ok, a thing that I've always believed to be true about the AW engine.

A move is triggered by an action of the PC in the fiction.  Once the appropriate thing has happened, the move triggers and dice are rolled.

The outcome of the dice are the domain of the MC.  By this I mean: it is the MC's place to say what happens as the results of what the PC did, staying true to a) what has happened so far in the game b) the intentions of the PC c) the wording of the move d) the intentions/drives/etc of the world and the NPC's.  he must respect that a hit and a partial hit both are hits and should be treated as such.

The reason I bring this up is that both while playing as well as hearing accounts of play, non-MC players have/seem to be narrarating the outcome of their action.  Which is fine, all is cool, but I interpret the subtext as being "The MC is ceding the right for them to do so because the outcome doesn't impact her fronts/the desires of the NPC's that she is responsible for."

Thoughts?

Tai.  It was a really great game.

the game doesn't have rounds as part of it's basic play.  So if you are adding rounds in, it's really your call.  Play it however you see fit.

However, if you are saying that the players should make one move and then wait for a response, it seems to me that those would be different moves: One move would be about the hardholder attacking with his gun, the other him attacking with his gang.  But that's all about what is happening, fiction-wise.

Ok, so this is a complicated situation.  We have three PC's:

Tabni-Ishtar, Goddess of Fertility and the Harvest.  She wants to get rid of Ku-aya and convince Dolawat to not sacrifice children to her (though her best interest is to actually have the villagers give sacrifice unto her).
Ku-aya, the Demoness of Illness (formerly a river goddess). She wants to discredit Tabni-Ishtar.
Dolawat, Midwife and priestess of Tabni-Ishtar.  She wants to be impregnated by Tabni-Ishtar.

The three are mixing it up, and we enter the second round with both Dolawat and Ku-Aya having advantage:

All roll, the action order becomes Dolawat, Tabni-Ishtar, then Ku-aya.  Dolawat makes a plea to Tabni-Ishtar to prove that she is still loved by the goddess, and moves to embrace her.  Tabni Ishtar (losing but not by double) consents and draws her in to a relatively chaste embrace.  Ku-aya, in the form of creeping black shadows, insinuates herself between the two of them and forces them apart (They both answer, lose but not out, Ku-aya has advantage). Dolawat misinterprets this as Tabni-Ishtar pushing her away, and Tabni-Ishtar ends up with Ku-Aya's hand on her throat.

At the end of the round, Tabni-Ishtar and and Dolawat negotiate:  Tabni-Ishtar will give Dolawat a child, if she promises to help banish Ku-aya.  Dolawat is willing to agree, but here's the rub: Ku-aya still has advantage over both those two characters.  By negotiating, one of them has to agree to drop out of the fight, and Dolawat is the one who wanted to drop out, but Ku-Aya doesn't want her out yet: she still has a stick to wield.  How do we deal with this sort of negotiation?  In our game, we just said that the two of them can't negotiate a resolution between them if and drop out if Ku-aya isn't done with them, because even though Dolawat has advantage over Tabni-Ishtar, Ku-aya has advantage over both of them and to deprive her of her stick would break the rules.  Thoughts?

Another question that came up as part of this: I as GM am intended to be the arbiter of scene framing.  But with two supernatural entities, how much control do I have over saying "You're not in this scene?"  The fiction almost seems to dictate that I can't bar them from scenes, since they really could just argue the "I can be anywhere" angle.  It wasn't a problem in the game, but I did find myself having to worry about relative fairness, especially when I did explicitly set up some scenes without a PC where that PC would have had a very good vested interest for wanting to be there (a chance meeting between the demoness and the child of one of the PC's).  How have others handled this, how strict/strong is the GM's ability to limit participation in scenes?

We record our sessions for AP on the Jank Cast podcast, and I'll link when this one is shared, but I was curious about this for our next session.  The game is really great, I'm enjoying the format and play of it a great deal, just trying to work out some of the kinks.

Hrm, you're right, the both of yus.  I was thinking of what happens on a full hit, or on a miss, but not the partial hit.  The list of reactions on the partial hit for Going aggro presupposes the target can make a decision to do something, rather than being utterly and completely helpless.  The closest would be "give them something you think they want" but that still means some thought or consideration.

Antisinecurist, I don't like the first miss option on that move.  one, it tells a character what they are thinking.  two, in my opinion it works almost directly against the rest of the colour of AW: it suggests a basic idea of humanity and honour that isn't part of the setting as a whole.  To be reluctant to kill in Apocalypse world is a thing that you can do, but it's not part of the mechanically enforced and encouraged colour.  Plus, attacking someone unsuspecting and defenseless is already covered by going aggro:  Attacking someone who cannot conceivably react is the real situation here.

But, custom move, whatever floats the boat of people using it.

I guess I am back to "this presents the MC with a golden opportunity" and it really is his call one way or another: either the PC is dead, or he's not.  Just depends on what being a fan of the PC's means in this circumstance.  And if it'll save strife at that point, making it a custom move might make sense, but I'd only bother with that if it's necessary for the players to feel ok with what goes down.

It seems to me that AW procedural is all about what that procedural is playing towards, right?  So each one has their gimmick, dependent on what they do: CSI was all about the lab work (interspersed with cultural commentary), law and order was about due process and law, Lie to me about deception and the interpretation of personal response.  Just saying "I'm doing a procedural" doesn't really describe most of these, even if the term is technically accurate to "doing what the police/justice system do."

So moves for this would depend on your gimmick, right?  Or maybe that's the difference between character splats and character moves.  hrm.

My favourite from a generalised move view:  Whenever you take significant time away from the case, roll +intuition.  10+ something happens that makes clear something you didn't know before.  7-9 you couldn't stop thinking about some piece of evidence.  If there's nothing more to Know, the MC will tell you.

I will.  I will hunt you all to the ends of the earth.  I will track you like vermin, the scent of your cowardice and betrayal thick and redolent in my flaring nostrils.

so yeah.  Don't do it.  n'stuff.  This little act of humour actually made me think that there seems should be a splat called "Driven" or something of the like:  Someone following revenge, or some goal to the exception of all else.  Sounds very z-axis to me, no?

Of course, I might just be spouting off something someone is already doing.  I'm known to do such things.

So we're not talking about an X-y axis, but a slider labeled maybe 'implicit/explicit power'.  And then you have something connected to it like 'narrative autonomy/dependency'.   The Battlebabe can pick up and go from situations that any other character is locked into.  I could imagine a Golem playbook, moving in the opposite direction as the Battlebabe, where having sex or bartering with another character binds him to a course of action.

Not really.  If were looking at it from a mechanical point of view, the gunlugger and the driver are at least as untethered.  The drivers special move is explicitly about picking up and getting away: prove that your not tied down.

We are most definitely talking about axes though.  The concepts that Vincent describes are not opposite from each other, they are orthogonal.  You can imagine a character who is both fictionally and mechanically effective, and can even create that character by selecting appropriate combinations of moves when you improve.