I really don't like the move presented as an example, because if you take definite hold of someone with a grapple, how can they just throw down the gun and run away? Why would they do that? Take definite hold and impress them? Maybe then you've leverage to talk them out of it if you didnt before... but really. It's VERY hard to stop someone belligerently trying to get someone else with violence without seriously hurting them.

The stakes weren't getting hold of Birdie, they were getting hold of the gun. PC chose "take definite hold of it" and "impress/dismay/frighten", so the resolution has to be that the PC has the gun and Birdie doesn't. Exchange of harm is mandatory because it's Seize By Force; if PC had chosen "suffer little harm" then maybe it would have been an elbow to the jaw instead of a gunshot in the flak vest.

I don't think it's anywhere near as unavoidably potent as the water bearer or the rock'and'roller thing.

Okay, cool - both Waterbearer and Show seemed manageable to me.

The other thing about going ahead and shooting Squiggy here while he's backing away with his hands up is that anyone in the room with you when you do it knows that's the kind of thing you're willing to do. You can't credibly do the Mal Reynolds "you'll be awake, you'll be facing me, and you'll be armed" thing after that. If you're good with that, fine, but depending on who you were before that, it might mean a permanent change to the status quo.

If Squiggy knew you were a bloodthirsty killer in the first place, he probably would have gone for "barricade himself", right? So whether it was Squiggy or the MC or the player himself who thought that backing off would keep him alive, well, someone learned an important lesson, something interesting happened.

Nope. In 1st Ed, you should have rolled to go aggro even if you couldn't miss. Attacking someone and expecting the MC to inflict harm on them for you isn't in the book

"When you attack someone and you can't miss, don't roll to go aggro. Instead, the MC inflicts harm on them as established" is a custom move.

This is going to be another one of those where I swear up and down it's in the book, and I'm going to search for it in the book, and it's not going to be in the book, and I'm going to feel like I understand AW less and less all the time, and also Berenstain/Berenstein.

Applause

Google to the rescue.

All the other playbooks strike me as very clear in how they have power in the world: The Hardholder, The Chopper and the Hocus has power because they can order people around. The Gunlugger and Faceless has the power of violence. The Battlebabe has the power of starting any shit they like and come out on top. The Brainer can mind control. The Driver can go places. The Savvyhead can make anything they like, basically. Etc. From the very start, all these things provide pretty clear and direct a) motivation and direction b) ways to influence the world c) threats that ties into their stuff and/or motivations.

I don't see that to same extent with the Skinner. The Skinner instead has the indirect power to get other people to do something for them.

Same with the Chopper and Hardholder; they can get their gang to do violence for them or they can threaten someone with that violence to get someone else to do something.

The difference is, when the Skinner uses their power, the person they're using it on is, more often than not, happy about it.

Another way I can see for the Skinner to work is if the MC ask the player "What do you have that is so beautiful that everyone wants it? Your music, your voice, your body, the tattoos that you make?" And then make it a truth in the world that this is one of the few unspoilt things of true beauty, that everyone wants. So it's a leverage on basically everyone when rolling to seduce/manipulate.

It's far more interesting for only some of the NPCs to appreciate the Skinner's art.

2) What are your experiences when playing as a Skinner. In what moments did you feel powerful and cool? In what moments didn't you? Did you feel like your Skinner needed to be sexy? Do the Skinner have to have something that's unspoilt beauty (see above) or can it just be that "sex sells", even if it's as broken and hollow as everything else?

I'm playing Skinner for the first time in a PbP game right now. In the game, a Hardholder (PC who dropped out of the game) just got killed by one of his lieutenants, and the remaining players are thinking about trying to neutralize that lieutenant and get control of the Hardholder's former gang. First thing I did was get some "time and solitude" for the Hypnotic move with one of the other lieutenants who we believed felt loyalty to the old Hardholder. So now we have a spy on the inside who is likely to take our side when the time comes. The mechanics and the fiction of that worked very nicely together. My character was a little flirtatious but explicitly did not have sex with the guy, just had a deep and meaningful conversation. (Under other circumstances she might use sex to get what she needed, but it wasn't necessary here.) Her chosen art is singing, but she hasn't yet done it in-game.

Pinky, 1-harm? Really? 1-harm is massive damage, 2-harm is lethal damage, 3-harm is they're already dead damage. Shooting someones pinky off might hurt, but it's never going to kill them (or halfway kill them). Sounds more like a shocking, extremely painful 0-harm to me. Take their whole hand? Foot? Knee? Okay. 1-harm.

p210, 2nd ed, When an NPC suffers harm:
1-harm: cosmetic damage, pain, concussion, fear if the NPC’s likely to be afraid of pain.

That seems right in line with someone shooting off your finger to me.

2-harm: wounds, unconsciousness, bad pain, broken bones, shock. Likely fatal, occasionally immediately fatal.

This seems more like hand or foot shot off, or kneecapping, though in a cinematic setting that might not rise to the "likely fatal, occasionally immediately fatal" level.