Hey DH, thanks for starting this!  (He plays Titus, btw...)

It was a great first session (we've got session six scheduled for this Sunday so there's much more to come); Henshaw missing on the Wealth roll as the opening of actual play *really* started things with a bang.

I'll add a few more details to the first session recap later today.

Also, while I'm at it...is there a reason that the last two stat lines are identical?

Whoa... if that is a typo/mistake as well, is there any chance of getting a "version number" put into the playbook so people know they're using the latest/repaired version?

Dammit! That's not the whole move! What the crap! Stand by for a revised version.

Glad that's cleared up, thanks for the fast response!

Any comments/responses to the "Visionary" question?

I perceive a potential incompatibility between an agendum (make Apocalypse World seem real) and an MC principle (be a fan of the players' characters) and I'm working through how to do that.

I don't think there's an incompatibility at all, because "being a fan" is *NOT* "be nice to them", it's something radically different, and has nothing really to do with "making AW real".

If I arrange most of the hard-holder's hold against him, I'm fucking him over, not being his fan.  If I don't, Apocalypse World doesn't seem real.  Or at least, that's a possibility.

You "never speak its name", *YOU* are not arranging the Hardholder's hold against him, the realities of Apocalypse World are, you're just the agent of those realities making plausible and realistic moves by an, I'm assuming, oppressed population.  That's the "make Apocalypse World seem real" part.

The "Be a fan" part is looking at this horrible situation and honestly saying, "OMIGOD!  How is the Hardholder going to get out of this mess?  I'm excited to find out!" 

One of the landscapes in my current game is "The Sunset", a bar in a holding, it's a Landscape - Maze, threat.

It welcomes people in, it's "exciting and full of life", but acts as a distraction from things that need to be done, particularly with idle folk.  So, it occasionally "hides" NPCs that the PCs want to talk to in a haze of booze or drugs, sometimes the really tough bouncer presents as a guardian, or the bartender reveals a secret to someone.

The *great* thing is, none of the players even consider the place a threat, but it still sits there, festering and waiting and sapping their and the holding's strength.

And now a powerful new drug has appeared on the scene...

Yeah, maybe both is too much.  Perhaps it should read "they may either mark experience or gain +1Hx with you."

In the original Feral Kid move, both participating characters gain a benefit from the interaction; in yours, only the the *other* character gets a benefit. What was you intent in making that change?  As well, marking experience and gaining history only apply to PCs, so I'm not sure the "If they are a PC" condition is needed.

I like it if both characters get a benefit, even if they aren't balanced/equal value.

While it could probably be exploited, I feel the move should be the "giving" character gaining experience and the "Kid" (of whatever type) getting the +Hx with the giver as they see a "different" side of the giver.

But the thing that's nagging at me is how to be fans of the PCs when they seem to be playing antagonists.  Has this been a problem for anyone else?

Could you explain how your players are being "antagonists"?  Have you talked directly to the players about your feelings about their characters or approaches?

In my AW game, I saw the direction one player was looking to take their gang in and I specifically said, "Could you tone down the rape." because it really wasn't a direction I could be a "fan" of if the character went that way.  That was purely a "meta" request and in-game/genre it would be completely "valid", but, as a player (as MC), it's not something I wanted to dig into.

The player was fine with it and went a different way and now I can still be a fan.