I would suggest that you use the Hx move that concludes character creation at the outset of the game.  It gives just enough detail to create familiarity, but not so much as to be a rigid straight jacket. 

Also make sure you check out page 96, under "Say this Early and Often".  In that paragraph, it very clearly says that the players are required to play the characters as if they are real people.  Get this player to stop the inhuman monster concept and play someone a little more real. I think that saying no to a concept is a valid option, especially if it is going to result in a less than fun experience for all involved.

Thanks for all the advice! I´ll tell him to hold on his character concept until the session itself, where we´ll discuss it and see whether the other players are comfortable with it.
I have two other concerns:
-The player running his character as an inhuman character, without any serious interest other than ruining other PCs´ lives. I´m going to ask a lot of questions to that player to try to figure out his human side, needs, past, etc.
-I don´t want his relationship with the other PCs to be so predefined from the setup that after that point any kind of interaction is useless. Maybe the hocus (problematic PC) wants to spoil the brainer´s cure for that illness, but he feels some kind of affection towards him.
Something like this:

Quote from: Glendower on May 29, 2012, 10:25:19 AM

I think these sorts of things should grow from play. Rather than have the characters antagonistic from the start, start the characters from a neutral framework and then see how it goes.

Any advice regarding the above written concerns?

That would be an excellent question to pose to a group of Dogs, through the grumbling of people in the town that aren't happy with a female Steward.

Whenever the MC spends their hold, (the amount of hold is determined at the beginning of the session with a die roll) the hunger goes down down by 1. 

You are confusing the the statement "give your hoard -1 hunger" as an addition.  The negative sign means that the hunger goes down.

Fallout is a great way to gain experience, especially in speaking conflicts, where the risk of injury or death is zero, and the d4s you roll afterwards are much more likely to come up with a "1".  

One of the keys to maximizing the chances of getting experience in a fallout roll is to take the blow with lots of low point dice, and having a bunch of D4 traits are a great way to achieve that particular goal.

For example: Brother Seamus is arguing with Bethany about her refusal to get married.

Brother Seamus has a 9, 5, 7, 3, and 8

Bethany has a 6, 8, 2, 3, 5.

Bethany raises with 6+5 = 11, saying "I'm a grown woman, I make my own choices, and I don't need a man in my life."

Brother Seamus pulls in a trait "I stutter around the womenfolk - 2d4" and rolls a 1 and a 2.

So Brother Seamus takes the blow with 3+1+2+5 = 11 and says "I uh... s..s..u..pp.ose.. y..you... dd..dd..on't."

Bam. 4 dice in the speaking fallout for later, which is 4d4.  The chances of getting a 1 on those dice is pretty good! Plus, it makes for a great conflict.

1) I had assumed that if two characters were in the same charged situation, they couldn't Read a Sitch separately, so one had to help the other. Is this right?

Two characters can read the same charged situation separately.  Their questions can get different answers, based on their playbook, moves, and relationships they have with the situation in question. If the characters want to do their moves separate, then they are able to do so.

If the one character wants to help one another character read a charged situation, they can, but they do have to explain how they are helping.  Unfortunately, the helping character does not get to ask the questions, and does not get the +1 forward when acting on the information.

The helping option is a good one to those characters that have high Hx but low Sharp.  Alternatively, those with low Hx and high Sharp are more likely to read charged situations separately.

Anyone else feel this way, with AW specifically?

With Apocalypse World, I very specifically never feel this way. It's the only reason that I've been able to run 10+ sessions with a smile on my face.  I've absolutely felt this agony in other games, D&D is a big culprit, but even Burning Wheel and Dresden Files tends to give me this sense of "Man, that prep is a lot of work" sort of feeling.
 
This is because my prep with Apocalypse World is the occasional letter from the MC, and every couple of sessions or so I clean up my relationship map, or reprint  my threats and fronts.

Maybe you could explain what you are doing in that hour of prep?  

And maybe you should talk about how your actual game sessions go. What makes you think that you are responsible for bringing the fun?  Nothing in the MC section says that.  There is some expectations to make sure the player character's lives are not boring, but the MC moves and the threat moves allow you to challenge that on the fly.  

Fun in this game seems to be designed to act as a group effort.  The MC does his moves, and the player characters respond.  The Characters act, and the MC responds.  There's a push-pull that must happen for the game to achieve fun, and part of that process involves player involvement, and is out of the MC's hands.

Again, I have no idea how your game sessions are going, but maybe you might want to talk about what you think the responsibilities of the players is supposed to be.  And compare that to what they're actually doing at the table.  

That might get to the heart of this odd pressure to perform.  I say it's odd because I've never felt that way when playing Apocalypse World, and it's one of the only games for me where this pressure is not present.

I've been working on getting my recorded sessions out of editing hell and into the world. In order to get all of the actual play sessions out, I've been taking to removing mainly longer gaps and cleaning up the audio quality. 

At any rate, here's the next installment! You have a few choices for audio at this site.