Well, the fiction comes first. Which means that armor from sources that aren't actually armor probably shouldn't be pierced by AP ammo, since that doesn't actually make sense in the world. Though, similarly, a Battlebabe's Impossible Reflexes wouldn't help if they were tied to a chair.

For example, a gang's size shouldn't be considered armor per se for this purpose, nor should most other sources that aren't worn armor, really. I probably would have AP ammo ignore fortifications, though.

In AW and most hacks, playbooks don't usually start with stats at +3, and require an additional -1 to have two stats at +2.

There's a reason for this, having to do with the fact that, mathematically, higher stats actually do tend to matter more. Thus, the way you've currently got it set really encourages the use of those stat-lines that are more...focused.

The Revenant also has a +3 Wrath stat-line and a Move that can take it to +4, which seems like a bad idea statistically. You might want to add the standard (max. +3) into the FUCK OFF move.

Well, as I understand it, at 6:00 or earlier on the damage clock, you're stable by default and will get better with time alone. At 9:00 or later, that isn't the case and you're unstable, meaning you'll get worse if left alone and medical intervention is necessary to get better at all.

So, barring medical stuff, it's a function of how much Harm you've taken. I believe all of this is in the section on Harm and Healing.

Well, firstly, it's the MC's job to build the world. Yeah, you can leave a fair bit of this in player hands thematically, but not all of it, and in order to have mechanical impact you need to assign threat types, arrange countdown clocks, and so on. Doing without those is possible...but makes the world really static and mechanically bland when the PCs aren't directly interacting with it.

Secondly, MCs are supposed to use moves but never speak their names. The intent of this is story immersion and the MC is the guy (or girl) who says what happens next in response to what the players say. Nobody but them should ever be positive what Move they're using...it gets in the way of the fiction if they do.

Thirdly, and far more fundamentally, the MC is suppose to be a neutral party. The MC moves are not equivalent to each other, they're on a list, sure, but people picking from the list who aren't completely unbiased can screw an PC really rapidly really fast, and this encourages grudges and metagaming. The lack of a neutral arbiter also removes the 'be fans of the PCs' and 'look at NPCs through crosshairs' aspects of the game, both of which seem important to the way the game is designed to feel and operate.

In short...Apocalypse World works about as well sans MC as D&D 5E works without a GM. The MC has full GM powers and splitting them among PCs could be...awkward. A round-robin thing might be more workable due to the less party centric nature of thje game, but doing without entirely? That'snot gonna be any easier with AW than any conventional RPG.

Deadman: Of course you can play almost every playbook however you want to, but some obviously lean towards specific personality types, although I admit how heavily they lean varies. I read the moves not only for their descriptions, but also for what the name of the move itself implies. Also, this assessment is not for people who know what playbook they want to use, it's for the new players who don't want to look through every playbook or don't have the time. And of course you can always choose to take moves from other playbooks later to fit your character idea, but this assessment is to help new players start off as close to what they want as possible.

But that's the thing: The Playbooks don't really enable particular personality types, so basing which of them you play on that is counterproductive to the players enjoying the experience. Especially new players, since they'll rapidly get the idea that all Brainers or Battlebabes or whatever have the same personality type, which is not a good thing. You'll wind up with stuff like someone who really wants psychic powers, but also wants to play a nice guy, never getting to play a Brainer, despite the fact that Brainer does everything he wants to do and has no requirement that you play a complete bastard.

It's actively counterproductive to force (or even strongly encourage) people to play a particular playbook based on a personality questionnaire, because the playbooks are based partially on what they can do well, and even more their position in the fiction.

Let's take your idea for a Gunlugger, for example. 3 out of the 7 moves imply you're kind of crazy/violent. None of the other basic playbooks have that many moves pointing you in that direction. You've also got weapons called "Fuck Off Weapons." Starting off with your Hard as the highest stat isn't an accident either. The playbook definitely gives off a certain vibe. Can you be a friendly and reasonable Gunlugger without much difficulty? Yes, but let's be honest, few people are going to take the Gunlugger for "Prepared for the Inevitable."

But now you're talking capabilities, not personality. The Gunlugger is exceptional at violence, you're absolutely right, and people should play it in order to be 'the baddest ass' as the book says. But that's a skill set, not a personality type. Personality-wise, he can be anything from an honorable and chivalrous knight in service to the local Hardholder, to a depraved violence junkie with no conscience at all and those make just as much sense and, indeed, could be mechanically identical characters.

And I mentioned that making the quiz more 'How do you solve problems?' than 'What's your personality like?' would be better, there'd just still be some problems even then. And, as you note later, it's definitely less necessary.

Can you play an Angel that kills everyone who arrives in their infirmary and never heals anyone, including PCs? Can you play a Brainer who never fucks with anyone's mind and respects the sanctity of free will? Can you play a Solace who wants to stir shit up? Yes, but that's not what they are designed towards.

Those aren't personalities, though. Not really. They're a refusal to use the skill set given in the playbook. Which is a personality trait, sure, but the problem isn't an atypical personality, it's the refusal. An Angel can easily be a complete bastard...but only if he's a stupid bastard will he refuse to treat people if offered proper compensation. You can absolutely play a moral and nice Brainer. It's even pretty easy, you just only use your powers under the same circumstances you'd shoot someone or use other more mundane violence. A Solace can easily be a manipulative and selfish coward. And so on.

Granted, some playbooks are much harder to tie to a personality type to than others. Hardholders and Operators for instance can be played just about any way, as their moves don't really highlight a personality.

Those are some of the ones I'd list with most variable capabilities, too. Huh.

I don't think you're wrong about the playbooks primarily being about your place in the world, either, but I don't think that's all there is to it. If someone wants to decide what playbook to use based on the character's overall role (mechanic, medic, gang leader), then that's done easily enough without an assessment and I encourage them to do so as it's definitely a smart way to choose a playbook.

Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. That's a very valid way to decide on characters. I just don't think personality is nearly as good.

There are also a minority without clearly defined roles; the Gunlugger, Faceless, and Skinner (stripper?).

Huh? Those all have clearly defined roles:

The Gunlugger is the baddest motherfucker in the room. That's a pretty solid fictional role.

The Facless is the psycho-killer in a mask ala Michael Myers, or monstrous mutant ala Lord Humungus (or possibly a slightly more friendly version of either).

The Skinner is an artist. They certainly can be a stripper or prostitute but can just as easily (by skipping Arresting Skinner) be a traveling musician, or a painter, or an actor. Or, to take another tack someone important's lover/the power behind a throne.

It's been explicitly stated that the example in question is a typo/mistake. So, no, you aren't missing a rule, zero barter Holdings are absolutely possible.

As for what the point of one is...I think Ebok answered that pretty thoroughly.

When it says "Armor according to circumstance", does that include:
Worn armor?
Armor from moves like Daredevil, Rasputin and Impossible Reflexes?

I'm pretty sure it includes all of that, yeah.

One thing to note is that a *+1* is the average, flatline stat and not +0. Not sure where, but I'm 90% sure I saw this confirmed and mathematically it makes sense.

Yeah, the game's author has mentioned that explicitly.

But that's only true counting all the playbooks...including the ones who focus on it (ie: the +2 Hard books in this case). The average for playbooks not focusing on it really is more like +0 (actually, looking it over, it's a bit lower than that on Hard...negative Hard ratings are more common than negative ratings in most other stats in non Hard-focused playbooks).

And again, that's average for PCs. PCs in Apocalypse World are all pretty badass by just about any reasonable standard...and for those with Hard +0 or more, that includes being better-than-competent combatants. Because, barring very specific GM rules, a PC with Hard+0 wins more fights than they lose against even the most badass equivalently armed and armored NPC opponents.

Another thing to keep in mind is that some of those +2-hard guys are/can be effectively +3 at startup (I think at least the lugger?).

Only the Gunlugger and the Faceless. And 5 xp down the road, that distinction becomes pretty meaningless, since the +2 playbooks can all have that +3, and the Quarantine can have +2.