Phew. I'm releaved. Lol.  Nathan's answers made a lot of sense but I was finding a disconnect there and I was hoping I wasn't missing the mark.

(I'm going to go ahead and talk about the inner workings of my question and if this thread needs to elsewhere that's cool) :)

Nathan, I don't know what sorts of games you normally play but AW is very different than most of the stuff we play (all solidly in the indie/story games category).  AW is a different animal.  In games i've played in the past five 8 years player authorship is all the rage but in this game the players have a myopic view based on what they experience. Our games had been very top down - scene economy, reward points, story arches, etc.  I don't see any of that in AW and so I don't add it.  We're just exploring these characters fucked up lives as they explore this fucked up world.  I am a big proponent of stakes based play and the big credo there is success shouldn't fuck a player.  Here the stakes are built into the system (brilliant) and there's little to no negotiation.  It still follows Burning Empires logic of "it can't show it's face in the mechanics until it's been seen in the fiction" but in this case you have two pieces of of the fiction that are implicit instead of explicit - what is in the MCs fronts and what will make the world seem real.  Those two things are a HUGE departure for anything we've been playing so it feels really strange to act in them.

Thoughts?
-Don

I like the Endure Fire suggestion.

I will say, though Nathan, it's frustrating because the wacky way I'm reading your post with sentences like "MC can only deal harm as established..." says to me you don't see how it's established. 

Lets take another example:
"I have a front that has to do with a threat where an NPC (call him Dremmer) wants to take revenge on the PCs."  Lets say one of the countdown clocks is called "cornered."  9:00 says if the PCs come to see Dremmer he'll have his gang cover all the doors.  10:00 says if the PCs threaten or provoke Dremmer he'll pull a gun.  11:00 says if the PCs jump from Dremmers office in the third floor they'll take harm and 12:00 says Dremmer sicks the gang on the PC in order to throw them in cells.

Would you (and I hope others participate and give me more than one view of this question) think that's a solid countdown clock?  Maybe not one you'd write but one that gets the job done none-the-less?

Thanks,
- Don

Be a fan and make it interesting and make it real seem to collide here, no?

* "Ought" here means something like "would be more in keeping with sensible application of notions of human rights given the harsh world."

I've not had this problem, to answer your question directly.  My inclination is to talk out the characters "path" but I think that's not in AWs nature (aside from lines and veils).

Is the issue that you'd be disappointed if they succeed?

In putting my NPCs under the cross-hairs I give them opportunities to choose their lives or the life of an NPC all the time. We're pretty adept psychologically at managing blood opera and "appreciating" someone doing something awful, understanding that it is awful. I had a PC in a BW game circle up a little girl with a name and everything just so he could feed her to a zombie he'd raised.

My question would be are the players acting under stress or are they trying to play someone without morals (worse yet mitigating any empathy with the doomed NPCs by just abusing them).  If they are doing awful stuff because they feel the pressure of a harsh reality and are reacting to it, awesome.  The latter would annoy me and could be seen as breaking the spirit of AW (like the KoDT character that mad a illiterate character so he couldn't read the books).

-Don

While I would agree Ken isn't a Battlebabe I also realize FotNs isn't a AW setting off the bat.  Personally I'd think youd have to do some monkeying to reflect the sheer graphic brutality of the fiction. While it's focused on the main characters doing the main damage it seems like nearly everyone has fists that make shit explode. Lol.

Maybe Ken is a Brainer with a gunlugger move (NOT TO BE FUCKED WITH is ubiquitous in that setting). Or a gunlugger with Wierd moves. I agree that a custom set of gonzo-martial-arts moves is necessary to start.

-Don

Is making a move as a consequence of success being a dick or should we be only using certain moves?

My inclination is toward "making it real."

For example, if the player says "I want to escape the gang by jumping out a three story window." I'd tell them to do it under fire and roll+cool. If successful I'd describe how she landed hard on the asphalt and takes a harm for the fall.  Or should I only describe the consequences of her actions based on the success of the roll and ignore the possible real life consequences - "You get through the window.  You follow the cascade of broken glass and land safely in a bush with a few bruises and scratches." ?

Thanks for your input. So a quick opinion poll...

"I think Brainers are easy to play because you don't have to relate to them... Kinda like actors getting nominated for awards for playing mentally handicapped characters."

Agree or Not.

Wow, I do love the birth as it's own Front with NPCs and threats. Depending on the dial on your AW game the child as a Grotesque! Awful and awesome.  Looking at it more like everyone trying to survive the childbirth unscathed with the child's well being not in question.  And then a Brainer connects with the child.  Wow.

Please don't judge me too harshly...
-Don