So here is my honest theory, and feel free to ignore it:

I feel like in a lot of games violence is used, or implemented in systems, as an end in itself, rather than as a tool to use in resolving a conflict, because:

* violence is the most fun subsystem
* the reward mechanism of the game expects violence
* violence is both genre- and medium-appropriate

I feel like this can cause a play problem in AW where people perceive the enemy they want to "kill" before they perceive the reason they want to kill them -- to maintain order in the camp, to take away their followers, to acquire their resources, whatever. This question comes up repeatedly in this forum: "well, what if I just want to kill him?" It's always a little confusing to me. I regularly see players play sociopathic murderers, but usually they're not actually homicidal maniacs -- they're not killing people because their dog tells them to, it's because they have a PLAN, even if that plan is not fully clear to the character, and killing that person is a step in that plan. Just having a motivation is a plan (albeit kind of a poorly fleshed out one). So you don't just want to kill him, you want to kill him for a reason. That reason is what you seize. By force.

There's a second problem, too, which is that people love mechanics. This is fine -- I love mechanics too! But there are at least two examples in the text of players attempting an assault which could easily be "seize by force without a target" in which Vincent's reaction is...trade harm for harm (as established). Apocalypse World is a heavily MCed game, even though at first read it may not be that obvious, and not everything requires a die roll to resolve -- sometimes the MC just applies their judgement. (There is at least one example of Vincent making somebody roll in the same situation, so, judgement.)

Now, Vincent clarifies, and it's become forum wisdom, that in those (few!) situations where you really, really, don't have ANYTHING ELSE that you could conceivably want in the situation, AND you need a die roll, just use seize by force to fight people. Note that this is not really meaningfully different from just saying "when you are totally whacking on a dude and he's whacking on you and you're just hitting each other like whoa, roll +hard, choose from some options," i.e., in the majority of situations, it may as well be a separate move! Hard is the stat for killing dudes for most characters, if you want to kill a dude, and for some reason you feel like a die roll is required, roll +hard. But seize by force doesn't have to be your go-to problem-solving move for fights, just you don't actually need to make people act under fire to do anything difficult. The move you want to use in that situation is "refer to the fiction" and "ask clarifying questions." And "to do it, do it." Simplify the situation, apply MC judgement, and if you really can't resolve something into one of the existing moves, THEN use seize by force (or act under fire).

In your example I would definitely be like, well, why do you want to kill Tom? Why do you CARE that he's a psychotic bastard? Are you trying to protect something from him? That's what you're seizing by force. On a hit, that's what he has to relinquish control of or access to. If there's really nothing? Trade harm for harm. Because I don't really care about Tom, let him die. Tom's brother is just around the corner.

SMITH LIIIIIVES

Some of my favorite moments:

* Smith interrogating Sandalwood. "I'm reading you." "Cool. I'll roll to help you."
* Sandalwood yelling at Rhyme later. "You did exactly what Smith would do in that situation. How is that better?"
* Chris forgot to mention that Half-Pint came to help me because I seduced him earlier, just in case.

Things did get a little messy, initiative-wise, when the big fight happened, but I think things worked out okay. I still don't know why Third was so mad at me.

You guys need to talk with one another about your assumptions and goals for the game and how to discuss, in-game, when things are happening that are leading to unfun events for somebody. (edit: And how to head off those unfun events before they actually happen.)

Fun moments from Smith's perspective:

* Telling hir new crew the facts of life. "This is not a playground. This is not a warzone. This is a business. You WORK for me."
* Telling off Sandalwood. "I could have killed you when you got back." Sandalwood: "I don't understand. Are you apologizing?"
* Trying REALLY, REALLY hard to get along with Rhyme. "I'm sorry if I was mean to you." "Oh, no, it's that you're a mean person IN GENERAL."  Then my invisible psychic friend prompting me: "When you say that I'm a mean person, it makes me feel blank." Smith just staring at her.

Excited to see what happens next! The rave's headed towards the mutant city, and negotiation over the gas refinery seems likely.

Gladiator weapons:

Bullwhip (1-harm s-harm hand loud)
Big fucking axe/sword/hammer (3-harm hand area messy)
Claw (3-harm intimate worn)
Poison (another of your weapons gets s-harm tag)
Ornate dagger, ornate sword (as the book)

1) I pull a gun on an NPC and start shooting.

Depends on the situation. If you have the drop on him, you're going aggro. If you don't, you're seizing by force. (This assumes you don't bother talking before you shoot.)

2) An NPC and I both have guns pulled on each other and we start shooting at each other.

Seize by force.

3) An NPC and I are engaged in a fire fight, guns on both sides, and continue to fire at each other.

Seize by force if anything. In a real game situation, if you're already shooting at somebody, and they're already shooting at you, I might look for an excuse to do something else, since you probably just DID seize by force.

4) An NPC pulls a gun on me and starts shooting, and I try to get out of the line of fire.
I act under fire

5) An NPC has been shooting at me, and continues to fire at me, and I'm trying to get out of the line of fire.
I act under fire

Act under fire.

Now, as far as I understand, AW doesn't use opposed rolls - one player rolls and the success or failure of that roll determines just how the scene unfolds.  So does that mean the answer to all the above questions remains the same even if I'm acting against a PC?

Yes, with the understanding that PCs can roll to interfere with each other's actions, and that, in practice, players usually take turns. You can pull a gun and shoot at me (and go aggro if you take me by surprise), but I get to choose what happens next.

Hi,

One thing I've noticed in play is that Open your Brain is a Move that serves a really useful purpose for "Throw me a clue!" kind of information gathering.   That is, Read a Person or Read a Situation is great if you know who to talk to/where to go, but if you're completely stuck, Open your Brain serves as a Move anyone can do, anytime, about anything.

Vincent, is this something you found necessary to keep play smooth or was it a happy accident of "psychic maelstrom = cool!"?  Any thoughts about it, game-design-wise, either way?

I'm not Vincent, but I don't think it's coincidental that the "I'm not sure what to do next" or "I want to be involved in something I'm not currently involved in" move is also the move that gives the GM the greatest freedom to barf apocalyptica into the setting (and to demand it of players). I'm not sure you need an open your brain move specifically, but I would watch what players DO do when they're not sure what to do next, and make sure that that move ties into something you think is really important about the setting, and/or just leads to exciting and cool stuff happening by virtue of its effect. (Acting under fire here might be a good example of a move that does not INTRINSICALLY lead to something cool happening, because the default effect is "you do that thing.")

I'm honestly predicting that my MC would be sane enough to tell me that Merciless and Bloodcrazed (I already have Bloodcrazed) don't stack. (I'd expect her to do the same with Rasputin and Daredevil too, for that matter: I could definitely see her letting me take both to increase the situations in which I can get that +1armour, without letting them stack for +2armour, and honestly I'm not going to try to get her to give it to me--I find that my +2 to Diplomacy and Intimidate works better on MCs when they know I don't demand unreasonable things.)

This came up with Chris's gunlugger (who as he mentioned has Merciless and Bloodcrazed). I'm just not sure it matters much -- sure, he can kill people by punching them. In fact, he can't NOT kill people by punching them, in general.  But if he wanted to kill somebody, he could probably just shoot them with his grenade launcher.

There are two big reasons why you might not want to take both Merciless and Bloodcrazed. The first is that NPCs just don't take that much harm to kill, even in groups, and trying to kill PCs with your bare hands is always going to be difficult no matter how much harm you do. The second is that they're not optional moves.  Given these two, I don't really think there's a balance problem, or Vincent presumably wouldn't have written them both!  (Since nearly every character in the game can have them both if they really wanted to.)