I could say my agenda was to "make their lives not boring" but it would be a lie :P
To be honest I was just thinking (in that very hypothetical example) that something like a tank is too big/important to just appear without some sort of cost being paid.

It's just my old inner "Traditional GM" that misbehaves when something big happens without an obvious cost.
But Vincent cleared that pretty well:
- cost was paid in XP when the character got the Move
- cost was paid in risk when the character rolled the dice
- additional cost TO GET the thing is a Hard Move, so it's a blatant No No unless a 6- is rolled
- shit can easily hit the fan "because it makes sense" AFTER the thing is in the character's possession, no problem

found this discussion from years ago: LINK

Still it would be nice to have a clearer answer to the MC's boundaries in regards to moderating the Maestro'd requests, or producing consequences.
Maybe a reading key could be that "strings attached" are things needed in order to acquire the thing, not whatever reasonably happens AFTER the Maestro'd gets the thing?

So asking for barter, favors, to fight off someone in order to get the thing, are strings attached.
But if I get the thing, and later someone comes to me expecting barter, favors or else... this is fair game... it's just the game world existing and acting around the Maestro'd, right?

Another dumb question.
The move states that when I want something, and roll 10+ it shows up in my establishment like magic.
Is it meant so that I just get what I want? Straight up, no strings attached? No monetary cost? No convincing? No nothing?
Or is it meant to just make whatever I wanted available to me, but then I still have to pay/convince/etc according to the fiction?

What I'm trying to understand is: is the MC cheating the Player out a good roll if the thing becomes easily available but still requires "something" to be obtained?
Or is this exactly what strings attached are for?

mmm... if the Maestro'd asks for frikking firethrowing tank, and rolls 10+, my gut feeling is to have someone show up in her establishment and offer to sell/trade for it. The cool result is that such a thing is available at all.
But considering that "make them pay" is actually a Hard Move, maybe my gut feeling is wrong? >_<

What if the Maestro'd asks for something unreasonable?
Is the MC's job to judge this and maybe say "sorry but that's out of the Move possibilities ... maybe you can get INFO on the thing you want, is this acceptable for you?"

It's unclear to me when and how this move should be used.
On paper it reads like an awesome way to abstract an otherwise chaotic situation, but the more I try to figure it out at the table, the less I think I understand how to use it :P

On one hand it looks like a pre-move, something you roll because of the situation to see what is happening around you and to you BEFORE you get to describe your PC's actions.
But this puts the move before the fiction: how are you stirring up the chaos? how are you calming it down?

Maybe you handle it like Read a Person? Triggers thanks to minimal fiction (you observing someone) and adds detail when you actually select the questions you want answered. What are you looking at? How are you observing? What are you saying to prompt the answers you seek? etc.

How often is this move meant to be rolled?
One of the results allows the performing of "one short action" ... is this the limit before the Free-for-All is rolled again? Or is it just a beneficial effect (making an action unopposed) but the PCs will otherwise be able to make more actions against normal opposition and obstacles before, after an MC chosen amount of time, the Free-for-All move triggers again?
Or is this wrong? Should the players FIRST describe what their PCs are doing within the chaos and THEN roll this move?

Is it possible to use the "calm down the chaos" effect to factually stop the chaos? Maybe reducing the chaos-gang Harm to zero? Or is this effect not cumulative?

And WHO is rolling the move?
If all PCs involved in the chaotic situation roll, can they select the same effect? Will this stack? Can this ramp up the Harm inflicted to crazy levels, or cool it down to zero?
And... is the crowd inflicting Harm to itself for EVERY roll?
This last point leads me to think that the move is meant to be rolled ONCE for all PCs involved... but then, who gets the benefits? who can act how? and whose stat is rolled? who gets to roll the move while the others maybe interfere/help?

in my personal experience the minimum is 2 but 3 is better... then with 4 you have a good fat group of players, and 5 is the functional maximum and might already be too much depending on STUFF*.
Anything more makes the game too slow, fragmented and chaotic, although I've heard of people claiming to be able to run 6+ groups "with satisfaction" (your mileage may vary :P )

*STUFF being the personal ability & expertise with AW of the MC, the general behaviour and attitude of ALL the players, the relative calm of the location where you play, etc.
The more people you have at the table, the more time each will have to WAIT to play, while their PC is not in the current scene.
Also, the more people you have at the table, the more DISCIPLINE they need to show in order to not have the session degenerate into an unpleasant chaos.

Remember that AW is supposed to be a highly immersive and emotional game, punching you in the gut with harsh decisions.
The more people at the table, the harder it is to have everything run smooth, feel personal, and to keep the general mood and immersion at the right tune.

mmm... ok

1) a 12 year old boy probably has already a "secret" stash of porn and/or has been exposed to enough sex related content to have a lot of pretty confused ideas about it.
They would also, with all probability, be already sexually active (on their own, so to speak).
What is the point of removing sexuality from the game?

It is one of the elements that help characters feel more human, thus driving home the emotional payload of the game when violence happens and messes up everything.
And having them get in contact with sexuality in the brutal world of the apocalypse, with the supervision of an adult presence at the table, could actually be very instructive and formative (not in a bodily function graphical kind of sense, but in a human relationship way).

Veil the descriptions all you want. But removing the sexual element from the game (which, in a lot of Playbooks, amounts more to a intimacy/relationship element, than straight sex) will cripple the experience considerably!

Anyway I highly doubt that a bunch of kids will be going all sexual in an activity where a parent is present :P
But still, the potential for intimacy and human relationships is present, and would be golden.

-
-
-

2) the problem I see with the Secrets is that there is no drive to them.
Sex moves work because sex is a part of human life, especially in a brutal and impoverished world. Sex is a drive, and a currency, and a statement.
But secrets?
So OUT GAME I know that Dremmel has a secret or two, but as far as I know it is little more than a small personal piece of trivia, and in the story it is very possible that I will have more pressing matters to attend to than to pine over Dremmel's little secret. You are basically swapping out a big piece of the game in exchange for something that I fear might see zero use.

A solution, that requires quite some design work to be done properly, is to find a way for the Secrets to be about BIG things, VERY relevant to whatever is going on in the current story.