I wouldn't see why not. I mean, one of them's a dude who is really good at giving people good advice. Another is a dude who is really good at implementing other people's plans. Put them together, and yeah, it's like fire and gasoline: you're gonna get results.

I usually assume, unless it's otherwise stated, that my Apocalypse Worlds have three currencies: bullets, food (including clean water), and gasoline. The three things everybody could always use more of.

But a lot of the time, I like to make it actual barter, too. "You want me to fix your bikes? Dude named Rolfball's got a box I need. Metal, about yay big, some funny stickers with symbols you wouldn't recognize on it. Go get it from him, I don't care how, but be careful with it when bringing it back. And I'll make all your bikes better than before, even."

Being in an online game at the moment, an updated player's refbook would be pretty nice, as well.

My mind is afire with anticipation!

Wait, no, that's the Correspondence again.

Wait, no, it's both!

Hooray!

I don't think, honestly, it's a matter of dice.

I mean, look at the D&D variant I linked to.

"The monster makes an attack roll versus the PC's defense score" is more or less completely isomorphic to "The PC makes a defense roll versus the monster's attack score." There's the same odds of the monster hitting the PC in either case. Whose hand is the one that picks up the die and casts it onto the table makes no difference.

Can the GM still initiate a conflict, even if the players are the ones who roll the dice to resolve that conflict? That pretty much kills the "turtling" thing you mentioned in the bud. It's when the GM can't do that, that you have to rely on the players saying "I do this!" that it can become a problem (especially if the mechanic is especially punishing

The only thing I can think of that you really change giving up rolling (and not giving up anything else), as a GM, is the ability to disguise the results of rolls. To use the classic example, when you say "You don't see anything!" and the players don't know if that's because they rolled poorly on their perception check, or because there's nothing interesting to see. And, of course, fudging.

If you make Harmless a hold-based move, it might be easy to add "if you deal harm/take an aggressive action, you lose all your hold."

I'm horribly at actually writing up my fronts. Usually I just assign a few threat types to named NPCs or interested setting bits, and some custom moves as appropriate. Actually determining a fundamental scarcity, dark future, stakes questions, countdown timers? Yeah, not so much.

People still seem to enjoy my games (I think!) so I don't feel too bad about it, but I do look at the empty front booklet staring at me accusatorially from time to time and feel the faintest twinges of guilt.