a discussion
of what information the players want to share from their confidential Secrets
cards. They can ask each other questions, but the most efficient use of the group's
time is for you to go to a black board or use newsprint to record a list of all their
important interests that must be satisfied by the final solution and all the important
confidential facts they know about the situation they are in. Be sure to keep track of

time. There is almost never enough time to share all the clues. Accept this fact and
move on.
4. MATCHING UP: (5 minutes) For the next five minutes, try to summarize
at the board or on newsprint what the players appear to have in common, i.e. their
shared interests, their shared standards of fairness or their shared factual
assumptions about the dilemma they face. Ask the players for additional ideas and
whether they agree with your summary. Be sure to keep track of time.
5. BRAINSTORMING: (10 minutes) For the next ten minutes, lead a
"brainstorming" session for creative options that might later be included in the final
solution to the Challenge. Try to get the players to suggest ideas without judging
them first. Don't let the players judge each other's ideas until the list is complete.
Assure them that they will get to judge these ideas later. Write their ideas where
everyone can see them. Be sure to keep track of time.
6. BARGAINING: (10 minutes) For the next ten minutes, lead a
"bargaining" session in which players start to present their proposals for the final
agreement. Try to include their best brainstorming ideas to improve the proposals
and move the players toward common ground on which they may all be able to
agree. Ask them to take a minute to review their brainstormed ideas before
bargaining. Be sure to keep track of time.
7. FINALIZING: (10 minutes) For the final ten minutes, try to pin down
exactly what the players have agreed to and push them to reach an agreement they
can all live with before time runs out. Check to see how close they are to an
agreement at the beginning of this leg. Only those provisions to which everyone has
agreed before the deadline can be used to compute a player's score. You must be
satisfied that everyone has agreed to that provision or it can't be included in the
score. You can also try to improve the solution at no one's expense before time runs
out. Be sure to keep track of time. They must have a unanimous agreement before
the deadline for anyone to win.
8. SCORING AND DEBRIEFING: If the players reach an agreement they
all vote "yes" for before the deadline, they are eligible to "win". The player with the
most points at the end of the game is the Winner. Players can earn Points toward
winning by comparing the terms of the final agreement with the Points on their
Secrets card. They earn Points regardless of whose idea it was that was included
in the final agreement. Once each player has computed his or her score, you should
have each one tell the rest of the group: 1. his score, 2. his "bottom line" and 3.what
they claim to have earned Points for. You are the final judge if there is a dispute
about whether a player legitimately earned the Points he or she is claiming.
STEP 3A: If You Don't Want To Use Team Leaders, You Can Share The
Leadership Of The Group By Distributing 8 "Boarding Passes".
Once players know how the game works, you can eliminate the Team Leader's role
and assign responsibility to individual players for each of the seven legs of the game. This

is done using the game's 8 "Boarding Passes" (See Figure 4.) which can be randomly
distributed until all 8 Passes are dealt. You may also decide to pick who gets which
Boarding Pass. The use of the Boarding Passes can create some very amusing
strategic problems for certain players and excellent debriefing opportunities for you. For
instance, there is a Boarding Pass for "Security". Security is responsible for keeping
the team spirit and general trust level up. However, some roles are designed to be
divisive. In "Stopping the Fighting" the role of T-Ball is the least sympathetic to an
agreement. T-Ball is instructed to be hostile. A player with the role of T-Ball who also
gets the Security Boarding Pass will find himself in a real dilemma. Does he work for
the group or for himself? While this dilemma isn't always realistic, it is often very funny
and raises everyone's awareness of the tension between individual success and group
success. We recommend having the Boarding Passes distributed randomly until
every Boarding Pass is gone. If you have fewer than 8 players, some players will get
more than one Pass.

Figure 4

"BOARDING PASSES"
THE GREETER
You are responsible for: 1. beginning the Introductions leg of the game by introducing yourself
first; 2. inviting the others to introduce themselves for one minute each in whatever order you chose; 3. and
summarizing what the players appear to have in common when everyone else is finished.

SECURITY
You are responsible for watching the trust level of the players throughout the game and stopping the
action, if necessary, to ask the players to work in a more cooperative manner with each other.

THE CO-PILOT
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through Group Planning leg of the game;
2. getting the players to list all the issues they think must be addressed before an agreement can
be reached; 3. having players set additional ground rules for the game; and 4. keeping track of the time to
insure that the players are on schedule for the rest of the game. Use a black board if you have one.

THE DETECTIVE
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Clue Sharing leg of the game;
2. getting the players to list all the important interests they have that must be satisfied by the solution
and all the important, hidden facts from the players' Secrets cards. Use a black board if you have one.

THE MATCH MAKER

You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Matching Up leg of the game:
2. getting the players to list all the common ground they share including their shared standards
of fairness, common interests and common facts. Use a black board if you have one.

THE INVENTOR
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Brainstorming leg of the game; and
2. getting the players to generate a list of creative ideas that they may be able to use to solve the Challenge.
DON'T LET THEM CRITICIZE THE BRAINSTORMED IDEAS YET. Use a black board if you have one.

THE BROKER
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Bargaining leg of the game:
2. encouraging the players to cooperatively put together a package of options that satisfies everyone's
interests adequately and fairly. Use a black board if you have one.

THE CLOSER
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Finalizing leg of the game:
2. motivating the players to reach an agreement before the deadline that meets everyone's needs
adequately and fairly; 3. looking for ways to improve the overall value of the solution to the
group; and 4. leading the scoring and debriefing session once the game is over, if the players reach
a unanimous agreement. Use a black board if you have one.

STEP 4: Decide How Much Time You Want To Spend Playing The Game.
You should feel comfortable adjusting the timing for setting up, playing and
debriefing the game to fit your needs. There are many ways in which the game can be
played, depending on your time and interests.
The basic game takes sixty-minutes to play from the beginning of Introductions
to the end of Finalizing. In addition, you will need time for explaining and distributing
materials before the game begins, and time for scoring and debriefing the game after it is
over. We have found that a total of three hours is the ideal amount of time for
setting up, playing and debriefing the game for the first playing of it, particularly
when players have not had time to read the materials in advance. However, we
realize that you may not have three hours. If you are a teacher, we know that you may
have to fit the game into forty to fifty minute class periods. We have some suggestions for
those of you who may have less flexibility for when or how long to run the game.
Some teachers have used the following sequence. They will use a portion of one
class to describe the structure and rules of the game and to distribute the materials. They
will use all of a second class to play and score the game. They will use a third class,
usually very soon after the game is played, to debrief it and to have players exchange
feedback. Using this approach, the game is played in less than sixty-minutes. The teacher
can shorten the times allotted for each of the seven legs as follows:
Introductions
Group Planning
Clue Sharing
Matching Up
Brainstorming
Bargaining
Finalizing
Scoring
Total

8 minutes (1 minute per player)

2 minutes
5 minutes
2 minutes
10 minutes
10 minutes
3 minutes
10 minutes
50 minutes

Some games can and probably should be played over a much longer period. For
instance, "Lords of the Islands" is an opportunity to design a society's constitution. It
could take a whole semester to play, some of which would be conducted in class, and
some, outside of class. You could sequence the 7 legs in a variety of ways. An example
might be to use portions of classes over a number of days or weeks. Students might be
encouraged to negotiate in smaller coalitions between and outside of class and to conduct
full group meetings during part of a class as follows:
Introductions
Group Planning
Clue Sharing
Matching Up
Brainstorming
Bargaining

1 minute per player

Part of 1 class
Part of 1 or more classes
Part of 1 class
Part of 1 class
Part of 2 or more classes

Finalizing
Debriefing

Part of 1 class
Part of 1 class

Each of these strategic sessions can be debriefed by you at the end of each period
without disclosing confidential information. You would be helping your players
understand what competent performance of each strategy included while it was still fresh
in their minds.
For training conferences in which players are living in close proximity to each
other, e.g. in the same hotel or college campus, you could have multiple groups playing
the same Challenge outside of the official conference hours. The groups would be
competing against each other for the best solution to the Challenge. They would all get
the same deadline by which they would have to finish the Challenge. You could have
them report their group's results during a designated period later in the conference. The
groups would share their results and then you would lead the debriefing session
identifying why some groups were more successful than others.
We strongly encourage taking advantage of healthy competitions among
groups. This added level of complexity heightens the interest and the creative
tension between individual success and group success and works as an excellent
team building tool.
STEP 5: Distribute 1 "Challenge" Card", 1 "Secrets" Card And 1 Blank
"Player's Plan" To Each Player. Distribute 1 "Team Leader's Plan" to Team Leaders
Rather Than a "Secrets" Card.
Everyone get 1 "Challenge" card. Each Team Leader gets 1 "Team Leader's Plan".
Everyone else gets his or her own confidential "Secrets" cards which are the role cards.
You can arrange to have roles assigned randomly or you can decide who gets each role.
We recommend using role reversal when players are playing a Challenge they
might be playing in real life. Don't assign players the role they really play. Give players a
chance to see and feel how the other parties might view the situation.
The game has been designed to require minimal preparation for first time players.
However, we recommend, if you have the time, giving out the "Secrets" card, the
"Challenge" card and a blank "Player's Plan" in advance , so players have time to
thoroughly familiarize themselves with the materials and prepare their strategy. They
prepare by reading the "Challenge" and "Secrets" cards and filling in the blanks on the
"Player's Plan". (See Figure 5.) You may also want to distribute copies of "The Rules of
the Game" and "Tricks of the Trade for Playing Secrets and Strategies" found in the
Appendix, if you think your players are likely to read and use them. The "Tricks"
describes helpful strategies for each leg of the game.
Figure 5

THE PLAYER'S PLAN

PLAN: Read the Challenge card and your Secrets card carefully and review this Plan in
preparation for playing the game. Feel free to jot your ideas down.
1. INTRODUCTIONS: (1 min. each) You each have 1 minute to introduce your role to the other
players. What do you want to say about yourself that helps you strategically to obtain your goals? Do you want
to be friendly, angry, accommodating, demanding or what?

2. GROUP PLANNING: (5 min. total) The group has 5 minutes to decide what issues it will
address when solving this Challenge and which ground rules it will use to play the game. Which do you want
to be included on the list?

3. CLUE SHARING: (10 min. total) Players have 10 minutes to ask for and share clues from
each other's Secrets cards that may help them reach a valuable agreement by the end of the game. What do
you want to know about the other players' Secrets and what Secrets do you want to share? The decisions
are up to you.

4. MATCHING UP: (5 min. total) Players have 5 minutes to list everything they think they
have in common with the other players, e.g. similar interests in the outcome, similar ideas about what's fair,
similar views about the situation they're in. What do you think the players might have in common that would
help them reach a valuable agreement?

5. BRAINSTORMING: (10 min. total) Players have 10 minutes to list creative ideas for
options to be included in the final agreement that could make it better and more valuable. Don't criticize the
ideas now. This is not the same as bargaining or agreeing. Just list the ideas as fast as you can.

6. BARGAINING: (10 min. total) Players have 10 minutes to propose agreements or pieces of
agreements that everyone can vote "yes" for. Remember. Everyone has to agree or you all lose.

7. FINALIZING: (10 min. total) Players have just 10 more minutes to finalize their bargaining
and brainstorming and to reach a valuable agreement for which you can all vote "yes". What might you want
to remind the other players about during this final step?

SCORING: If you reach an agreement everyone voted "yes" for, you need to calculate how
valuable the agreement is for you as determined by the "Points" on your Secrets card which tells you what
your role values the most. Once you have added up your Points, the Team Leader will ask every player to state
how many points you earned; what you earned points for; and what your bottom line was.

STEP 6: Observe and Facilitate the Playing of the Game.

In general, we recommend that you be fairly passive during the playing of the
game, observing the groups from a distance and interjecting advice only if a group
requests it or if they appear to be stuck. Each leg of the game requires certain tasks be
performed adequately. Once you are clear what each leg entails in the overall problemsolving framework, you will become comfortable knowing when to intervene and when to
just watch the players try to solve their own problems.

We have seen teachers of younger players play the role of the Team Leaders when
the game was played for the first time. In these situations the teachers had certain points
they wanted to emphasize about the problem. By being the Team Leaders, they could
control the agenda to discuss what they wanted discussed. We created a Challenge
called "Scaping a Scapegoater" for the seventh grade of the Pierce School in Brookline,
Massachusetts. They were studying the Salem, Massachusetts witch trials in history and
reading Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" in English. The teachers wanted the students to
make the connection between calling your enemies "witches" and the kind of scapegoating
people do to each other all the time. By playing the Team Leaders roles, the teachers were
able to frame the problem more clearly for the students and to direct the discussion to the
issues they cared most about when the students went off on other tangents. This is a good
example of how the game can teach historical, literary and ethical content as well group
problem solving theory, values and skills.
STEP 7: Take Notes During the Game for the Debriefing Session.
One of the most important educational features of the game is the ease with which
it permits the players and their coaches to critique their performance afterwards. Because
the problem-solving framework is explicitly structured, it is easy to figure out when a
group worked well together and when it ran into trouble. Individuals can more easily
assess when a strategy worked and when it failed.
The framework allows players to discuss what standards are appropriate for
evaluating each strategic leg of the game and to compare their performance to those
standards. It also allows them to test the adequacy of these standards for themselves. For
instance, what is a good "Introduction"? The simple, one minute introduction each player
is permitted to make allows them to consider many different approaches to the negotiation
itself. Will they present themselves as eager to agree, or skeptical, or angry, or resistant?
Do they have a vision for the final agreement that they want to promote now? Several
years ago, a group of high school students at Tufts University were playing "Surviving a
Plane Crash". They had received very little introduction to the strategy of the game
beforehand. Just before the game began, one student blurted out, "I don't get it. What are
we supposed to do?" We just responded, "Introduce your role the best way you can."
Because of where she was seated in the group, she didn't have to introduce herself until
everyone else had done so. The first player just said "My name is Jessie. I'm the CoPilot". The second player said, "My name is Linda. Im a nurse and I want everyone to
survive." "The third player said, "Hi! My name is Shari. I am the Fisher. I have a plan for
how we can all survive if you just go south with me." At this point the girl who said she
didnt get it, exclaimed "I've got it!, and she did. By the time the group got to her two
minutes later, she had already worked out an entire strategy for persuading the other
players to follow her survival plan, a plan that moved them toward consensus and
maximized her individual Points.
While the game encourages the players to perform certain tasks during the seven
legs, it does not require them to do so. They are free to ignore the rules if they chose to
do so. There is no penalty for failing to follow the directions, except perhaps failing to get
a satisfactory agreement. We theorize that groups will do much better if they follow the
seven legs in the order prescribed. However, players after their first playing of the game

might be encouraged to test this theory for themselves. You can conduct the following
experiment. Have one group follow the rules strictly and have another group work
without reference to any particular agenda or strategy. Then see which group did better
and why. The game works very well as an "Action Science" experiment that lets players
test their own ideas about group problem solving effectiveness.
We recommend that during the game, you take detailed notes to record significant
moves that occurred. (Videotaping groups playing the game lets players see how they are
perceived by others.) One way to organize your note taking is illustrated in Figure 6. You
draw a line down the middle of each page of a tablet of paper. On the left side of the page
you record who said what. On the right side of the line, you put a number that
corresponds to the following code to help you focus, categorize and evaluate what
happened during the game. Next to the code, you can write comments about what was
effective or ineffective regarding that move. The code refers to the 10 effective strategies
of the problem solving framework the game teaches. The 10 strategies correspond to the
7 legs of the game as follows.
INTRODUCTIONS
1

Stay focused on your goals.

GROUP PLANNING

Get the others to follow your plan.

Build trust and reduce defensiveness.

CLUE SHARING

4I

Ask about the others' Interests.

4S

Ask about the others' Standards of Fairness.

4F

Ask about the others' Facts.

4A

Ask about the others' Alternatives.

5I

Tell the others about your Interests.

5S

Tell them about your Standards of Fairness.

5F

Tell them about your Facts.

5A

Tell them about your Alternatives.

MATCHING UP

Emphasize the common ground you all share.

BRAINSTORMING
7

Generate creative options for solving the Challenge.

BARGAINING

Propose the best first offer with packages of options and

counteroffers.

Counsel the others about the advantages to them of your offer

over their best alternative.
F INALIZING

10

Clarify and improve the proposal on the table.

Figure 6
"SURVIVING A PLANE CRASH"
TRANSCRIPT
Players: Hart = Team Leader; Collins = Co-Pilot; Burns = Homemaker; Lafferty =
Fisher; Turner = Soldier; Schanher = Doctor; Malambre = Attendant; Ash = Nurse;
Parker = Teacher
INTRODUCTIONS
H

Good Afternoon, My name is

Jackie Hart. I will be your
Team Leader for this Challenge.
Why don't we just go around
in a circle and have everyone

introduce themselves.

Hi. My name is Carol and I am

the co-pilot. I am committed
to seeing that everyone survives.
Since I am the officer in charge
of this plane, I will take over
the running of this meeting.

Let just introduce ourselves

first before we get into the details
of our survival plan.

Hi. My name is John Burns. I am

the Homemaker. I will be honest
with you. All I really care about
is getting home to my family.

Hi. My name is Jim Lafferty.

I am a professional fisherman.
I saw a fishing village not too far
from here as the plane was
descending.
I think we should send someone
to contact the village and call for
help

upbeat

Good afternoon. My name is Kathy

Turner. I am a marine sargeant,
highly trained to survive a disaster
like this one. I have a number of
ideas that we could use to survive
and get rescued.
Great. When we get to Brainstorming, we will want to hear all your
ideas.

2 Could use more

explanation. She
forgot to set
deadline.

5S, 6
2, 8 She is bargaining already.
Too early.

2 Good. She is trying to

control the agenda.

5I Was this a wise

move this
early in the
game?

5F, 8 Clue Sharing

and Bargaining
already

5F

3 T. L. complements
and encourages, stays

Hello. My name is Dr. Schanher. I

am an expert on handling stress
and can be very helpful to everyone as we try to survive. I must
also tell you that my wife died
in the crash. So I won't be going
anywhere until we are rescued.

5F

8, 5S.................

STEP 8. Lead the Scoring and Debriefing Session.

There are many ways to conduct the debriefing of the game. You should feel free
to do what you have time for. We will describe some of your choices in this Step.
a. Group Self-Critique: The Short Form
The game's rules call for a Scoring and Debriefing phase after the game is over.
The simplest way to do this is to have the players compute their individual scores and then
share three pieces of information with the rest of the group: 1. their score; 2. their
"Bottom Line"; and 3. what they claim to have scored Points for. (See Figures 7 and 8.)
The Secrets cards tell the players what terms in the final agreement they are entitled to
claim Points for, but often some scoring judgment is required. For instance, in "Getting
Divorced" the teenage child of the divorcing couple wants his parents to commit to at
least two months of good faith "marriage counseling". Neither parent is really interested
in "marriage counseling", but they are willing to attend "family counseling". The question
is then whether this kind of "family counseling" can fairly be claimed as "marriage
counseling" by the teenager. It is up to the players to decide. The Team Leader is the final
arbiter if a decision cannot be reached.
The very process of trying to evaluate the Point value of the final agreement turns
out to be a valuable form of group self-critique. They quickly see the need for greater
clarity regarding the terms of their agreement. You don't have to say anything for them to

get this lesson from playing the game. Revealing everyone's "bottom lines" after the game
is extremely useful feedback, because players can see what mistakes they made and what
value they left on the table. They see that the game is a real negotiation. The rules help
them see what they did and did not do effectively without any teacher intervention.

Figure 7

THE SCORING FORM

Points are earned by having certain valuable terms included in the final agreement.

THE NAME OF THE GAME

THE PLAYERS: _____________ _____________ _____________
_____________ _____________ _____________
_____________ _____________ _____________
THE BASIC ISSUES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
THE CREATIVE IDEAS:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Figure 8

THE SCORING FORM

Points are earned by having certain valuable terms included in the final
agreement.

STOPPING THE FIGHTING

THE NAME OF THE GAME

THE PLAYERS:

"Yes" Points
The Prince
____ _____
Julie
____ _____
T-Ball
____ _____
Head, Capulets ____ _____
Fr. Larry
____ _____
Cutie-O
____ _____
Romeo
____ _____
Total

THE BASIC ISSUES:

1.

The number of years a public fighter gets exiled

_______

2.
3.

The number of years a Mt. Tag fighter gets exiled

_______
The numbers of years a Capulet fighter gets exiled
_______

THE CREATIVE IDEAS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL AGREEMENT:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

b. Group Self-critique: The Longer Form

After the group has scored its Points and each player has shared his or her Points
and Bottom Lines, the group can use the following "Group Checklist" to collectively
critique the process it used to solve this problem.
THE GROUP'S CHECKLIST
1. Did the group stay focused on its purpose or did it get distracted from its
goals? What happened?
2. Did the group succeed in forming a genuine partnership or did it stay in a
competitive mode to the end? Did this make a difference to the outcome?
3. Did the group use a well-thought out agenda to make its decisions or was its
process random and haphazard? What happened?
4. Did the group exchange accurate and complete information about each party's
most important interests, factual assumptions, standards of fairness and best alternatives
prior to making its decision or did it make its decisions based on incomplete and
inaccurate information?

5. Was the group able to do some quality brainstorming to improve the solution to
the problem? If not, why not? If so, why were you able to do this?
6. Did the group bargain issue by issue or with packages of well-defended options
that were improved with further brainstorming?
7. How well did the group manage the tension between creating and claiming the
"value" it had created for its members, particularly as the deadline approached?
c. Individual Self-critique
You can ask each player now or later, orally or in writing, to evaluate his or her
performance during the game. A simple checklist for such a self-critique follows.
1. What was your goal for this game? How much satisfaction of your interests
were you seeking?
2. Describe briefly the agenda that was actually used during this negotiation. In
other words, what really happened and in what order?
3. Describe briefly what your planned agenda was for this negotiation and how
well you think the players followed it, if at all?
4. If you were surprised or bothered by anything that happened in this
negotiation, please describe what it was.
5. Did you leave any value on the table at the end of the game that you could
have gotten if you had conducted this negotiation differently?
6. If you feel you left value on the table, which of the following reasons best
describes why you did so?
a.
b.
c.
d.

I didnt try harder enough to get a better result for my role.

I wasnt skilled enough to get a better result for my role.
I thought it would be unfair to claim more than I claimed for my role.
I has satisfied with how much I got even if it wasnt everything I could get.

7. If you had this negotiation to do over again, what would you do differently?
How might you have prepared better for it?
d. Leader-Led Group Critique
It is easy to discuss the playing of one sixty-minute Challenge indefinitely. The
experience tends to provoke so many questions by the players that you need to negotiate
the agenda for the group critique. Depending on how much time you have and your goals
for the exercise, we recommend starting with some very open-ended, player-driven
questions and then only later sharing your views of the effectiveness of their play. We

strongly recommend conducting the critique as a Clue Searching process more

than a Clue Sharing or Bargaining process by which you are telling the players
how they should have conducted themselves. This doesn't mean you shouldn't share
your suggestions for more effective strategies. It just means that your advice should be
tempered by openness to minimize your players' defensiveness toward your views. We
shall illustrate how this might look.
Beginnings
"We have X time to discuss what you just did. I would like to find out what you
thought of the game and then I will ask you some specific questions about the strategies
different players actually used during the game. Any questions before we begin? (Agenda
Setting and Group Planning)
What do you feel you learned from the experience of playing this game that you
would use in another negotiation like this one in the future? (Clue Searching)
What would you do differently if you could play this game again?
Did you feel this game was realistic? Why or why not?
Was it fun for you? Why or why not?
Was it hard for you? Why or why not?
Did anything happen during the game that surprised or bothered you? What?
Power Questions
What do you think "power" means in a negotiation like this one?
What are the main sources of this kind of power?
What could a player do in this kind of negotiation to increase his power?
Who had the power in this game? Why do you say that?
Preparation Questions
What did you do to prepare for this game? Did that turn out to be enough?
Did you actually use your preparation during the game? How?
If you were going to play this game again, would you do anything else to prepare
for it than you did?
Was your preparation practical enough to be useful for you during the game? Why
or why not? What would you do differently next time?

Did you feel confident going into this game as a result of the preparation you did?
Why?
The theory is that good preparation increases your self-confidence in the playing of
the game and improves your performance of every stage of the game. Do you agree or
disagree with this theory? Why?
Goal Questions
What was your goal for this game?
How would you evaluate the deal you actually got?
Did your goal change during the game? How? Why?
Did you lose focus of your own goals during the game? What happened? What
effect did this have on your playing of the game?
Did you think the group lost its focus on its goals during the game? What
happened? What effect did this have on the outcome?
Did you get refocused at some point? How? When?
In general, after playing this game, how important do you think staying focused
on your goals is for your success? Why? What about for the group?
What are the best strategies for staying focused on your and the group's goals?
How important was the Team Leader in keeping the group focused on its purpose?
Did a leader other than the Team Leader emerge who was particularly good at
keeping the group focused on its task?
The theory is that the more focused you and the group are on your purpose, the
more effectively everyone performs. Do you agree or disagree with this theory?
Introduction Questions
How did you introduce yourselves? Why did you do it that way? Was your
introduction effective or ineffective given your overall strategy for this game?
Did you see any other Introductions that you felt were particularly effective or
ineffective? Please describe and explain.
If you were going to introduce yourself again in this game, how would you do it?
Why?

The theory is that some roles need to present a general vision of an ideal solution
at the very beginning of the game that anchors the subsequent discussion without
polarizing people into opposing camps. This is a leadership theory. What do you think
about such a strategy?
The theory says the best strategy in general is to stay firm on your interests but
flexible on the means for satisfying your interests. Do you agree or disagree with this
strategy? How might it get used during the Introduction?
Agenda Setting Questions
How would you describe the agenda that was actually used by the group in this
game?
What was your planned agenda for this game? Did it change during the game?
Why?
Were you able to get the group to follow your agenda during the game? If yes,
how did that happen? If no, what went wrong?
Were there things you could have done to get the group to follow your agenda that
you didn't use? What? Why didn't you use these strategies?
Do you think the agenda that was actually followed in this game made any
difference to the outcome? Why?
How important was the Team Leader in controlling the agenda of the game?
The theory is that the agenda does matter to the outcome; that some agendas are
better than others, depending on your goal, and that it takes an effective leader to skillfully
set and control the group's agenda in order to get things done effectively. What do you
think of this theory?
Working Relationship Questions
How would you describe the prevailing relationship of the players during the
game: as a messy competition, a polite competition, a genuine partnership or something
else?
Did you like the way the players worked together? Why or why not?
If you didn't like the way the players worked together, was there anything you
could have done to change the relationship? What? Why didn't you do that during the
game?
Was gender a factor in this game? Race? Age? Why do you say this?

The theory says that you are almost always better off reducing the defensiveness of
the other players toward you personally, regardless of your goal. Do you agree or
disagree with this theory? Why?
What role do you think trust plays in group problem-solving? Why?
The theory says that the collective trust level of the group is a good indicator of
the group's effectiveness as a problem-solving team. Do you agree or disagree with this
theory? Why?
What role did the Team Leader play in influencing the working relationship of your
group? What did she do?
The theory says that it often takes very skillful and courageous leadership to
change a working relationship that has gone bad? What do you think about this? What
does an effective leader do to change a bad working relationship?
Clue Sharing Questions
How accurate and complete was the sharing of important, confidential information
among the players before they had to make a decision to solve the Challenge?
Could the information sharing have been better? How? Why do you say this?
What information in general do you think is the most important to share with the
group before it has to make a decision?
Did you get the information you planned to get when you prepared for this game?
Describe what happened.
If you were going to prepare for clue searching and sharing for this game again,
would you do anything differently? What? Why?
How was the information sharing among the group organized? Was it done
systematically or haphazardly? Why? Did this make a difference to the outcome?
Could the information sharing have been done better? How?
How does an individual decide as a practical matter when to share some potentially
important piece of confidential information and when to withhold it?
What are the risks of disclosing information? How could it make you more
vulnerable?
What are the risks to the individual of withholding something? What are the risks
to the group?

What are the ethical rules surrounding disclosing information in a game like this
one? Why? Is it OK to misrepresent something you disclose to the other players? Why?
How do you get another player to answer a question he doesn't want to answer?
What is the best way to disclose information you chose to reveal to the other
players? How important is timing? Detail? Authority?
Is it better to ask questions before answering questions or the reverse? Does it
really matter?
The theory says that it is generally better to understand the other players' interests,
values, factual view of the situation and alternatives before we reveal anything to them or
start proposing solutions to the "problem". Do you agree or disagree with this theory?
Why?
Do you think it is realistic to expect people to give you confidential information
during a game like this one? Why?
Matching Up Questions
Did your group make a good list of important things they shared? Why or why
not?
How important do you think this strategy is? Why?
What are the most useful "matches" in general?
Do you think this is a realistic step to take in real negotiations? Why or why not?
How important do you think the Team Leader is in insuring effective Matching
Up?
The theory says that explicitly identifying the shared interests, values, facts and
even alternatives the players may have helps frame the problem more clearly and improves
the working relationship as they prepare to solve the Challenge as a group. Do you
agree or disagree with this theory? Why?
Brainstorming Questions
Did your group conduct a creative brainstorming session? Why or why not?
What factors contributed to this result?
What kinds of things did you brainstorm for? Solutions to the Challenge?
Causes to the problem? Ground rules? Clues?

How realistic do you think it is to be able to have a good brainstorming session in

a game like this one? Why?
Are there realistic things you could have done if this were a real negotiation to
improve the likelihood a productive brainstorming session occurred?
How important is mutual trust to an effective brainstorming session? Why?
Was it hard not to evaluate the ideas when they were proposed? Why?
What can you do to improve the group trust level before you begin brainstorming?
How important is the role of the Team Leader in running an effective brainstorming
session? Why?
What can you do when people are clearly bargaining in the name of brainstorming?
Are there other procedures for running an effective brainstorming session in
addition to a "no judging" ground rule?
Where do you think genuinely innovative ideas come from in general? Can people
train themselves to become better at finding innovative solutions to common problems, or
is this just something we do or don't do?
Bargaining Questions
How was the bargaining actually conducted during your game?
When did the first bargaining start? During Introductions? Clue Sharing?
Brainstorming?
Was bargaining issue by issue or in packages? How did this happen?
Did the way bargaining was handled make a difference to the outcome?
Did anyone propose a Best First Offer? How well did it work?
Did it become the anchor for subsequent discussion? Why or why not?
Were there competing Best First Offer packages? How did that work? How were
they justified?
Did bargaining begin too soon or too late? Why do you say this?
Was the first offer too "high" or too "low"? What does that mean? How did that
happen? What effect did it have on the outcome?
How were concessions from the first offer made? How were they justified?

What is the best way to make a concession in this situation?

How does brainstorming work during, rather than before, bargaining?
What role did deadlines play in bargaining in this game? Are deadlines helpful or
harmful? Why?
Did anyone consciously counsel the other players on the advantages of their offer
over the best alternatives of the other players? How did that work?
Finalizing Questions
Did the group pace itself well or did it run out of time to solve this problem? What
happened?
How important was the Team Leader during Finalizing?
What procedures did the group use to build consensus and try to reach an
agreement? Did you use voting procedures or did consensus just emerge spontaneously?
How important were the Matching Up and Brainstorming sessions to the
recognition of a settlement range that helped resolve the problem?
Were you able to improve the solution at the end, or did you just have enough time
to get just any deal result before time ran out? What happened?
How well focused were you at the end as the deadline approached? Were you
adequately prepared for that moment?
Debriefing Questions
Did you learn anything useful during the Scoring and Debriefing session? What?
Did you learn anything useful about your degree of focus as the deadline
approached?

THE VALUE OF THE FRAMEWORK

AND THE GAME
WHAT THE GAME TEACHES

1. We have identified a number of important benefits that you and your players can
enjoy by using this framework and our games. The game's main purpose is to teach players
the process and skill of solving their "group problems" better. We think it is a very good
introduction to what we call competitive group problem solving. Competitive group
problem solving is distinguished from cooperative group problem solving.
Competitive group problem solving describes the process groups of people with
different interests, values, factual assumptions and alternatives use when they work
together to try to solve their shared problems. We believe this describes almost all
problem-solving two or more people use together. Our strategy for teaching a full range of
group problem-solving skills is to use as much structure as possible without
oversimplifying the message. We created an explicit framework for group problem
solving, and then we designed a game to re-enforce the framework when its played. The
framework says that the group solves its "group problems" better with a skillful
combination of the strategies embodied in this game. The game is designed so that playing
it even once teaches these highly transferable group problem-solving skills. It explicitly
rewards and re-enforces skillful competitive and cooperative behavior.
2.. Playing the game increases a player's personal problem solving power which
we call DECKS. It increases his desire to solve difficult new problems. It gives him the
confidence and the knowledge to do so. And it provides practice using the skills to do so
with focused feedback.
3. It teaches mediation skills through the role of the Team Leader.
4. It teaches group leadership skills through the role of the Team Leader and the
use of Boarding Passes.
5.. It teaches goal focusing skills by providing a clear goal and opportunities to
refocus during Matching Up and Finalizing.
6. It teaches the importance of a good first impression and how to create such an
impression during the Introductions.
7. It teaches coalition building skills by requiring a unanimous vote.
8. It teaches agenda setting skills by limiting the playing time and providing a clear
sequence of tasks.
9. It teaches information gathering, sharing and bargaining skills and the ethics of
information bargaining during Clue Sharing.

10. It teaches problem framing skills.

11. It teaches consensus building skills by requiring a unanimous vote.
12. It teaches the usefulness of objective criteria, standards of fairness and
common ground in Matching Up.
13. It teaches brainstorming skills during Brainstorming.
14. It teaches bargaining skills and how to make a good first offer during
Bargaining.
15. It teaches trading skills during Bargaining and Finalizing.
16. It teaches skills for combining brainstorming with bargaining during
Bargaining and Finalizing.
17. It teaches counseling skills during Bargaining and Finalizing.
18. It teaches interest and values clarification and prioritizing skills during Clue
Sharing and Matching Up.
19. It teaches finalizing and commitment skills during Finalizing.
20. It teaches the difference among "issues", "interests" and "positions" during
Group Planning, Clue Sharing and Bargaining.
21. It teaches interviewing skills during Clue Sharing.
22. It teaches questioning skills during Clue Sharing.
23. It teaches argument making skills during Bargaining.
24. It teaches creativity and mutual gain making skills during Brainstorming.
25. It teaches feedback skills during Scoring and Debriefing.
26. It teaches relationship building skills throughout the Game.
27. It teaches implementation skills.
28. It teaches conflict resolution skills.
29. It teaches time management skills.
30. It teaches the multidimensional nature of problems.
31. It teaches the relativity of values.

32. It teaches the value-ladened nature of "facts".

33. It teaches democratic decision making at the grass roots level.
34. It teaches how to reconcile the tension between individual interests and the
interests of the group or society as a whole.
HOW THE GAME TEACHES

1. It teaches problem-solving structure.

Giving players an enjoyable, manageable and memorable structure for
approaching complex group problems and letting them use the structure to play the
game two or more times increases their overall interest and capacity to solve real
problems. Learning the obvious structure of the game turns out to be very
empowering for players and teachers. It will make you a "great teacher" in the
eyes of your players.
2. It teaches mediation skills.
The structure of the game and the role of the Team Leader teach players an easy to
learn framework for conducting complex, multiparty mediations. The Team Leader is a
mediator committed to helping the group reach the Best Fair Deal.
3. It teaches group leadership skills.
Individuals clearly do better in the game if the group works well together. In other
words, group problem-solving is a team sport. Each individual is encouraged to help the
group perform more effectively in the role of Team Leader or as a player. The
consequence of ineffective group performance becomes obvious during the Scoring and
Debriefing phase of the game. The structure of the game helps players assume a
leadership role when the Team Leader is not performing effectively.

4. It teaches goal focusing skills.

The fast-paced agenda of the game forces players to focus and refocus or fail. The
Matching Up and Finalizing strategies explicitly ask the players to refocus. When they do
poorly, their lack of focus becomes obvious during Debriefing.
5. It teaches the importance of a good first impression and how to create
such an impression.
The Introductions leg of the game gives players a one minute chance to try out
their first impressions strategy and to compare their own introduction to 7 others in the

game. The explicit structure of the game makes it easier to compare your performance of
this or any task with that of the other players.
6. It teaches coalition building skills.
The Introductions leg gives the players a quick opportunity to identify who might
be their allies during the game. Each of the later legs re-enforces or qualifies their first
impression as players search for support for their Points in the final agreement.
7. It teaches agenda setting and controlling skills.
The structure of the game gives players an easy to remember agenda for real
negotiations. The Team Leader continually reminds them during the game of the need to
stay on task and on schedule. Techniques for getting back on track on constantly being
tested by all the players. Group Planning formally asks them to state their plan, their
ground rules and the issues they want to address. During Debriefing it gives them a
chance to critique the adequacy of their plan and the enforcement of their rules.
8. It teaches information gathering, sharing and bargaining skills and ethics.
Clue Sharing requires the players to be very efficient when collecting information
from the other players and when disclosing what they want to share. It gives them a
chance to compare information bargaining strategies used by different players. Later
during Debriefing it lets them evaluate the clarity, effectiveness and honesty of the
information sharing that occurred.
9.

It teaches problem framing skills.

The game structures the players' efforts so that they have to start Brainstorming
and then Bargaining usually with not enough time to do perfect information sharing and
problem framing. During Debriefing the missing clues are often identified and the need for
more thorough preparation is driven home.
10. It teaches consensus building skills.
Because the game requires a unanimous vote to approve any deal before anyone is
eligible to win, players quickly figure out the need to turn a competitive situation into a
more cooperative one. By the time they get to Matching Up, they are actively looking for
clues to a deal that everyone can support.
11. It teaches the usefulness of objective criteria, standards of fairness and
common ground.
Matching Up re-enforces the need to identify general principles of agreement
which the players share. These principles become the standards by which the players will
later evaluate their success. A skillful Team Leader will teach the others what standards of
fairness look like and how they might apply to this situation.

12. It teaches brainstorming skills.

The Brainstorming leg explicitly gives the players permission to brainstorm
skillfully without fear of criticism or evaluation. A skillful Team Leader will protect each
member of the group relying on the rules of the game for the authority to control the
agenda. Once players see how a good brainstorming session can add real value to the final
agreement, they will never be as satisfied problem solving without it.
13. It teaches bargaining skills and how to make a good first offer.
The Bargaining leg discourages players from beginning bargaining too early and
teaches them the importance of an excellent, well-defended first offer. They don't have
time for mistakes. They are able to easily compare the pros and cons of issue by issue
bargaining with package bargaining with options derived from brainstorming.
14. It teaches trading skills and concession strategies.
During Bargaining and Finalizing, explicitly trading options to improve Point totals
is essential. Because the trading process is so obvious, the structure of the game makes it
easier for the players to evaluate the most effective trading and concession strategies.
15. It teaches how to combine brainstorming with bargaining.
During Bargaining and Finalizing the players have to build different ways to
improve the proposal so everyone can agree. Combining brainstorming with bargaining is
the most obvious way for players to do this. A proposal is made and then the players try
to improve it by brainstorming about a specific aspect of the multiple option package.
16. It teaches counseling skills.
During Bargaining and Finalizing players try to explain to the others why the offer
on the table meets their needs better than their best alternative. This is counseling very
much the way you would do it with your own clients or teammates.
17. It teaches interest and values clarification and prioritizing skills.
The Points and Secrets cards often have contradictory messages about what the
player wants most. Bargaining and Finalizing require that these values and interests be
clarified, reconciled and then prioritized to reach a final deal.
18. It teaches finalizing skills.
The deadlines of the game force the players to be efficient during the Finalizing leg
in order to get the most Points.
19. It teaches the difference among "issues", "interests" and "positions".

Group Planning requires the players to list their "issues" without bargaining too
early. Clue Sharing and Brainstorming require the players to describe their interests but
not their bargaining positions. Bargaining lets them advocate a particular position. The
strategic subtleties among these three categories of information sharing can be tested and
then critiqued during Debriefing.
20 It teaches interviewing and questioning skills.
Clue Sharing gives players practice asking good, open-ended and follow-up
questions. The Debriefing session gives them immediate feedback about how well they
performed their probing and challenging strategies.
21. It teaches arguing skills.
Bargaining and Finalizing give the players lots of opportunities to defend their
settlement proposals using their standards of fairness, their mutual interests, the "facts"
and the players' alternatives.
22. It teaches creativity and mutual gain-making skills.
Brainstorming and Bargaining give the players practice adding value to the final
agreement through current and future mutual gain.

23. It teaches feedback skills.

The Scoring and Debriefing session provides well-structured information about
where players could have performed better during each of the seven legs of the Game.
They get to see what they left on the table, what assumptions they made incorrectly, what
sources of constructive and obstructive power they failed to exploit and what the others
found to be influential. They also get to see how powerful this form of feedback can be for
enhancing learning.
24. It teaches relationship building skills.
The players quickly learn the importance of the working relationship and the
general level of trust that is necessary for each of the legs to work most effectively. The
Debriefing session gives them a well-structured opportunity to point out where the trust
level went up or down and what impact it had on the effectiveness of the group.
25. It teaches convening skills.
Some of the games illustrate the difficulty of getting some roles to negotiate in
good faith. These games give players practice and confidence experimenting with
strategies for engaging the "difficult" role.

26. It teaches implementation skills.

Some of the games illustrate what happens when the previous agreement was not
clear or was not accepted wholehearted by certain stakeholders. In these games, the
Challenge is figuring out how to redo a deal that is more durable.
27. It teaches conflict resolution skills.
These are all conflict resolution skills. "Conflict" is the perception of irreconcilable
interests. That perception may be wrong. The game presents apparently competing
interests and challenges the players to reconcile them.
28. It teaches time management skills.
The fast pace of the game forces players to see the need to perform each task
adequately rather than spending all their time on one task at the expense of the others.
29. It teaches the multidimensional nature of problems.
Players get a chance to see experientially the many different ways to look at the
same problem depending on the role the player is playing.
30. It teaches the relativity of values.
Players get to see the many different standards of fairness that stakeholders can
have about the outcome of the same problem.
32. It teaches the value-laded nature of "facts".
Players get to see in role how the same facts are shaped by the values of the
stakeholders.
33. It teaches the tension between individual and group interests.
The Points for individual and mutual gain help the players see very quickly the
tension between individual and group interests and how they might be reconciled in
practical ways.

WAYS TO USE THE GAME

Our game has now been played by over 3000 people including sixth grade science
students, middle school English students, high school environment students, college
undergraduates, graduate urban planners, law students, college professors, law
professors, lawyers, assistant attorneys general, non-profit and public sector managers,
legislative leaders and sales representatives. Because of the breadth of the definition of

"group problems", we have an unlimited market of people who could benefit from learning
the System and playing the Game. In real life "group problem-solving" goes by different
names: management, client counseling, legislative decision making, policy making,
political leadership, litigation, urban planning, environmental planning, parenting, group
therapy, family therapy, organizational development, school administration, church
administration, non-profit administration, military administration, anti-poverty
programming, literacy programming, and social problem management of every kind.
1. After Dinner Games
The game is a lot of fun to play and should be ideal for adult, after dinner
entertainment like the murder mystery games. Its current design doesn't permit many
multiple playings, but some repeat play is possible. In this respect it is similar to the
murder mystery games that give guests clues they can use once. It can be used for
costume parties and other kinds of role playing.
We have roughed out the design of a board game that currently looks like this.
The board would be a typical, foldable game board. It would have a picture of the world
on it with all seven continents represented in different colors. Each continent represents
one of the 7 legs of the plane flight. The game would have a plane that could hold 8 icons
for the players and a pilot icon for the team leader. The board game itself would be played
similarly to the generic game, with several exceptions. We would use what we call
"Turbulence" cards that players would have to take as they flew around the world from
continent to continent. The Turbulence cards include new Secrets, new bottom lines, and
new Points. They also influence how the game is played. For instance, one card gives a
player permission to stop everyone else from talking for one minute while she says what
she has to say, like a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card in Monopoly. We can create a deck of
these cards that people could use in real negotiations to help control the agenda, similar to
the "Whack Pack".
2. Corporate Training
The Game has significant potential as part of a one to two day corporate training
program in group problem-solving, dispute resolution, sales, leadership, TQM and
negotiation skills. It is also an excellent team building tool. We have used it to train a
pharmaceutical company's sales personnel. In that case, we created a special version of
the game based on the sales setting of that company. We have also used it to train groups
of lawyers engaged in multiparty negotiations.
3. "Niche" Seminars
The game can be used for specialized markets in a seminar style program.
Examples might include people going through a divorce, handing over the reins of the
family business or placing a parent in a nursing home. People would play the special
games like "Getting Divorced" or "Passing the Business On" that raise in an entertaining
way many of the issues they will confront in real life. A professional facilitator, like a
family therapist or divorce mediator, would lead the Debriefing session addressing the
topic of the seminar as well as the process by which the outcome was reached.

Negotiators could play a game with their own clients before the real negotiation to help
identify problems and work out the agenda. We did something like this for the
Environment Protection Agency with "Retaking Lost Ground". We created a
"brownfields" reclamation game for community and agency representatives who played it
and then discussed how it would work in the real world. A "role reversal" ground rule
which prevents players from playing themselves in the game helps everyone see the other
perspectives more clearly.
4. Non-profit Leadership Training
I teach a "Leadership Negotiation" course at Tufts University during the summers
for community leaders. I have used the Game to teach group leadership skills for nonprofit organizations that must train their boards of directors, their staffs and their clients
better problem-solving skills.

5. Agency Team Meeting Training

We have created a version of the game "Planning Phil's Future" for in-service
training for state agencies like the Departments of Mental Retardation, Mental Health and
Special Education that are required by law to conduct annual team meetings to develop
individual treatment plans for their disabled clients. The market for this use nationally
includes every public school in the country and three of the largest state agencies in every
state.
6. Federal Collaboration Training
The federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Act encourages federal agencies to use
alternatives to traditional, adversarial processes to resolve multiparty disputes. As a result,
multiparty collaborations are occurring all over the country. For instance, hundreds of
private, hydroelectric dams are being re-licensed under the supervision of the Federal
Energy Regulation Commission. These re-licensing processes can take six years and can
involve dozens of stakeholders. The parties, particularly the non-professional interests,
need to be trained about how to play their part in this new, collaborative decision making
model. The game is an excellent tool for a one or two day training program for this
purpose.
7. Schools
We have played versions of the game with players as young as sixth graders and as
old as seniors. Last year we had sixty sixth grade science students in a public school in
Ohio play "Surviving a Plane Crash" with incredible success. In this case success was
measured by the ease of administration of the game, the students' enthusiasm for playing,
their skill at playing, the creativity of their results and the extent to which they learned
group problem-solving strategies. Some of the weakest students academically became
star performers during the game generating many innovative solutions to their problem.

One of the most promising school-related applications of the game involves its use
for structuring a student's substantive learning of a subject. In an environmental literacy
course for high school students at Tufts University last summer, eight students studied a
unit on the struggling Gloucester fishing industry as the focus of the course. At the very
beginning of the course, they played "Surviving a Plane Crash" with almost no advanced
preparation. They were then given the assignment of designing their own negotiation
problem using the format of the game as their structure. We wrote the Challenge card
which framed the problem for them. We also identified the eight roles from which they
could chose a role. They had to decide who they were going to be in their own game and
then they had to draft their own Secrets cards. By setting it up this way, the entire course
was experienced by them as a collaborative, multiparty negotiation. They interviewed
their real world counterparts to make the Secrets cards realistic. In doing so they gained a
unique perspective on the complexity of real problems that they would not normally see
until they started working. The experiment was a stunning success.
We think the game can be used as part of an unlimited number of courses at the
elementary, middle school, high school, college and graduate school levels. We use it in
our law school and urban and environmental policy courses on conflict resolution and
mediation. One obvious use is the teaching of the dreaded "health" curriculum in the
middle schools. For instance, the Ohio curriculum for health requires the teaching of
problem solving along with subjects like drug and alcohol abuse, Aids, teenage pregnancy,
eating disorders, and sexual abuse. We could easily design a Challenge around any of
these topics. The players might be an anorexic, fourteen year old girl who is hiding her
weight loss and her problem. The players would be the girl, her best girl friend, her boy
friend, her parents, her doctor, her teacher and her guidance counselor. They would each
know something about her problem that they hadn't shared with the others. As a result, no
one fully appreciates the severity of the situation. They would have different ideas about
the appropriate course of action. Some players would be in denial. Some would want
unilateral, coercive action. Others would prefer a more gradual approach to the problem.
Designing an entire middle school health curriculum around multiple games could make
health fun to teach and take and teach group problem solving at the same time. We
consider this use of the game particularly promising because of the general recognition of
the unpopularity of the current curriculum and the need for something better. We can run
training programs to teach health teachers how to teach the Game along with the rest of
the health curriculum.
The game is an excellent leadership training tool for solving any kind of multiparty
social and political problem. It can be used to teach history, by recreating famous,
historical negotiations such as designing Reconstruction, expanding or restricting slavery,
drafting treaties with Native Americans, planning Columbus' trip, locating a commercial
port like St. Louis or Boston or establishing a colony like Plymouth Plantation. It can
help students address controversial school management issues like bilingual education,
Eubonics, affirmative action, i.e. "Evening the Score, school budget cutbacks, the use of
the longer school day or improving teacher performance, i.e. "Improving Our Schools".
You could even design a game around how much homework is fair to assign students.
In February we collaborated with the faculty of the seventh grade of the Pierce
School in Brookline, Massachusetts to create "Scaping a Scapegoater" about the Salem

Witch Trials. The Challenge was literally to figure out how to tell a witch from a witch. It
encouraged students to think about the problem of scapegoating in their own school as
well as to integrate their reading of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" with their historical
studies of early colonial American life. Over sixty students playing the Game
simultaneously in eight teacher-led groups were remarkably successful in addressing these
problems creatively and effectively. All eight groups reached a unanimous agreement, yet
no two solutions were the same.
In June, a group of not-for-profit managers met at the Management and
Community Development Institute at Tufts University to play "Retaking Lost Ground"
during a two day program that included five substantive modules on the law and
technology of "brownfields" reclamation and redevelopment. The entire program was
conducted in role although the actual negotiation of the Challenge occupied less than two
hours of their time. The Environmental Protection Agency is now using this Challenge in
"brownfields" training programs in other parts of the country.
In general, the game is an excellent teaching tool for civics or government. It is a
model for democratic decision making. It takes representative roles from the stakeholder
groups actually affected by the common "Challenge" and puts them in a constructive
setting which rewards them for working well together and "punishes" them when they
don't.
The Game can be used for an interscholastic group problem-solving competition.
Each participating school selects nine students any way it chooses. Ideally, they would be
the school's best negotiators. On the day of the competition students are randomly
assigned to a group of eight students and one team leader so that each group has roughly
the same number of students from each school. Each group would play the same
Challenge for the same time frame. The winning school would be computed the way team
golf scores are computed. The individual scores of each player from each school would be
added up. The school whose students had the highest total would be the winner.
Corporate sponsors could support each school if the schools didn't have a budget for this
competition, the way companies sponsor sports teams.
8. Church Leadership Training
Most churches aspire to some kind of shared decision making responsibility. They
also give lip service to ground rules consistent with their religious views, such as
respecting everyone regardless of their position on a given issue. Often, churches have
trouble conforming their decision making practices with their religious beliefs,
particularly when dealing with hard issues. The game provides a safe structure for
learning new problem-solving behaviors before trouble begins on the real issues. We have
a game called "Planning the Church's Future" which presents a classic struggle over the
future direction of a dying church. We think this game is an excellent retreat and lay
leadership training tool for any church that wants to share power with its members.
9. Religious Education

The game is a wonderful way to present complex ethical and moral issues. For
instance, every Secrets card includes the player's "Standard of Fairness" for the outcome
of that version of the game. In "Surviving a Plane Crash", some players are committed to
everyone's survival, while other players are more concerned with their own survival.
Every player's Standard of Fairness is presented in as favorable a light as possible in order
to squarely present the hard, moral dilemmas raised by the apparent conflict of interests.
Religious teachers, particularly of Sunday school classes and middle and high
school youth groups, are often eager (if not desperate) to find engaging exercises for their
students that are fun and relevant to their religious and educational goals. Because the
Game can be centered on any historical or Biblically significant event that involved
multiple decision makers, like Moses' decision to escape from Egypt, we can design games
for different age groups with different goals. You can also use the Game to teach moral
decision making using any issue that has four or more sides to it i.e. how do you prove
someone is "evil" in "Scaping a Scapegoater".
10. A Town Meeting Alternative
Any decision making body, such as a school committee, neighborhood association
or city council, could hold a public session on a given topic of public interest where
participants would first play a customized version of the game about that topic before the
subject was openly discussed. The playfulness of the game would everyone relax and
increase the team spirit of the participants before real problem solving began. The game
includes a formal "Brainstorming" phase that routinely produces excellent ideas for solving
difficult problems. These ideas could then be shared with the group.
11. Non-Profit Fund Raising
Civic organizations such as PTAs could conduct fund-raisers that use the Game as
their centerpiece. We can customize a game around a real problem that that organization
is facing, such as proposed budget cutbacks, e.g. "Surviving the Surplus". Participants
would pay to play. Winning groups and individuals could win prizes. The organization
would keep the additional money raised, have stronger teams for having played the Game
and have a list of great ideas for addressing their problem.
12. Subscription Games
Another way to market the Game is to offer a subscription service using e-mail or
the Internet. If we had a staff who could produce new Challenges quickly based on
current events, a teacher who wanted to capitalize on the timeliness of the topic could just
order one of our newest games, e.g. "Stopping the Shooting". A small town would
convene 8 of its stakeholder groups to decide how to deal with the rash of school
shootings, similar to "Saving Romeo and Juliet". The Game is ideal for a special
assembly-like, out of the regular schedule, event. Its format is fun to use while still
serious. It delivers its message in a way that is not perceived to be heavy-handed, because
all the participants are allowed to share their ideas equally.

13. Customized Games

If we had a staff who could produce new versions quickly, we can produce most
new Challenges in two days, depending on how much factual research and clientcollaboration is required. Clients would fill out an order form specifying the problem they
want to solve and the roles they want to play.

Appendix

SECRETS AND STRATEGIES

THE RULES OF THE GAME"
by

Burdick and Burnstein, copyright 2001

"Secrets and Strategies" is a group problem solving game that encourages seeking creative
solutions to common challenges. The purpose of "On the Same Plane" is to have players with
different ideas about the challenge and different interests in the outcome work together to find the
best solutions to which they can all agree. The Winners are the players who gain the most from the
final solution at the end of the game.

PREPARATIONS
The game comes with a "7 Strategy Plan" that should be followed by the players to solve the
"Challenge". The Team Leader guides them through the seven strategies but is not eligible to win the
game. Everyone gets a Challenge card that describes the common problem the players have to
solve. Each player also gets a Secrets card that describes who they are during the game and what
they know and care about. Players are also given a "Players Plan" to assist them in preparing to
play the game.

INTRODUCTIONS: (1 Minute Per Player)

Once the game begins, the Team Leader invites each player to introduce him or herself for
one minute each by saying what role each is playing according to the "Secrets" card and what his or
her goals are for the game. Moving in a clockwise rotation, each player gives a one minute
introduction until everyone is introduced. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets
everyone know when it is time to move on. Before moving on to the next leg, the Team Leader
summarizes what the players appear to have in common.

GROUP PLAN: (5 Minutes)

The Team Leader leads a five minute group planning discussion about what issues need to be
addressed in order to reach an agreement and which, if any, ground rules, in addition to those
provided by "The Rules of the Game", the players want to use to govern how they will work
together during the game.

CLUE SHARE: (10 Minutes)

The Team Leader leads an information sharing discussion looking for clues to what might be
included in the final solution. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets everyone know
when it is time to move on.

MATCH UP: (5 Minutes)

Following Clue Sharing, the Team Leader leads a discussion to confirm the extent to which
the players share the same interests, standards of fairness and facts, i. e. their common ground, on
which they can design the best solutions to the Challenge. The players have 5 minutes to complete
this leg of the game. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets everyone know when it is
time to move on.

BRAINSTORM: (10 Minutes)

The Team Leader leads a brainstorming session, free of judgmental evaluations of the
ideas produced, to generate a list of creative ideas that might later be refined into options for the best
solutions to the Challenge. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets everyone know when it
is time to move on.

BARGAIN: (10 Minutes)

Once the players' clues and creative ideas have been shared, the process of pinning down
the final terms of the solution begins under the direction of the Team Leader, who will help the
players try to reach a valuable agreement to which they can all agree. The Team Leader keeps track
of the time and lets everyone know when it is time to move on.

FINALIZE: (10 Minutes)

During the last 10 minutes of the game the Team Leader carefully clarifies the extent of
agreement and tries to move the players toward a valuable solution to which they can all agree. If
time allows, the Team Leader tries to see if the deal can be improved without hurting anyone or
sending the group back into disagreement. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets
everyone know when it is time to stop.

SCORE and DEBRIEF

The game ends when one of three things happens: 1. the players all agree that they cannot
reach an agreement to which they will all agree; 2. time runs out without an agreement; or 3. the
players all agree to the terms of a solution to the common Challenge. When no agreement is
reached by the deadline, everyone loses. When an agreement is reached prior to the deadline to
which everyone agrees, everyone wins. The Winner of the game is the player (or players) who has
recovered the most value from the agreement as valued by the Points on the players' "Secrets"
cards.
The Team Leader leads a clockwise review of the game asking each player to state: 1. his
or her score; 2. his or her bottom line; and 3. what he or she got that earned Points. The individual
player with the most Points is the Winner of the game. When more than one group plays the same
game at the same time, the group that earns the most total Points (the sum of each role's Points) is
the Team Winner.

THE COMPLETE THE SAME

PLANE
LEADER'S GUIDE
by
Burdick and Burnstein, copyright @ 2001
Npro1@ziplink.net
(617-738-9300)

INTRODUCTION
"The Same Plane" is both an easy-to-learn framework for successful group
problem solving and a very enjoyable game for teaching players how to use the framework
in their professional and everyday lives. "The Complete The Same Plane Leader's
Guide" was written for any leader, teacher, trainer, manager, fund-raiser or dinner host
who might be interested in playing The Same Plane the game. This guide includes: 1.an
overview of the game and the problem-solving framework it teaches; 2.a step-by-step
description of how to set up and run the game; 3. suggestions for different ways to use the
game, such as team building, fund-raising and brainstorming retreats; and 5. a booklet of
strategies for how to play the game that can be given to players.

AN OVERVIEW OF
THE SAME PLANE
First, The Same Plane is a framework for solving real group problems more
creatively and more effectively. The framework is easy for you to teach, easy for your
players to learn and easy to use in a wide variety of situations in which two or more
people need each other's help to satisfy their own interests.
Second, The Same Plane is a scoreable, competitive game by which the
framework is taught and learned. Players play the game to solve different Challenges
that test their ability to use the framework in different situations. In other words, you use
the game to teach this problem solving to others.
The game uses the metaphor of a plane of players flying around the world in sixty
minutes attempting to reach a unanimous agreement about how to solve the problem they
share before they land (or crash). The players are asked to fly around the world in seven
distinct legs that represent the seven strategies of the framework. The time to play the
game can easily be adjusted to accommodate your schedule. We will describe how you can
make these adjustments later. This section assumes your players are taking the sixtyminute flight. Here is how this trip looks.
During the flight the players in role are presented with a Challenge that they all
have an interest in solving. The game can address an unlimited number of multiparty
Challenges, e.g. planning a wedding, avoiding a strike, escaping an earthquake or
cleaning up a toxic waste site. We currently have over forty Challenges. Each
Challenge includes different roles for players to play in the challenging situation. For
instance, "Surviving a Plane Crash" portrays the players as the only survivors of a plane
crash in a remote part of central Alaska who have to negotiate a survival plan to which
they can all agree. The players each get the common "Challenge" card and a private
"Secrets" card which describes their role and gives them confidential information about
their interests, their standards of fairness, their knowledge of the situation and their
alternatives. In "Surviving a Plane Crash", the roles include the co-pilot, a nurse, a doctor,
a teacher, a fisher, a contractor, a homemaker, a sales person, a flight attendant and a
soldier. Each player earn Points toward winning the game when the unanimouslyapproved final agreement includes terms they value according to their "Secrets" card.
The Same Plane capitalizes on the classic tension created by trying to advance
individual and group goals at the same time. The goal of the group in the game is to
unanimously agree to the most valuable overall solution to the Challenge before they
land. The goal of each individual player is to persuade the others to agree to the most
valuable solution for their role. Any agreement is worth something to each player, but
some agreements are more valuable than others. The player's goal is to get the most
valuable agreement for him or herself and for the group. The key to playing the game
successfully is figuring out how to fulfill both goals at the same time, an essential
skill for living in any democratic organization or society.

The sixty-minute version of the game requires the players to solve the Challenge
by working cooperatively together during the seven legs of their round-the-world flight.
Here are the seven legs or problem solving strategies.
1. "Introductions" (1 minute each): On the first leg called "Introductions", each
player has one minute to strategically introduce him or herself to the other players while
the plane flies to Europe.
2. "Group Planning" (5 minutes): During the second leg called "Group
Planning" the plane flies for five minutes to Asia, where the players list the "issues" they
want to address during the game and decide on the ground rules that will govern the way
they will work together while in the air.
3. "Clue Sharing" (10 minutes): During the third leg called "Clue Sharing", the
plane flies to Australia where for ten minutes the players strategically exchange the
confidential information on their Secrets cards, carefully weighing what to disclose,
what to withhold and what to ask the others.
4. "Matching Up" (5 minutes): During the fourth leg called "Matching Up", the
plane flies to Africa where for five minutes, players identify the common ground they
share by matching up their shared interests, their shared standards of fairness, their shared
facts and their shared alternatives.
5. "Brainstorming" (10 minutes): During the fifth leg called "Brainstorming",
the plane climbs higher while flying to Antarctica for ten minutes as the players find
creative options they might be able to use to improve the value of their solution to the
Challenge.
6. "Bargaining" (10 minutes): During the sixth leg called "Bargaining", the
plane begins its long descent toward the Finish Line flying over South America for ten
minutes. Proposals for solutions to the Challenge are exchanged in search of the most
valuable overall outcome that meets the needs of all the players adequately and each
individual player as well as possible.
7. "Finalizing" (10 minutes): During the final ten minute leg of the flight called
"Finalizing", the plane passes over North America in preparation for landing. The players
scramble to fasten their seat belts and to make sure the terms of the final agreement are
clear, acceptable to everyone and as valuable as they can be before landing.
Scoring and Debriefing After the game is over, if a unanimous agreement was
reached before time ran out, the players add up their individual Points by comparing the
terms of the agreement with the Points on their Secrets cards. The Winner is the player
who earned the most Points from the terms of the final agreement. The game is designed
to reward players for getting more than their "bottom lines". If they agree to a solution
that does not meet at least their "bottom line", they can't win. They earn Points for what is
actually included in the final solution to the Challenge, and not necessarily for how well
they performed during the game. However, their performance should make a significant
difference to the outcome if they played the game skillfully.

A STEP-BY-STEP DESCRIPTION FOR

SETTING UP AND RUNNING THE GAME
STEP 1: Select the Challenge You Want to Play.
There are many The Same Plane Challenges. Each Challenge has a
"Challenge" card like the one from "Not In My Backyard" in Figure 1 that describes the
common problem the players face and the different roles which the players can play. Each
player gets his or her own confidential "Secrets" card like the one from "Finding Buried
Treasure" in Figure 2 which describes who the player is and what he or she cares about
during the game.

Figure 1

NOT IN MY BACKYARD
by
Burdick and Burstein, copyright 1997
Npro1@ziplink.net

The Challenge: You are all members of a Select Committee of interested parties asked by
the Zoning Board to respond to a request by General Services Corp. (GSC) for permission
to operate a transfer station for the transportation of solid waste to the site of the old
Rogers junk yard near Ball Square just off of Broadway. The solution you are seeking is
the best response to this proposal which best meets the interests of the all the parties most
affected. A transfer station is a place where rubbish is brought by truck to be compacted
and transferred to larger trucks and then transported to solid waste sites, in this case in the
western part of the state. This site has been unused for five years. It had been the location
of the Rogers Auto Junk Yard for over fifty years, and a target of environmentalists who
suspect many years of hazardous waste disposal of antifreeze, motor oil, gasoline, used
tires and other petroleum products. It borders a working class residential neighborhood in
Somerville composed mostly of multi-family houses, Amtrak train tracks, and a light
industrial park of small, relatively clean, manufacturing firms occupying three older
manufacturing plants. Your job as a group is to decide whether or not GSC should get the
variance that would permit it to use this site as a transfer station. If the answer is a
conditional "yes", you must then decide two issues:
The Players: The Players for this game include the President of the Somerville Chamber
of Commerce, the President of GSC, the President of the Ball Square Residents'
Association, the Somerville Chief of Public Safety, the Chair of the Somerville Board of
Health, the Mayor of Somerville, the Commissioner of the State Department of
Environmental Protection, and the President of Somerville Trash Company, (STC).
The Issues:

1. How much money will be spent on the site?

2. What limits will be placed on the operation of the site?

The Alternative: You should be aware that if you can't reach a unanimous agreement, the
Zoning Board will feel free to decide what it thinks is best without you.

Figure 2

INTERIOR'S SECRETS
Your Personality Profile: You are the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
You are an aggressive, successful business person who likes to take charge and get things
done, regardless of who you might offend.

Your Interests: You are interested in supporting any development project that
enhances the President's political ambitions, which means he must be able to take credit
for the outcome.
Your Standards of Fairness: You will do whatever is legal to get what you want.
Your Facts: Your agency is responsible for protecting the coastal waters of the
United States. Your jurisdiction includes all commercial activities on the beaches of
islands like Daufuskie Island off the southeastern coast of South Carolina. You also
represent the interests of the President of the United States who is running for office
again. The President is very anxious to portray himself as a skillful pro business/pro
environment leader. He sees the Daufuskie Island treasure hunt project as a wonderful
opportunity to demonstrate his ability to balance these two important interests and is
committed to supporting it with up to $5,000,000 in development money as long as it
furthers his political needs.
Your Alternative: You will do everything within your power to prevent this
project from happening if it appears to undermine your and the President's political goals.
Your Bottom Line: You will only vote "yes" for a final agreement which is
approved by the Hilton Head Developers and SOS and allows the President to take some
public credit for brokering the final deal.
Your Points: You will earn the following Points from the terms of the final
agreement:
1. 100 points for every $1,000,000 up to $5,000,000 the other parties will agree
to let you pay to support the long term project;
2. 1000 points if the other parties will agree that the President of the United
States was primarily instrumental in bringing this deal about;
3. 100 points for every realistic, creative idea actually included in the final deal
which furthers the environment protection interests of this region for which the President
can claim credit, regardless of whose idea it was.
STEP 2: Decide How Many Groups Will Play The Challenge And Where
They Will Play.
Most Challenges come with 8 roles in addition to the Team Leader. Some have
less. You need to decide how many groups you want to play the Challenge at the same
time. This decision may depend on the space available to play. The ideal setting is a small,
quiet room with a black or white board, or an easel, to write down roles, secrets, ground
rules, brainstormed options and proposals. Chairs should be moveable so players can
reorganize their space if they want to.
The playing of the game can get noisy and distracting. Having private space is
desirable, but noise doesn't seem to be a major obstacle to playing. We have successfully

played the game in less than desirable space many times. We have seen it work well with
four groups of sixth graders sitting around tables in the same classroom without black
boards. The Team Leaders helped keep the noise level down and took notes that they
shared with their own groups.
The ideal size for brainstorming is supposed to be 7 people. We have seen groups
as large as 11 work well together and as small as 4. We have seen as many as 4 groups of
6 players each in a traditional classroom play the game successfully. Each group sat
around a table on which they could write down ideas and take notes.
Each Challenge is designed so that some roles are less crucial to the play than
others in the event fewer than the ideal complement of players is available. We have
indicated the most dispensable roles in the description of the Challenges found in
Appendix. You can also assign more than one player to important roles.
STEP 3: Select The Team Leaders Who Will Lead Each Group Of Players
Through the Seven Legs Of The Game.
The game uses mediators to assist the other players in working together during the
seven legs. There are two ways this is done. First, you or the players can select a Team
Leader who does not get a Secrets card, but instead gets a "Team Leader's Plan" (See
Figure 3.) and who remains a non-partisan guide throughout the playing of the game. The
Team Leader is like a mediator in a multiparty negotiation whose job it is to help the
players come up with the best overall solution to the Challenge in sixty-minutes.
For first time players, the Team Leader's role is often critical to the group's
success. The Team Leader in effect teaches the other players how to play the game well as
it is being played. Time allowing, you may ask the Team Leaders to learn the rules of the
game ahead of time to enhance their ability to help teach the other players how to play. If
you have the time, you should coach the Team Leaders about the critical strategies to help
their groups. The "Team Leader's Plan" is a useful guide for what Team Leaders should
do during the game. Once you have seen the game played at least one time, you will
become more comfortable helping them play their role. We recommend picking your
natural leaders to be the Team Leaders the first time you play the game. Later we
recommend sharing this responsibility among all your players. An alternative is for
the teachers or trainers to play the role of Team Leaders. This gives teachers
greater control over how the Challenge will be experienced by the players and
insures that all players will participate to some degree. For instance, Teacher/Team
Leaders can steer the discussion to certain issues or topics they want their players to
consider. They can also call on the other players to insure more equal participation.

Figure 3
THE TEAM LEADER'S PLAN
You are responsible for your group's success. While each of the players has
confidential instructions to do the best he or she can for their role, your job is to help
the whole group work well to reach the best solution to the common Challenge to
which they can all agree. Here is how you fulfill your responsibility.
PREPARATIONS: Make sure everyone understands what is about to
happen. If they haven't had enough time to read their materials, let them so do now.
WHEN THEY ARE READY TO PLAY, ANNOUNCE THE DEADLINE. In the
sixty-minute version of the game, it will be one hour from the time you begin.
1. INTRODUCTIONS: (1 minute each) Invite each player, one at a time, to
introduce him or herself to the group for one minute. You can decide what order to
ask players to introduce themselves, or you can do it randomly by going around the
group in a circle. Ideally, the players should tell the others what role they are

playing in the game and about what they want regarding solving the Challenge.
Keep track of time and keep them moving on schedule. After listening to the
Introductions, you should try to summarize what the players appear to have in
common.
2. GROUP PLANNING: (5 minutes) For the next five minutes lead a
discussion of what issues the players feel they must address during the game in order
to reach a solution and the ground rules they want to use when playing the game.
Examples of ground rules include: a "no interruption" rule, a "no sarcasm" rule, a
"no lying" rule or an "everyone gets to contribute" rule. Be sure to keep track of
time.
3. CLUE SHARING: (10 minutes) For the next ten minutes lead a discussion
of what information the players want to share from their confidential Secrets
cards. They can ask each other questions, but the most efficient use of the group's
time is for you to go to a black board or use newsprint to record a list of all their
important interests that must be satisfied by the final solution and all the important
confidential facts they know about the situation they are in. Be sure to keep track of
time. There is almost never enough time to share all the clues. Accept this fact and
move on.
4. MATCHING UP: (5 minutes) For the next five minutes, try to summarize
at the board or on newsprint what the players appear to have in common, i.e. their
shared interests, their shared standards of fairness or their shared factual
assumptions about the dilemma they face. Ask the players for additional ideas and
whether they agree with your summary. Be sure to keep track of time.
5. BRAINSTORMING: (10 minutes) For the next ten minutes, lead a
"brainstorming" session for creative options that might later be included in the final
solution to the Challenge. Try to get the players to suggest ideas without judging
them first. Don't let the players judge each other's ideas until the list is complete.
Assure them that they will get to judge these ideas later. Write their ideas where
everyone can see them. Be sure to keep track of time.
6. BARGAINING: (10 minutes) For the next ten minutes, lead a
"bargaining" session in which players start to present their proposals for the final
agreement. Try to include their best brainstorming ideas to improve the proposals
and move the players toward common ground on which they may all be able to
agree. Ask them to take a minute to review their brainstormed ideas before
bargaining. Be sure to keep track of time.
7. FINALIZING: (10 minutes) For the final ten minutes, try to pin down
exactly what the players have agreed to and push them to reach an agreement they
can all live with before time runs out. Check to see how close they are to an
agreement at the beginning of this leg. Only those provisions to which everyone has
agreed before the deadline can be used to compute a player's score. You must be
satisfied that everyone has agreed to that provision or it can't be included in the
score. You can also try to improve the solution at no one's expense before time runs

out. Be sure to keep track of time. They must have a unanimous agreement before
the deadline for anyone to win.
8. SCORING AND DEBRIEFING: If the players reach an agreement they
all vote "yes" for before the deadline, they are eligible to "win". The player with the
most points at the end of the game is the Winner. Players can earn Points toward
winning by comparing the terms of the final agreement with the Points on their
Secrets card. They earn Points regardless of whose idea it was that was included
in the final agreement. Once each player has computed his or her score, you should
have each one tell the rest of the group: 1. his score, 2. his "bottom line" and 3.what
they claim to have earned Points for. You are the final judge if there is a dispute
about whether a player legitimately earned the Points he or she is claiming.
STEP 3A: If You Don't Want To Use Team Leaders, You Can Share The
Leadership Of The Group By Distributing 8 "Boarding Passes".
Once players know how the game works, you can eliminate the Team Leader's role
and assign responsibility to individual players for each of the seven legs of the game. This
is done using the game's 8 "Boarding Passes" (See Figure 4.) which can be randomly
distributed until all 8 Passes are dealt. You may also decide to pick who gets which
Boarding Pass. The use of the Boarding Passes can create some very amusing
strategic problems for certain players and excellent debriefing opportunities for you. For
instance, there is a Boarding Pass for "Security". Security is responsible for keeping
the team spirit and general trust level up. However, some roles are designed to be
divisive. In "Stopping the Fighting" the role of T-Ball is the least sympathetic to an
agreement. T-Ball is instructed to be hostile. A player with the role of T-Ball who also
gets the Security Boarding Pass will find himself in a real dilemma. Does he work for
the group or for himself? While this dilemma isn't always realistic, it is often very funny
and raises everyone's awareness of the tension between individual success and group
success. We recommend having the Boarding Passes distributed randomly until
every Boarding Pass is gone. If you have fewer than 8 players, some players will get
more than one Pass.

Figure 4

"BOARDING PASSES"
THE GREETER
You are responsible for: 1. beginning the Introductions leg of the game by introducing yourself
first; 2. inviting the others to introduce themselves for one minute each in whatever order you chose; 3. and
summarizing what the players appear to have in common when everyone else is finished.

SECURITY
You are responsible for watching the trust level of the players throughout the game and stopping the
action, if necessary, to ask the players to work in a more cooperative manner with each other.

THE CO-PILOT
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through Group Planning leg of the game;
2. getting the players to list all the issues they think must be addressed before an agreement can
be reached; 3. having players set additional ground rules for the game; and 4. keeping track of the time to
insure that the players are on schedule for the rest of the game. Use a black board if you have one.

THE DETECTIVE
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Clue Sharing leg of the game;
2. getting the players to list all the important interests they have that must be satisfied by the solution
and all the important, hidden facts from the players' Secrets cards. Use a black board if you have one.

THE MATCH MAKER

You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Matching Up leg of the game:
2. getting the players to list all the common ground they share including their shared standards
of fairness, common interests and common facts. Use a black board if you have one.

THE INVENTOR
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Brainstorming leg of the game; and
2. getting the players to generate a list of creative ideas that they may be able to use to solve the Challenge.
DON'T LET THEM CRITICIZE THE BRAINSTORMED IDEAS YET. Use a black board if you have one.

THE BROKER
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Bargaining leg of the game:
2. encouraging the players to cooperatively put together a package of options that satisfies everyone's
interests adequately and fairly. Use a black board if you have one.

THE CLOSER
You are responsible for: 1. leading the group through the Finalizing leg of the game:
2. motivating the players to reach an agreement before the deadline that meets everyone's needs
adequately and fairly; 3. looking for ways to improve the overall value of the solution to the
group; and 4. leading the scoring and debriefing session once the game is over, if the players reach
a unanimous agreement. Use a black board if you have one.

STEP 4: Decide How Much Time You Want To Spend Playing The Game.
You should feel comfortable adjusting the timing for setting up, playing and
debriefing the game to fit your needs. There are many ways in which the game can be
played, depending on your time and interests.
The basic game takes sixty-minutes to play from the beginning of Introductions
to the end of Finalizing. In addition, you will need time for explaining and distributing
materials before the game begins, and time for scoring and debriefing the game after it is
over. We have found that a total of three hours is the ideal amount of time for
setting up, playing and debriefing the game for the first playing of it, particularly
when players have not had time to read the materials in advance. However, we
realize that you may not have three hours. If you are a teacher, we know that you may
have to fit the game into forty to fifty minute class periods. We have some suggestions for
those of you who may have less flexibility for when or how long to run the game.
Some teachers have used the following sequence. They will use a portion of one
class to describe the structure and rules of the game and to distribute the materials. They
will use all of a second class to play and score the game. They will use a third class,
usually very soon after the game is played, to debrief it and to have players exchange
feedback. Using this approach, the game is played in less than sixty-minutes. The teacher
can shorten the times allotted for each of the seven legs as follows:
Introductions
Group Planning
Clue Sharing
Matching Up
Brainstorming
Bargaining
Finalizing

8 minutes (1 minute per player)

2 minutes
5 minutes
2 minutes
10 minutes
10 minutes
3 minutes

Scoring
Total

10 minutes
50 minutes

Some games can and probably should be played over a much longer period. For
instance, "Lords of the Islands" is an opportunity to design a society's constitution. It
could take a whole semester to play, some of which would be conducted in class, and
some, outside of class. You could sequence the 7 legs in a variety of ways. An example
might be to use portions of classes over a number of days or weeks. Students might be
encouraged to negotiate in smaller coalitions between and outside of class and to conduct
full group meetings during part of a class as follows:
Introductions
Group Planning
Clue Sharing
Matching Up
Brainstorming
Bargaining
Finalizing
Debriefing

1 minute per player

Part of 1 class
Part of 1 or more classes
Part of 1 class
Part of 1 class
Part of 2 or more classes
Part of 1 class
Part of 1 class

Each of these strategic sessions can be debriefed by you at the end of each period
without disclosing confidential information. You would be helping your players
understand what competent performance of each strategy included while it was still fresh
in their minds.
For training conferences in which players are living in close proximity to each
other, e.g. in the same hotel or college campus, you could have multiple groups playing
the same Challenge outside of the official conference hours. The groups would be
competing against each other for the best solution to the Challenge. They would all get
the same deadline by which they would have to finish the Challenge. You could have
them report their group's results during a designated period later in the conference. The
groups would share their results and then you would lead the debriefing session
identifying why some groups were more successful than others.
We strongly encourage taking advantage of healthy competitions among
groups. This added level of complexity heightens the interest and the creative
tension between individual success and group success and works as an excellent
team building tool.
STEP 5: Distribute 1 "Challenge" Card", 1 "Secrets" Card And 1 Blank
"Player's Plan" To Each Player. Distribute 1 "Team Leader's Plan" to Team Leaders
Rather Than a "Secrets" Card.
Everyone get 1 "Challenge" card. Each Team Leader gets 1 "Team Leader's Plan".
Everyone else gets his or her own confidential "Secrets" cards which are the role cards.
You can arrange to have roles assigned randomly or you can decide who gets each role.
We recommend using role reversal when players are playing a Challenge they

might be playing in real life. Don't assign players the role they really play. Give players a
chance to see and feel how the other parties might view the situation.
The game has been designed to require minimal preparation for first time players.
However, we recommend, if you have the time, giving out the "Secrets" card, the
"Challenge" card and a blank "Player's Plan" in advance , so players have time to
thoroughly familiarize themselves with the materials and prepare their strategy. They
prepare by reading the "Challenge" and "Secrets" cards and filling in the blanks on the
"Player's Plan". (See Figure 5.) You may also want to distribute copies of "The Rules of
the Game" and "Tricks of the Trade for Playing Secrets and Strategies" found in the
Appendix, if you think your players are likely to read and use them. The "Tricks"
describes helpful strategies for each leg of the game.
Figure 5

THE PLAYER'S PLAN

PLAN: Read the Challenge card and your Secrets card carefully and review this Plan in
preparation for playing the game. Feel free to jot your ideas down.
1. INTRODUCTIONS: (1 min. each) You each have 1 minute to introduce your role to the other
players. What do you want to say about yourself that helps you strategically to obtain your goals? Do you want
to be friendly, angry, accommodating, demanding or what?

2. GROUP PLANNING: (5 min. total) The group has 5 minutes to decide what issues it will
address when solving this Challenge and which ground rules it will use to play the game. Which do you want
to be included on the list?

3. CLUE SHARING: (10 min. total) Players have 10 minutes to ask for and share clues from
each other's Secrets cards that may help them reach a valuable agreement by the end of the game. What do
you want to know about the other players' Secrets and what Secrets do you want to share? The decisions
are up to you.

4. MATCHING UP: (5 min. total) Players have 5 minutes to list everything they think they
have in common with the other players, e.g. similar interests in the outcome, similar ideas about what's fair,
similar views about the situation they're in. What do you think the players might have in common that would
help them reach a valuable agreement?

5. BRAINSTORMING: (10 min. total) Players have 10 minutes to list creative ideas for
options to be included in the final agreement that could make it better and more valuable. Don't criticize the
ideas now. This is not the same as bargaining or agreeing. Just list the ideas as fast as you can.

6. BARGAINING: (10 min. total) Players have 10 minutes to propose agreements or pieces of
agreements that everyone can vote "yes" for. Remember. Everyone has to agree or you all lose.

7. FINALIZING: (10 min. total) Players have just 10 more minutes to finalize their bargaining
and brainstorming and to reach a valuable agreement for which you can all vote "yes". What might you want
to remind the other players about during this final step?

SCORING: If you reach an agreement everyone voted "yes" for, you need to calculate how
valuable the agreement is for you as determined by the "Points" on your Secrets card which tells you what
your role values the most. Once you have added up your Points, the Team Leader will ask every player to state
how many points you earned; what you earned points for; and what your bottom line was.

STEP 6: Observe and Facilitate the Playing of the Game.

In general, we recommend that you be fairly passive during the playing of the
game, observing the groups from a distance and interjecting advice only if a group
requests it or if they appear to be stuck. Each leg of the game requires certain tasks be
performed adequately. Once you are clear what each leg entails in the overall problemsolving framework, you will become comfortable knowing when to intervene and when to
just watch the players try to solve their own problems.
We have seen teachers of younger players play the role of the Team Leaders when
the game was played for the first time. In these situations the teachers had certain points
they wanted to emphasize about the problem. By being the Team Leaders, they could
control the agenda to discuss what they wanted discussed. We created a Challenge
called "Scaping a Scapegoater" for the seventh grade of the Pierce School in Brookline,
Massachusetts. They were studying the Salem, Massachusetts witch trials in history and
reading Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" in English. The teachers wanted the students to
make the connection between calling your enemies "witches" and the kind of scapegoating
people do to each other all the time. By playing the Team Leaders roles, the teachers were
able to frame the problem more clearly for the students and to direct the discussion to the
issues they cared most about when the students went off on other tangents. This is a good
example of how the game can teach historical, literary and ethical content as well group
problem solving theory, values and skills.
STEP 7: Take Notes During the Game for the Debriefing Session.
One of the most important educational features of the game is the ease with which
it permits the players and their coaches to critique their performance afterwards. Because
the problem-solving framework is explicitly structured, it is easy to figure out when a
group worked well together and when it ran into trouble. Individuals can more easily
assess when a strategy worked and when it failed.
The framework allows players to discuss what standards are appropriate for
evaluating each strategic leg of the game and to compare their performance to those
standards. It also allows them to test the adequacy of these standards for themselves. For
instance, what is a good "Introduction"? The simple, one minute introduction each player
is permitted to make allows them to consider many different approaches to the negotiation
itself. Will they present themselves as eager to agree, or skeptical, or angry, or resistant?
Do they have a vision for the final agreement that they want to promote now? Several
years ago, a group of high school students at Tufts University were playing "Surviving a
Plane Crash". They had received very little introduction to the strategy of the game

beforehand. Just before the game began, one student blurted out, "I don't get it. What are
we supposed to do?" We just responded, "Introduce your role the best way you can."
Because of where she was seated in the group, she didn't have to introduce herself until
everyone else had done so. The first player just said "My name is Jessie. I'm the CoPilot". The second player said, "My name is Linda. Im a nurse and I want everyone to
survive." "The third player said, "Hi! My name is Shari. I am the Fisher. I have a plan for
how we can all survive if you just go south with me." At this point the girl who said she
didnt get it, exclaimed "I've got it!, and she did. By the time the group got to her two
minutes later, she had already worked out an entire strategy for persuading the other
players to follow her survival plan, a plan that moved them toward consensus and
maximized her individual Points.
While the game encourages the players to perform certain tasks during the seven
legs, it does not require them to do so. They are free to ignore the rules if they chose to
do so. There is no penalty for failing to follow the directions, except perhaps failing to get
a satisfactory agreement. We theorize that groups will do much better if they follow the
seven legs in the order prescribed. However, players after their first playing of the game
might be encouraged to test this theory for themselves. You can conduct the following
experiment. Have one group follow the rules strictly and have another group work
without reference to any particular agenda or strategy. Then see which group did better
and why. The game works very well as an "Action Science" experiment that lets players
test their own ideas about group problem solving effectiveness.
We recommend that during the game, you take detailed notes to record significant
moves that occurred. (Videotaping groups playing the game lets players see how they are
perceived by others.) One way to organize your note taking is illustrated in Figure 6. You
draw a line down the middle of each page of a tablet of paper. On the left side of the page
you record who said what. On the right side of the line, you put a number that
corresponds to the following code to help you focus, categorize and evaluate what
happened during the game. Next to the code, you can write comments about what was
effective or ineffective regarding that move. The code refers to the 10 effective strategies
of the problem solving framework the game teaches. The 10 strategies correspond to the
7 legs of the game as follows.
INTRODUCTIONS
1

Stay focused on your goals.

GROUP PLANNING

Get the others to follow your plan.

Build trust and reduce defensiveness.

CLUE SHARING

4I

Ask about the others' Interests.

4S

Ask about the others' Standards of Fairness.

4F

Ask about the others' Facts.

4A

Ask about the others' Alternatives.

5I

Tell the others about your Interests.

5S

Tell them about your Standards of Fairness.

5F

Tell them about your Facts.

5A

Tell them about your Alternatives.

MATCHING UP

Emphasize the common ground you all share.

BRAINSTORMING

Generate creative options for solving the Challenge.

BARGAINING

Propose the best first offer with packages of options and

counteroffers.

Counsel the others about the advantages to them of your offer

over their best alternative.
F INALIZING

10

Clarify and improve the proposal on the table.

Figure 6

"SURVIVING A PLANE CRASH"

TRANSCRIPT
Players: Hart = Team Leader; Collins = Co-Pilot; Burns = Homemaker; Lafferty =
Fisher; Turner = Soldier; Schanher = Doctor; Malambre = Attendant; Ash = Nurse;
Parker = Teacher
INTRODUCTIONS
H

Good Afternoon, My name is

Jackie Hart. I will be your
Team Leader for this Challenge.
Why don't we just go around
in a circle and have everyone
introduce themselves.

Hi. My name is Carol and I am

the co-pilot. I am committed
to seeing that everyone survives.
Since I am the officer in charge
of this plane, I will take over
the running of this meeting.
Let just introduce ourselves
first before we get into the details
of our survival plan.
Hi. My name is John Burns. I am
the Homemaker. I will be honest
with you. All I really care about
is getting home to my family.

Hi. My name is Jim Lafferty.

I am a professional fisherman.
I saw a fishing village not too far
from here as the plane was
descending.

2 Could use more

explanation. She
forgot to set
deadline.

5S, 6
2, 8 She is bargaining already.
Too early.

2 Good. She is trying to

control the agenda.

5I Was this a wise

move this
early in the
game?

5F, 8 Clue Sharing

I think we should send someone

to contact the village and call for
help
T

Good afternoon. My name is Kathy

Turner. I am a marine sargeant,
highly trained to survive a disaster
like this one. I have a number of
ideas that we could use to survive
and get rescued.
Great. When we get to Brainstorming, we will want to hear all your
ideas.

and Bargaining
already

5F

3 T. L. complements
and encourages, stays

upbeat
S

Hello. My name is Dr. Schanher. I

am an expert on handling stress
and can be very helpful to everyone as we try to survive. I must
also tell you that my wife died
in the crash. So I won't be going
anywhere until we are rescued.

5F

8, 5S.................

STEP 8. Lead the Scoring and Debriefing Session.

There are many ways to conduct the debriefing of the game. You should feel free
to do what you have time for. We will describe some of your choices in this Step.
a. Group Self-Critique: The Short Form

The game's rules call for a Scoring and Debriefing phase after the game is over.
The simplest way to do this is to have the players compute their individual scores and then
share three pieces of information with the rest of the group: 1. their score; 2. their
"Bottom Line"; and 3. what they claim to have scored Points for. (See Figures 7 and 8.)
The Secrets cards tell the players what terms in the final agreement they are entitled to
claim Points for, but often some scoring judgment is required. For instance, in "Getting
Divorced" the teenage child of the divorcing couple wants his parents to commit to at
least two months of good faith "marriage counseling". Neither parent is really interested
in "marriage counseling", but they are willing to attend "family counseling". The question
is then whether this kind of "family counseling" can fairly be claimed as "marriage
counseling" by the teenager. It is up to the players to decide. The Team Leader is the final
arbiter if a decision cannot be reached.
The very process of trying to evaluate the Point value of the final agreement turns
out to be a valuable form of group self-critique. They quickly see the need for greater
clarity regarding the terms of their agreement. You don't have to say anything for them to
get this lesson from playing the game. Revealing everyone's "bottom lines" after the game
is extremely useful feedback, because players can see what mistakes they made and what
value they left on the table. They see that the game is a real negotiation. The rules help
them see what they did and did not do effectively without any teacher intervention.

Figure 7

THE SCORING FORM

Points are earned by having certain valuable terms included in the final agreement.

THE NAME OF THE GAME

THE PLAYERS: _____________ _____________ _____________

_____________ _____________ _____________
_____________ _____________ _____________
THE BASIC ISSUES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
THE CREATIVE IDEAS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Figure 8

THE SCORING FORM

Points are earned by having certain valuable terms included in the final
agreement.

STOPPING THE FIGHTING

THE NAME OF THE GAME

THE PLAYERS:

The Prince
Julie
T-Ball
Head, Capulets
Fr. Larry
Cutie-O
Romeo
Total

"Yes" Points
____ _____
____ _____
____ _____
____ _____
____ _____
____ _____
____ _____

THE BASIC ISSUES:

1.
2.
3.

The number of years a public fighter gets exiled

_______
The number of years a Mt. Tag fighter gets exiled
_______
The numbers of years a Capulet fighter gets exiled
_______

THE CREATIVE IDEAS INCLUDED IN THE FINAL AGREEMENT:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

b. Group Self-critique: The Longer Form

After the group has scored its Points and each player has shared his or her Points
and Bottom Lines, the group can use the following "Group Checklist" to collectively
critique the process it used to solve this problem.

THE GROUP'S CHECKLIST

1. Did the group stay focused on its purpose or did it get distracted from its
goals? What happened?
2. Did the group succeed in forming a genuine partnership or did it stay in a
competitive mode to the end? Did this make a difference to the outcome?
3. Did the group use a well-thought out agenda to make its decisions or was its
process random and haphazard? What happened?
4. Did the group exchange accurate and complete information about each party's
most important interests, factual assumptions, standards of fairness and best alternatives
prior to making its decision or did it make its decisions based on incomplete and
inaccurate information?
5. Was the group able to do some quality brainstorming to improve the solution to
the problem? If not, why not? If so, why were you able to do this?
6. Did the group bargain issue by issue or with packages of well-defended options
that were improved with further brainstorming?
7. How well did the group manage the tension between creating and claiming the
"value" it had created for its members, particularly as the deadline approached?
c. Individual Self-critique
You can ask each player now or later, orally or in writing, to evaluate his or her
performance during the game. A simple checklist for such a self-critique follows.
1. What was your goal for this game? How much satisfaction of your interests
were you seeking?
2. Describe briefly the agenda that was actually used during this negotiation. In
other words, what really happened and in what order?
3. Describe briefly what your planned agenda was for this negotiation and how
well you think the players followed it, if at all?
5. If you were surprised or bothered by anything that happened in this
negotiation, please describe what it was.
5. Did you leave any value on the table at the end of the game that you could
have gotten if you had conducted this negotiation differently?
7. If you feel you left value on the table, which of the following reasons best
describes why you did so?

e.
f.
g.
h.

I didnt try harder enough to get a better result for my role.

I wasnt skilled enough to get a better result for my role.
I thought it would be unfair to claim more than I claimed for my role.
I has satisfied with how much I got even if it wasnt everything I could get.

7. If you had this negotiation to do over again, what would you do differently?
How might you have prepared better for it?
d. Leader-Led Group Critique
It is easy to discuss the playing of one sixty-minute Challenge indefinitely. The
experience tends to provoke so many questions by the players that you need to negotiate
the agenda for the group critique. Depending on how much time you have and your goals
for the exercise, we recommend starting with some very open-ended, player-driven
questions and then only later sharing your views of the effectiveness of their play. We
strongly recommend conducting the critique as a Clue Searching process more
than a Clue Sharing or Bargaining process by which you are telling the players
how they should have conducted themselves. This doesn't mean you shouldn't share
your suggestions for more effective strategies. It just means that your advice should be
tempered by openness to minimize your players' defensiveness toward your views. We
shall illustrate how this might look.
Beginnings
"We have X time to discuss what you just did. I would like to find out what you
thought of the game and then I will ask you some specific questions about the strategies
different players actually used during the game. Any questions before we begin? (Agenda
Setting and Group Planning)
What do you feel you learned from the experience of playing this game that you
would use in another negotiation like this one in the future? (Clue Searching)
What would you do differently if you could play this game again?
Did you feel this game was realistic? Why or why not?
Was it fun for you? Why or why not?
Was it hard for you? Why or why not?
Did anything happen during the game that surprised or bothered you? What?
Power Questions
What do you think "power" means in a negotiation like this one?
What are the main sources of this kind of power?

What could a player do in this kind of negotiation to increase his power?

Who had the power in this game? Why do you say that?
Preparation Questions
What did you do to prepare for this game? Did that turn out to be enough?
Did you actually use your preparation during the game? How?
If you were going to play this game again, would you do anything else to prepare
for it than you did?
Was your preparation practical enough to be useful for you during the game? Why
or why not? What would you do differently next time?
Did you feel confident going into this game as a result of the preparation you did?
Why?
The theory is that good preparation increases your self-confidence in the playing of
the game and improves your performance of every stage of the game. Do you agree or
disagree with this theory? Why?
Goal Questions
What was your goal for this game?
How would you evaluate the deal you actually got?
Did your goal change during the game? How? Why?
Did you lose focus of your own goals during the game? What happened? What
effect did this have on your playing of the game?
Did you think the group lost its focus on its goals during the game? What
happened? What effect did this have on the outcome?
Did you get refocused at some point? How? When?
In general, after playing this game, how important do you think staying focused
on your goals is for your success? Why? What about for the group?
What are the best strategies for staying focused on your and the group's goals?
How important was the Team Leader in keeping the group focused on its purpose?

Did a leader other than the Team Leader emerge who was particularly good at
keeping the group focused on its task?
The theory is that the more focused you and the group are on your purpose, the
more effectively everyone performs. Do you agree or disagree with this theory?
Introduction Questions
How did you introduce yourselves? Why did you do it that way? Was your
introduction effective or ineffective given your overall strategy for this game?
Did you see any other Introductions that you felt were particularly effective or
ineffective? Please describe and explain.
If you were going to introduce yourself again in this game, how would you do it?
Why?
The theory is that some roles need to present a general vision of an ideal solution
at the very beginning of the game that anchors the subsequent discussion without
polarizing people into opposing camps. This is a leadership theory. What do you think
about such a strategy?
The theory says the best strategy in general is to stay firm on your interests but
flexible on the means for satisfying your interests. Do you agree or disagree with this
strategy? How might it get used during the Introduction?
Agenda Setting Questions
How would you describe the agenda that was actually used by the group in this
game?
What was your planned agenda for this game? Did it change during the game?
Why?
Were you able to get the group to follow your agenda during the game? If yes,
how did that happen? If no, what went wrong?
Were there things you could have done to get the group to follow your agenda that
you didn't use? What? Why didn't you use these strategies?
Do you think the agenda that was actually followed in this game made any
difference to the outcome? Why?
How important was the Team Leader in controlling the agenda of the game?
The theory is that the agenda does matter to the outcome; that some agendas are
better than others, depending on your goal, and that it takes an effective leader to skillfully

set and control the group's agenda in order to get things done effectively. What do you
think of this theory?
Working Relationship Questions
How would you describe the prevailing relationship of the players during the
game: as a messy competition, a polite competition, a genuine partnership or something
else?
Did you like the way the players worked together? Why or why not?
If you didn't like the way the players worked together, was there anything you
could have done to change the relationship? What? Why didn't you do that during the
game?
Was gender a factor in this game? Race? Age? Why do you say this?
The theory says that you are almost always better off reducing the defensiveness of
the other players toward you personally, regardless of your goal. Do you agree or
disagree with this theory? Why?
What role do you think trust plays in group problem-solving? Why?
The theory says that the collective trust level of the group is a good indicator of
the group's effectiveness as a problem-solving team. Do you agree or disagree with this
theory? Why?
What role did the Team Leader play in influencing the working relationship of your
group? What did she do?
The theory says that it often takes very skillful and courageous leadership to
change a working relationship that has gone bad? What do you think about this? What
does an effective leader do to change a bad working relationship?
Clue Sharing Questions
How accurate and complete was the sharing of important, confidential information
among the players before they had to make a decision to solve the Challenge?
Could the information sharing have been better? How? Why do you say this?
What information in general do you think is the most important to share with the
group before it has to make a decision?
Did you get the information you planned to get when you prepared for this game?
Describe what happened.

If you were going to prepare for clue searching and sharing for this game again,
would you do anything differently? What? Why?
How was the information sharing among the group organized? Was it done
systematically or haphazardly? Why? Did this make a difference to the outcome?
Could the information sharing have been done better? How?
How does an individual decide as a practical matter when to share some potentially
important piece of confidential information and when to withhold it?
What are the risks of disclosing information? How could it make you more
vulnerable?
What are the risks to the individual of withholding something? What are the risks
to the group?
What are the ethical rules surrounding disclosing information in a game like this
one? Why? Is it OK to misrepresent something you disclose to the other players? Why?
How do you get another player to answer a question he doesn't want to answer?
What is the best way to disclose information you chose to reveal to the other
players? How important is timing? Detail? Authority?
Is it better to ask questions before answering questions or the reverse? Does it
really matter?
The theory says that it is generally better to understand the other players' interests,
values, factual view of the situation and alternatives before we reveal anything to them or
start proposing solutions to the "problem". Do you agree or disagree with this theory?
Why?
Do you think it is realistic to expect people to give you confidential information
during a game like this one? Why?
Matching Up Questions
Did your group make a good list of important things they shared? Why or why
not?
How important do you think this strategy is? Why?
What are the most useful "matches" in general?
Do you think this is a realistic step to take in real negotiations? Why or why not?

How important do you think the Team Leader is in insuring effective Matching
Up?
The theory says that explicitly identifying the shared interests, values, facts and
even alternatives the players may have helps frame the problem more clearly and improves
the working relationship as they prepare to solve the Challenge as a group. Do you
agree or disagree with this theory? Why?
Brainstorming Questions
Did your group conduct a creative brainstorming session? Why or why not?
What factors contributed to this result?
What kinds of things did you brainstorm for? Solutions to the Challenge?
Causes to the problem? Ground rules? Clues?
How realistic do you think it is to be able to have a good brainstorming session in
a game like this one? Why?
Are there realistic things you could have done if this were a real negotiation to
improve the likelihood a productive brainstorming session occurred?
How important is mutual trust to an effective brainstorming session? Why?
Was it hard not to evaluate the ideas when they were proposed? Why?
What can you do to improve the group trust level before you begin brainstorming?
How important is the role of the Team Leader in running an effective brainstorming
session? Why?
What can you do when people are clearly bargaining in the name of brainstorming?
Are there other procedures for running an effective brainstorming session in
addition to a "no judging" ground rule?
Where do you think genuinely innovative ideas come from in general? Can people
train themselves to become better at finding innovative solutions to common problems, or
is this just something we do or don't do?
Bargaining Questions
How was the bargaining actually conducted during your game?
When did the first bargaining start? During Introductions? Clue Sharing?
Brainstorming?
Was bargaining issue by issue or in packages? How did this happen?

Did the way bargaining was handled make a difference to the outcome?
Did anyone propose a Best First Offer? How well did it work?
Did it become the anchor for subsequent discussion? Why or why not?
Were there competing Best First Offer packages? How did that work? How were
they justified?
Did bargaining begin too soon or too late? Why do you say this?
Was the first offer too "high" or too "low"? What does that mean? How did that
happen? What effect did it have on the outcome?
How were concessions from the first offer made? How were they justified?
What is the best way to make a concession in this situation?
How does brainstorming work during, rather than before, bargaining?
What role did deadlines play in bargaining in this game? Are deadlines helpful or
harmful? Why?
Did anyone consciously counsel the other players on the advantages of their offer
over the best alternatives of the other players? How did that work?
Finalizing Questions
Did the group pace itself well or did it run out of time to solve this problem? What
happened?
How important was the Team Leader during Finalizing?
What procedures did the group use to build consensus and try to reach an
agreement? Did you use voting procedures or did consensus just emerge spontaneously?
How important were the Matching Up and Brainstorming sessions to the
recognition of a settlement range that helped resolve the problem?
Were you able to improve the solution at the end, or did you just have enough time
to get just any deal result before time ran out? What happened?
How well focused were you at the end as the deadline approached? Were you
adequately prepared for that moment?
Debriefing Questions

Did you learn anything useful during the Scoring and Debriefing session? What?
Did you learn anything useful about your degree of focus as the deadline
approached?

THE VALUE OF THE FRAMEWORK

AND THE GAME
WHAT THE GAME TEACHES

1. We have identified a number of important benefits that you and your players can
enjoy by using this framework and our games. The game's main purpose is to teach players
the process and skill of solving their "group problems" better. We think it is a very good
introduction to what we call competitive group problem solving. Competitive group
problem solving is distinguished from cooperative group problem solving.
Competitive group problem solving describes the process groups of people with
different interests, values, factual assumptions and alternatives use when they work
together to try to solve their shared problems. We believe this describes almost all
problem-solving two or more people use together. Our strategy for teaching a full range of
group problem-solving skills is to use as much structure as possible without
oversimplifying the message. We created an explicit framework for group problem
solving, and then we designed a game to re-enforce the framework when its played. The
framework says that the group solves its "group problems" better with a skillful
combination of the strategies embodied in this game. The game is designed so that playing
it even once teaches these highly transferable group problem-solving skills. It explicitly
rewards and re-enforces skillful competitive and cooperative behavior.
2.. Playing the game increases a player's personal problem solving power which
we call DECKS. It increases his desire to solve difficult new problems. It gives him the
confidence and the knowledge to do so. And it provides practice using the skills to do so
with focused feedback.
3. It teaches mediation skills through the role of the Team Leader.

4. It teaches group leadership skills through the role of the Team Leader and the
use of Boarding Passes.
5.. It teaches goal focusing skills by providing a clear goal and opportunities to
refocus during Matching Up and Finalizing.
6. It teaches the importance of a good first impression and how to create such an
impression during the Introductions.
7. It teaches coalition building skills by requiring a unanimous vote.
8. It teaches agenda setting skills by limiting the playing time and providing a clear
sequence of tasks.
9. It teaches information gathering, sharing and bargaining skills and the ethics of
information bargaining during Clue Sharing.
11. It teaches problem framing skills.
11. It teaches consensus building skills by requiring a unanimous vote.
12. It teaches the usefulness of objective criteria, standards of fairness and
common ground in Matching Up.
13. It teaches brainstorming skills during Brainstorming.
14. It teaches bargaining skills and how to make a good first offer during
Bargaining.
15. It teaches trading skills during Bargaining and Finalizing.
16. It teaches skills for combining brainstorming with bargaining during
Bargaining and Finalizing.
17. It teaches counseling skills during Bargaining and Finalizing.
18. It teaches interest and values clarification and prioritizing skills during Clue
Sharing and Matching Up.
19. It teaches finalizing and commitment skills during Finalizing.
20. It teaches the difference among "issues", "interests" and "positions" during
Group Planning, Clue Sharing and Bargaining.
21. It teaches interviewing skills during Clue Sharing.
22. It teaches questioning skills during Clue Sharing.

23. It teaches argument making skills during Bargaining.

24. It teaches creativity and mutual gain making skills during Brainstorming.
25. It teaches feedback skills during Scoring and Debriefing.
26. It teaches relationship building skills throughout the Game.
27. It teaches implementation skills.
28. It teaches conflict resolution skills.
29. It teaches time management skills.
30. It teaches the multidimensional nature of problems.
31. It teaches the relativity of values.
32. It teaches the value-laden nature of "facts".
33. It teaches democratic decision making at the grass roots level.
34. It teaches how to reconcile the tension between individual interests and the
interests of the group or society as a whole.
HOW THE GAME TEACHES

2. It teaches problem-solving structure.

Giving players an enjoyable, manageable and memorable structure for
approaching complex group problems and letting them use the structure to play the
game two or more times increases their overall interest and capacity to solve real
problems. Learning the obvious structure of the game turns out to be very
empowering for players and teachers. It will make you a "great teacher" in the
eyes of your players.
2. It teaches mediation skills.
The structure of the game and the role of the Team Leader teach players an easy to
learn framework for conducting complex, multiparty mediations. The Team Leader is a
mediator committed to helping the group reach the Best Fair Deal.
3. It teaches group leadership skills.
Individuals clearly do better in the game if the group works well together. In other
words, group problem-solving is a team sport. Each individual is encouraged to help the
group perform more effectively in the role of Team Leader or as a player. The
consequence of ineffective group performance becomes obvious during the Scoring and

Debriefing phase of the game. The structure of the game helps players assume a
leadership role when the Team Leader is not performing effectively.

4. It teaches goal focusing skills.

The fast-paced agenda of the game forces players to focus and refocus or fail. The
Matching Up and Finalizing strategies explicitly ask the players to refocus. When they do
poorly, their lack of focus becomes obvious during Debriefing.
5. It teaches the importance of a good first impression and how to create
such an impression.
The Introductions leg of the game gives players a one minute chance to try out
their first impressions strategy and to compare their own introduction to 7 others in the
game. The explicit structure of the game makes it easier to compare your performance of
this or any task with that of the other players.
6. It teaches coalition building skills.
The Introductions leg gives the players a quick opportunity to identify who might
be their allies during the game. Each of the later legs re-enforces or qualifies their first
impression as players search for support for their Points in the final agreement.
7. It teaches agenda setting and controlling skills.
The structure of the game gives players an easy to remember agenda for real
negotiations. The Team Leader continually reminds them during the game of the need to
stay on task and on schedule. Techniques for getting back on track on constantly being
tested by all the players. Group Planning formally asks them to state their plan, their
ground rules and the issues they want to address. During Debriefing it gives them a
chance to critique the adequacy of their plan and the enforcement of their rules.
8. It teaches information gathering, sharing and bargaining skills and ethics.
Clue Sharing requires the players to be very efficient when collecting information
from the other players and when disclosing what they want to share. It gives them a
chance to compare information bargaining strategies used by different players. Later
during Debriefing it lets them evaluate the clarity, effectiveness and honesty of the
information sharing that occurred.
9.

It teaches problem framing skills.

The game structures the players' efforts so that they have to start Brainstorming
and then Bargaining usually with not enough time to do perfect information sharing and
problem framing. During Debriefing the missing clues are often identified and the need for
more thorough preparation is driven home.

10. It teaches consensus building skills.

Because the game requires a unanimous vote to approve any deal before anyone is
eligible to win, players quickly figure out the need to turn a competitive situation into a
more cooperative one. By the time they get to Matching Up, they are actively looking for
clues to a deal that everyone can support.
11. It teaches the usefulness of objective criteria, standards of fairness and
common ground.
Matching Up re-enforces the need to identify general principles of agreement
which the players share. These principles become the standards by which the players will
later evaluate their success. A skillful Team Leader will teach the others what standards of
fairness look like and how they might apply to this situation.
12. It teaches brainstorming skills.
The Brainstorming leg explicitly gives the players permission to brainstorm
skillfully without fear of criticism or evaluation. A skillful Team Leader will protect each
member of the group relying on the rules of the game for the authority to control the
agenda. Once players see how a good brainstorming session can add real value to the final
agreement, they will never be as satisfied problem solving without it.
13. It teaches bargaining skills and how to make a good first offer.
The Bargaining leg discourages players from beginning bargaining too early and
teaches them the importance of an excellent, well-defended first offer. They don't have
time for mistakes. They are able to easily compare the pros and cons of issue by issue
bargaining with package bargaining with options derived from brainstorming.
14. It teaches trading skills and concession strategies.
During Bargaining and Finalizing, explicitly trading options to improve Point totals
is essential. Because the trading process is so obvious, the structure of the game makes it
easier for the players to evaluate the most effective trading and concession strategies.
15. It teaches how to combine brainstorming with bargaining.
During Bargaining and Finalizing the players have to build different ways to
improve the proposal so everyone can agree. Combining brainstorming with bargaining is
the most obvious way for players to do this. A proposal is made and then the players try
to improve it by brainstorming about a specific aspect of the multiple option package.
16. It teaches counseling skills.

During Bargaining and Finalizing players try to explain to the others why the offer
on the table meets their needs better than their best alternative. This is counseling very
much the way you would do it with your own clients or teammates.
17. It teaches interest and values clarification and prioritizing skills.
The Points and Secrets cards often have contradictory messages about what the
player wants most. Bargaining and Finalizing require that these values and interests be
clarified, reconciled and then prioritized to reach a final deal.
18. It teaches finalizing skills.
The deadlines of the game force the players to be efficient during the Finalizing leg
in order to get the most Points.
19. It teaches the difference among "issues", "interests" and "positions".
Group Planning requires the players to list their "issues" without bargaining too
early. Clue Sharing and Brainstorming require the players to describe their interests but
not their bargaining positions. Bargaining lets them advocate a particular position. The
strategic subtleties among these three categories of information sharing can be tested and
then critiqued during Debriefing.
20 It teaches interviewing and questioning skills.
Clue Sharing gives players practice asking good, open-ended and follow-up
questions. The Debriefing session gives them immediate feedback about how well they
performed their probing and challenging strategies.
21. It teaches arguing skills.
Bargaining and Finalizing give the players lots of opportunities to defend their
settlement proposals using their standards of fairness, their mutual interests, the "facts"
and the players' alternatives.
22. It teaches creativity and mutual gain-making skills.
Brainstorming and Bargaining give the players practice adding value to the final
agreement through current and future mutual gain.

23. It teaches feedback skills.

The Scoring and Debriefing session provides well-structured information about
where players could have performed better during each of the seven legs of the Game.
They get to see what they left on the table, what assumptions they made incorrectly, what

sources of constructive and obstructive power they failed to exploit and what the others
found to be influential. They also get to see how powerful this form of feedback can be for
enhancing learning.
24. It teaches relationship building skills.
The players quickly learn the importance of the working relationship and the
general level of trust that is necessary for each of the legs to work most effectively. The
Debriefing session gives them a well-structured opportunity to point out where the trust
level went up or down and what impact it had on the effectiveness of the group.
25. It teaches convening skills.
Some of the games illustrate the difficulty of getting some roles to negotiate in
good faith. These games give players practice and confidence experimenting with
strategies for engaging the "difficult" role.
26. It teaches implementation skills.
Some of the games illustrate what happens when the previous agreement was not
clear or was not accepted wholehearted by certain stakeholders. In these games, the
Challenge is figuring out how to redo a deal that is more durable.
27. It teaches conflict resolution skills.
These are all conflict resolution skills. "Conflict" is the perception of irreconcilable
interests. That perception may be wrong. The game presents apparently competing
interests and challenges the players to reconcile them.
28. It teaches time management skills.
The fast pace of the game forces players to see the need to perform each task
adequately rather than spending all their time on one task at the expense of the others.
29. It teaches the multidimensional nature of problems.
Players get a chance to see experientially the many different ways to look at the
same problem depending on the role the player is playing.
30. It teaches the relativity of values.
Players get to see the many different standards of fairness that stakeholders can
have about the outcome of the same problem.
32. It teaches the value-laded nature of "facts".

Players get to see in role how the same facts are shaped by the values of the
stakeholders.
33. It teaches the tension between individual and group interests.
The Points for individual and mutual gain help the players see very quickly the
tension between individual and group interests and how they might be reconciled in
practical ways.

WAYS TO USE THE GAME

Our game has now been played by over 3000 people including sixth grade science
students, middle school English students, high school environment students, college
undergraduates, graduate urban planners, law students, college professors, law professors,
lawyers, assistant attorneys general, non-profit and public sector managers, legislative
leaders and sales representatives. Because of the breadth of the definition of "group
problems", we have an unlimited market of people who could benefit from learning the
framework and playing the game. In real life "group problem-solving" goes by different
names: management, client counseling, legislative decision making, policy making,
political leadership, litigation, urban planning, environmental planning, parenting, group
therapy, family therapy, organizational development, school administration, church
administration, non-profit administration, military administration, anti-poverty
programming, literacy programming, and social problem management of every kind.
1. After Dinner Games
The game is a lot of fun to play and should be ideal for adult, after dinner
entertainment like the murder mystery games. Its current design doesn't permit many
multiple playings, but some repeat play is possible. In this respect it is similar to the
murder mystery games that give guests clues they can use once. It can be used for
costume parties and other kinds of role playing.
We have roughed out the design of a board game that currently looks like this.
The board would be a typical, foldable game board. It would have a picture of the world
on it with all seven continents represented in different colors. Each continent represents
one of the 7 legs of the plane flight. The game would have a plane that could hold 8 icons
for the players and a pilot icon for the team leader. The board game itself would be played
similarly to the generic game, with several exceptions. We would use what we call
"Turbulence" cards that players would have to take as they flew around the world from
continent to continent. The Turbulence cards include new Secrets, new bottom lines, and
new Points. They also influence how the game is played. For instance, one card gives a
player permission to stop everyone else from talking for one minute while she says what
she has to say, like a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card in Monopoly. We can create a deck of
these cards that people could use in real negotiations to help control the agenda, similar to
the "Whack Pack".
2. Corporate Training

The game has significant potential as part of a one to two day corporate training
program in group problem-solving, dispute resolution, sales, leadership, TQM and
negotiation skills. It is also an excellent team building tool. We have used it to train a
pharmaceutical company's sales personnel. In that case, we created a special version of
the game based on the sales setting of that company. We have also used it to train groups
of lawyers engaged in multiparty negotiations.
3. "Niche" Seminars
The game can be used for specialized markets in a seminar style program.
Examples might include people going through a divorce, handing over the reins of the
family business or placing a parent in a nursing home. People would play the special
games like "Getting Divorced" or "Passing the Business On" that raise in an entertaining
way many of the issues they will confront in real life. A professional facilitator, like a
family therapist or divorce mediator, would lead the Debriefing session addressing the
topic of the seminar as well as the process by which the outcome was reached.
Negotiators could play a game with their own clients before the real negotiation to help
identify problems and work out the agenda. We did something like this for the
Environment Protection Agency with "Retaking Lost Ground". We created a
"brownfields" reclamation game for community and agency representatives who played it
and then discussed how it would work in the real world. A "role reversal" ground rule
which prevents players from playing themselves in the game helps everyone see the other
perspectives more clearly.
4. Non-profit Leadership Training
I teach a "Leadership Negotiation" course at Tufts University during the summers
for community leaders. I have used the Game to teach group leadership skills for nonprofit organizations that must train their boards of directors, their staffs and their clients
better problem-solving skills.

5. Agency Team Meeting Training

We have created a version of the game "Planning Phil's Future" for in-service
training for state agencies like the Departments of Mental Retardation, Mental Health and
Special Education that are required by law to conduct annual team meetings to develop
individual treatment plans for their disabled clients. The market for this use nationally
includes every public school in the country and three of the largest state agencies in every
state.
6. Federal Collaboration Training
The federal Alternative Dispute Resolution Act encourages federal agencies to use
alternatives to traditional, adversarial processes to resolve multiparty disputes. As a result,

multiparty collaborations are occurring all over the country. For instance, hundreds of
private, hydroelectric dams are being re-licensed under the supervision of the Federal
Energy Regulation Commission. These re-licensing processes can take six years and can
involve dozens of stakeholders. The parties, particularly the non-professional interests,
need to be trained about how to play their part in this new, collaborative decision making
model. The game is an excellent tool for a one or two day training program for this
purpose.
7. Schools
We have played versions of the game with players as young as sixth graders and as
old as seniors. Last year we had sixty sixth grade science students in a public school in
Ohio play "Surviving a Plane Crash" with incredible success. In this case success was
measured by the ease of administration of the game, the students' enthusiasm for playing,
their skill at playing, the creativity of their results and the extent to which they learned
group problem-solving strategies. Some of the weakest students academically became
star performers during the game generating many innovative solutions to their problem.
One of the most promising school-related applications of the game involves its use
for structuring a student's substantive learning of a subject. In an environmental literacy
course for high school students at Tufts University last summer, eight students studied a
unit on the struggling Gloucester fishing industry as the focus of the course. At the very
beginning of the course, they played "Surviving a Plane Crash" with almost no advanced
preparation. They were then given the assignment of designing their own negotiation
problem using the format of the game as their structure. We wrote the Challenge card
which framed the problem for them. We also identified the eight roles from which they
could chose a role. They had to decide who they were going to be in their own game and
then they had to draft their own Secrets cards. By setting it up this way, the entire course
was experienced by them as a collaborative, multiparty negotiation. They interviewed
their real world counterparts to make the Secrets cards realistic. In doing so they gained a
unique perspective on the complexity of real problems that they would not normally see
until they started working. The experiment was a stunning success.
We think the game can be used as part of an unlimited number of courses at the
elementary, middle school, high school, college and graduate school levels. We use it in
our law school and urban and environmental policy courses on conflict resolution and
mediation. One obvious use is the teaching of the dreaded "health" curriculum in the
middle schools. For instance, the Ohio curriculum for health requires the teaching of
problem solving along with subjects like drug and alcohol abuse, Aids, teenage pregnancy,
eating disorders, and sexual abuse. We could easily design a Challenge around any of
these topics. The players might be an anorexic, fourteen year old girl who is hiding her
weight loss and her problem. The players would be the girl, her best girl friend, her boy
friend, her parents, her doctor, her teacher and her guidance counselor. They would each
know something about her problem that they hadn't shared with the others. As a result, no
one fully appreciates the severity of the situation. They would have different ideas about
the appropriate course of action. Some players would be in denial. Some would want
unilateral, coercive action. Others would prefer a more gradual approach to the problem.
Designing an entire middle school health curriculum around multiple games could make

health fun to teach and take and teach group problem solving at the same time. We
consider this use of the game particularly promising because of the general recognition of
the unpopularity of the current curriculum and the need for something better. We can run
training programs to teach health teachers how to teach the Game along with the rest of
the health curriculum.
The game is an excellent leadership training tool for solving any kind of multiparty
social and political problem. It can be used to teach history, by recreating famous,
historical negotiations such as designing Reconstruction, expanding or restricting slavery,
drafting treaties with Native Americans, planning Columbus' trip, locating a commercial
port like St. Louis or Boston or establishing a colony like Plymouth Plantation. It can
help students address controversial school management issues like bilingual education,
Eubonics, affirmative action, i.e. "Evening the Score, school budget cutbacks, the use of
the longer school day or improving teacher performance, i.e. "Improving Our Schools".
You could even design a game around how much homework is fair to assign students.
In February we collaborated with the faculty of the seventh grade of the Pierce
School in Brookline, Massachusetts to create "Scaping a Scapegoater" about the Salem
Witch Trials. The Challenge was literally to figure out how to tell a witch from a witch. It
encouraged students to think about the problem of scapegoating in their own school as
well as to integrate their reading of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" with their historical
studies of early colonial American life. Over sixty students playing the Game
simultaneously in eight teacher-led groups were remarkably successful in addressing these
problems creatively and effectively. All eight groups reached a unanimous agreement, yet
no two solutions were the same.
In June, a group of not-for-profit managers met at the Management and
Community Development Institute at Tufts University to play "Retaking Lost Ground"
during a two day program that included five substantive modules on the law and
technology of "brownfields" reclamation and redevelopment. The entire program was
conducted in role although the actual negotiation of the Challenge occupied less than two
hours of their time. The Environmental Protection Agency is now using this Challenge in
"brownfields" training programs in other parts of the country.
In general, the game is an excellent teaching tool for civics or government. It is a
model for democratic decision making. It takes representative roles from the stakeholder
groups actually affected by the common "Challenge" and puts them in a constructive
setting which rewards them for working well together and "punishes" them when they
don't.
The Game can be used for an interscholastic group problem-solving competition.
Each participating school selects nine students any way it chooses. Ideally, they would be
the school's best negotiators. On the day of the competition students are randomly
assigned to a group of eight students and one team leader so that each group has roughly
the same number of students from each school. Each group would play the same
Challenge for the same time frame. The winning school would be computed the way team
golf scores are computed. The individual scores of each player from each school would be
added up. The school whose students had the highest total would be the winner.

Corporate sponsors could support each school if the schools didn't have a budget for this
competition, the way companies sponsor sports teams.
8. Church Leadership Training
Most churches aspire to some kind of shared decision making responsibility. They
also give lip service to ground rules consistent with their religious views, such as
respecting everyone regardless of their position on a given issue. Often, churches have
trouble conforming their decision making practices with their religious beliefs,
particularly when dealing with hard issues. The game provides a safe structure for
learning new problem-solving behaviors before trouble begins on the real issues. We have
a game called "Planning the Church's Future" which presents a classic struggle over the
future direction of a dying church. We think this game is an excellent retreat and lay
leadership training tool for any church that wants to share power with its members.
9. Religious Education
The game is a wonderful way to present complex ethical and moral issues. For
instance, every Secrets card includes the player's "Standard of Fairness" for the outcome
of that version of the game. In "Surviving a Plane Crash", some players are committed to
everyone's survival, while other players are more concerned with their own survival.
Every player's Standard of Fairness is presented in as favorable a light as possible in order
to squarely present the hard, moral dilemmas raised by the apparent conflict of interests.
Religious teachers, particularly of Sunday school classes and middle and high
school youth groups, are often eager (if not desperate) to find engaging exercises for their
students that are fun and relevant to their religious and educational goals. Because the
Game can be centered on any historical or Biblically significant event that involved
multiple decision makers, like Moses' decision to escape from Egypt, we can design games
for different age groups with different goals. You can also use the Game to teach moral
decision making using any issue that has four or more sides to it i.e. how do you prove
someone is "evil" in "Scaping a Scapegoater".
10. A Town Meeting Alternative
Any decision making body, such as a school committee, neighborhood association
or city council, could hold a public session on a given topic of public interest where
participants would first play a customized version of the game about that topic before the
subject was openly discussed. The playfulness of the game would everyone relax and
increase the team spirit of the participants before real problem solving began. The game
includes a formal "Brainstorming" phase that routinely produces excellent ideas for solving
difficult problems. These ideas could then be shared with the group.
11. Non-Profit Fund Raising
Civic organizations such as PTAs could conduct fund-raisers that use the Game as
their centerpiece. We can customize a game around a real problem that that organization

is facing, such as proposed budget cutbacks, e.g. "Surviving the Surplus". Participants
would pay to play. Winning groups and individuals could win prizes. The organization
would keep the additional money raised, have stronger teams for having played the Game
and have a list of great ideas for addressing their problem.
12. Subscription Games
Another way to market the Game is to offer a subscription service using e-mail or
the Internet. If we had a staff who could produce new Challenges quickly based on
current events, a teacher who wanted to capitalize on the timeliness of the topic could just
order one of our newest games, e.g. "Stopping the Shooting". A small town would
convene 8 of its stakeholder groups to decide how to deal with the rash of school
shootings, similar to "Saving Romeo and Juliet". The Game is ideal for a special
assembly-like, out of the regular schedule, event. Its format is fun to use while still
serious. It delivers its message in a way that is not perceived to be heavy-handed, because
all the participants are allowed to share their ideas equally.

13. Customized Games

If we had a staff who could produce new versions quickly, we can produce most
new Challenges in two days, depending on how much factual research and clientcollaboration is required. Clients would fill out an order form specifying the problem they
want to solve and the roles they want to play.

Appendix

SECRETS AND STRATEGIES

THE RULES OF THE GAME"
by

Burdick and Burnstein, copyright 2001

"Secrets and Strategies" is a group problem solving game that encourages seeking creative
solutions to common challenges. The purpose of "On the Same Plane" is to have players with
different ideas about the challenge and different interests in the outcome work together to find the
best solutions to which they can all agree. The Winners are the players who gain the most from the
final solution at the end of the game.

PREPARATIONS
The game comes with a "7 Strategy Plan" that should be followed by the players to solve the
"Challenge". The Team Leader guides them through the seven strategies but is not eligible to win the
game. Everyone gets a Challenge card that describes the common problem the players have to
solve. Each player also gets a Secrets card that describes who they are during the game and what
they know and care about. Players are also given a "Players Plan" to assist them in preparing to
play the game.

INTRODUCTIONS: (1 Minute Per Player)

Once the game begins, the Team Leader invites each player to introduce him or herself for
one minute each by saying what role each is playing according to the "Secrets" card and what his or
her goals are for the game. Moving in a clockwise rotation, each player gives a one minute
introduction until everyone is introduced. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets
everyone know when it is time to move on. Before moving on to the next leg, the Team Leader
summarizes what the players appear to have in common.

GROUP PLAN: (5 Minutes)

The Team Leader leads a five minute group planning discussion about what issues need to be
addressed in order to reach an agreement and which, if any, ground rules, in addition to those
provided by "The Rules of the Game", the players want to use to govern how they will work
together during the game.

CLUE SHARE: (10 Minutes)

The Team Leader leads an information sharing discussion looking for clues to what might be
included in the final solution. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets everyone know
when it is time to move on.

MATCH UP: (5 Minutes)

Following Clue Sharing, the Team Leader leads a discussion to confirm the extent to which
the players share the same interests, standards of fairness and facts, i. e. their common ground, on
which they can design the best solutions to the Challenge. The players have 5 minutes to complete
this leg of the game. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets everyone know when it is
time to move on.

BRAINSTORM: (10 Minutes)

The Team Leader leads a brainstorming session, free of judgmental evaluations of the
ideas produced, to generate a list of creative ideas that might later be refined into options for the best
solutions to the Challenge. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets everyone know when it
is time to move on.

BARGAIN: (10 Minutes)

Once the players' clues and creative ideas have been shared, the process of pinning down
the final terms of the solution begins under the direction of the Team Leader, who will help the
players try to reach a valuable agreement to which they can all agree. The Team Leader keeps track
of the time and lets everyone know when it is time to move on.

FINALIZE: (10 Minutes)

During the last 10 minutes of the game the Team Leader carefully clarifies the extent of
agreement and tries to move the players toward a valuable solution to which they can all agree. If
time allows, the Team Leader tries to see if the deal can be improved without hurting anyone or
sending the group back into disagreement. The Team Leader keeps track of the time and lets
everyone know when it is time to stop.

SCORE and DEBRIEF

The game ends when one of three things happens: 1. the players all agree that they cannot
reach an agreement to which they will all agree; 2. time runs out without an agreement; or 3. the
players all agree to the terms of a solution to the common Challenge. When no agreement is
reached by the deadline, everyone loses. When an agreement is reached prior to the deadline to
which everyone agrees, everyone wins. The Winner of the game is the player (or players) who has

recovered the most value from the agreement as valued by the Points on the players' "Secrets"
cards.
The Team Leader leads a clockwise review of the game asking each player to state: 1. his
or her score; 2. his or her bottom line; and 3. what he or she got that earned Points. The individual
player with the most Points is the Winner of the game. When more than one group plays the same
game at the same time, the group that earns the most total Points (the sum of each role's Points) is
the Team Winner.