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?

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.

Ok, so I'm running a game right now, and I've got someone running a Hocus, Silver, who does not believe any of what she's preaching.  Which is fine, I can totally see that, I've seen TV.  But my problem is specifically the Frenzy move, specifically: "When you speak truth to the masses."

So I interpret that as the truth of your faith, what your character believes to be true.  But in this case, what Silver believes to be true is not what she preaches.  So when she's used this move, she's preached... resonableness.  Rationality.  It just didn't jibe.  But it's what her character believes is "The truth."  but but but... You're standing in the middle of the Angel's overcrowded infirmary supported by one of your followers (who you are very much lying to) barely conscious.  You get up on the table, face the mob of well-armed guys who have come to hunt out and kill your cult members because they've been running wild over the hold messing with everyone's shit.

And then you preach that Raf (the Angel) is overworked, we're messing with his shit, and you guys are coming in here with guns ablaze killing more, you should give up your stuff and go away.  I'm oversimplifying, but... it just didn't really work for me.

My problem here is that mechanically, she got a full hit.  As the MC, I want to respect the players right to fully play her character.  But this just felt WEAK.  I think what I did to make it work worked, but it still felt really unsatisfying.

I don't know.  what are peoples thoughts about Hocus' who don't really believe?  Especially if they have things like Augury?  It's really the only big sticking point I have in the game, and while it's been getting better I'm still wrestling with it.

(I fully intend to make my problems hers, by the way:  If I'm dissatisfied with it, I bet for sure some of her followers are as well.)

Just wanted to suggest this:  there's a number of custom character books being generated in the general Apocalypse World forum.  it would be kind of fun to see these get a forum all to their lonesome, so we can see the types and breadth of characters people are thinking about.  it's also different in tone: and element of creation rather than discussion, if you see.

Anyway, just a thought.

So perhaps I'm just missing something in the text, but it seems to me that there is no way to go negative on Hx other than during character creation.  At the end of a session it says to just identify someone who understands you a little better and increase their Hx (rolling it over whenever it hits 4).  Is there any mechanic to show people reaching an impasse, or that Hx get's worse?

I can understand why that wouldn't be the case, but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.