I would say that its a definate 'yes'. The 'maybe' in changing character types has to do with the stuff you're giving up, not the stuff you're getting.

I feel like the first two questions were answered well. Thanks guys! Any commentary on the last one?

Oh, and I wanted to pimp what was my favorite of the unofficial playbooks I've seen so far, The Grotesque

From the Apocalypse: +3 (Obviously)
Fun: +1 (Nesting Drones.)
Scary: +1 (Nesting Drones.)

+5 points! If it was a leperous but still charming (Sexy) mutant school marm doing her best to protect her students (Added responsibilities) it'd get more points. Someone should really write that expansion.

Preview for people interested

You seem to be describing an argument that isn't happening. I think the scenario as a whole sounds cool. I think the questions are neat. I don't believe the table has been kicked at all.

Here's how I see the difference in Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World's goals for PCs:

In Burning Wheel, PCs are assumed to be following stated goals, important NPCs are assumed to be following stated goals, to create antagonism you make characters that will obstruct those goals.

In Apocalypse World, PCs are assumed to be looking after their basic interests, important NPCs are assumed to be fucking shit up for PCs, to create antagonism you add important NPCs (Threats)

In BW, if you want to create PvP antagonism, you create characters with conflicting Beliefs, and PCs effortlessly glide into the NPC antagonism role.

in AW, its not that easy, because assumptions about PCs and assumptions about important NPCs are considerably different.

Here's a couple of ways you could do it:

A) Treat the PCs as PCs, but have them deal with a severe conflicting lack. Most basic iteration: The people in the Bowl have enough food for themselves and maybe a 2-5 other people right now, the Chopper and the Hocus are hungry. Make it your duty to play this situation as a Front if people aren't in conflict quickly enough.

B) Treat the PCs as PC/NPC hybrids. Give them Threat Clocks that list ways that they are and will be Fucking The Other Sides Shit Up, and imply that filling up your threat clock is something to be proud of.

As far as I've heard, players are pretty resistant to being in a Hocus's cult, even we're-not-in-a-competitive-con players, even in comparison to running off and joining NPC cults.

About the Skinner: I would similarly give them ability to allow someone to switch sides (Which I see more likely going down. I think players would prefer their characters to be inspired by a Skinner than join a wacknut's cult.). I would also give them a Move that would put up barriers to players just icing the Skinner up front because they know they're on the other side.

Maybe:

"How could this be bad?" Being hostile to your before you've harmed anyone is Acting Under Fire.

What do you think 'being on a side' means? It seems like it would have meaning for character creation. I would discourage explicit win conditions. You might possibly want to make a move like:

When you go to the other side, you get a minimum of Hx-1 with the players of that side.

Could the Touchstone allow flatlanders to go over to the bowler side? By agreeing to not be greedy jerks and be assimilated into the community?