PREMISE
In some vaguely-defined science-fiction future, a military operation has gone very, very wrong. Someone - perhaps many people - will answer for it and, fair or not, be ruined.
Play takes the form of a board of inquiry. Each participant assumes two roles - that of member of the Board, and of a Witness. These roles shift, with each participant serving as Witness and Board member during each of three sections.
As a member of the Board of Inquiry, the participant poses questions about the sequence of events to the current Witness. These can, of course, be leading questions that move the story forward or open-ended questions placing the burden of invention on the Witness. One participant must assume the role of Convener of the Board, who is primarily responsible for maintaining momentum, calling for breaks between sections, and setting the stage with opening remarks.
As a Witness, the participant is a representative of one of the military units involved in the disaster - a former companion-in-arms to the brave men and women who perished. Each player has the goal of covering his unit and its assault commander with glory in the final report, maximizing his contribution and valor while minimizing the efforts of the others whenever possible. No one survived the ill-fated attack, so all description will be in the third person - perhaps clinical, maybe unclear, but definitely detached from the horror of the moment.
After hearing the testimony of the Witnesses, the Board offers an opinion and assigns both blame and praise. The goal of the game is, as far as decorum allows, to minimize the blame attached to your Witnesses unit, and maximize that of the other Witnesses units.
PREPARATION
You will need some sort of cup or container for each Witness, ideally one you can't see into. Write the name of each Witness on a placard, and use this during testimony to identify him or her, and to identify the cups when assigning blame. You'll also need an uncomfortable chair or stool for the Witness.
Some beads or tokens are necessary - each Board Member needs a number of blame tokens equal to the number of people playing, minus one, for each of the three rounds. Thus, if four people are playing, you need nine tokens per player (three per round for three rounds). You don't want more than six players.
Finally, you will need three manila folders or binders, one for each section, and the 36 court briefs (5.4 MB pdf file of all 36, although you can do it with typing paper and a sharpie if you like). The Board Members must sort the briefs and place them in the folders they think appropriate - "Utter Disaster", for example, really belongs in section three, but the only mandate is that each folder contain at least one brief per Witness. How the Board Members decide to perform this sorting is up to them.
CHARACTERS
Each player should determine the military outfit he represents - Imperial Hot Marines Bravo White platoon, 
Surface Force Application 1 Commando, Survey Branch of the Exigency Analysis Group, that sort of thing. These should be forces that directly engaged in whatever operation failed so miserably. He should have names for his Witness, as well as the commander of the assault force and a few subordinates, or be prepared to make them up on the fly.
As a member of the Board of Inquiry, no preparation is needed - this role is essentially anonymous, although players may cultivate personalities - gruff, demanding, inquisitive, foolish, sympathetic, etc.
SEQUENCE OF PLAY
The Convener of the Board sets the stage with some opening remarks, and introduces the Witnesses. He may then open the Inquiry with section one. During each section, each player, in turn, takes the stand as Witness, then rotates out to resume his duties as a member of the Board.
After each section, each Board Member must decide where to place blame. The Board Member has tokens to assign to the Witnesses he has heard to represent this - he may give them all to one Witness, or spread them out as appropriate. Acquiring blame is bad.
The Convener of the Board of Inquiry declares each section finished after all Witnesses (including himself) have taken the stand, and calls for a brief recess before continuing.
THE SECTIONS
Each section should have a general tone that gradually ramps up to unmitigated catastrophe. How it arrives at that fatal junction is the Witnesses affair, but arrive there it will.
Section One: Insertion. Everyone is full of fire and vinegar. Any damage to the various units is simply color - scrapes and bruises, near misses, 
and the like.
Section Two: Engagement. The fiasco well and truly begins. The assault force members can be seriously injured, but death is optional and at the player's discretion.
Section Three: Disaster. Any hint of violence will inevitably lead to spectacular and certain destruction. The enemy is effectively invincible and cannot be defeated. Everyone dies.
Conclusion: The entire Board, at the prompting of the Convener, reviews the Witness' cups to see who has the most blame tokens and who has the least. Scorn and praise are awarded accordingly. This ends the game.
DUTIES OF A BOARD MEMBER
Your job is to get to the bottom of the matter at hand. For each Witness, ask a single probing question, either pointed or open-ended. Feel free to advance the narrative by providing new information in your questions, and accuse the Witnesses of wrong-doing directly if necessary.
At the Board of Inquiry's conclusion, you'll be called upon by the Convener to make a statement about culpability. Speak plainly and don't neglect assigning blame or praise to the Witness you portrayed. If necessary, the Convener can call for further discussion. You must decide where the truth lies.
OBLIGATIONS OF A WITNESS
In each section you must choose a court brief from the appropriate folder, at random, and incorporate the result into your testimony. 
Failing to do this will result in the displeasure and censure of the Board. You must work within the framework of the questions the Board poses, but may present your testimony in any way you find appropriate. Feel free to build on the testimony of others, but you need not worry about directly contradicting other statements - the fog of war makes all accounts suspect. Accusing them of incompetence or malfeasance is entirely appropriate - you must do everything you can to avoid any stain on the record of your former companions, to whose memories you are fiercely loyal.
THE COURT BRIEFS
The Witness can incorporate the word or phrase on his brief into his testimony as he sees fit, provided it directly effects the unit he represents. Thus, attributing an "irritating delay" result to some other unit would not be appropriate, although another Witness could use your delay to further his own narrative, heaping scorn on your comrades. Here are the briefs, in brief:
- Administrative error
- Breakthrough
- Careful planning
- Civilian casualties
- Clear objective
- Close support
- Combined arms
- Conflicting orders
- Dug-in enemy
- Equipment failure
- Excellent readiness
- Faulty intelligence
- Garbled communication
- Good decision
- Heavy opposition
- High-value target
- Irritating delay
- Light resistance
- Lucky break
- Outflanked
- Poor training
- Precision fires
- Rapid advance
- Reversal
- Scattered opposition
- Set an ambush
- Solid recon
- Strong leadership
- Superior equipment
- Tactical victory
- Tight coordination
- Tragic mistake
- Unexpected success
- Utter disaster
- Vehicle crash
- Weak command
NOTES
Thank you for reading my game. It was designed for the 2005 Game Chef contest and I hope you enjoy playing it.
Thanks to Tony Lower-Basch, Nathan Paoletta, and Frank Tarcikowski for their comments.
The progression of violence between acts was inspired by the Hamlet LARP of Martin Ericsson, Anna Ericson, Christopher Sandberg, Martin Brodén et al, first run in 2002.
The illustrations, modified by myself, were taken from The War of the Nations Portfolio in Retrogravure Etchings, a New York Times mid-week supplement, originally published on 31 December 1919. Accessed via the Library of Congress, Serial and Government Publications Division. Background images for the court briefs are from the personnel file of Colonel-General Vasilii Sergeevich Arkhipov.
I look forward to your comments (write to jmstar at nc dot rr dot com or PM me on the Forge, where I am jasonm) .