and now I return to Poison'd

Where should I be cautious when reading AW rules into Poison'd?
Where can I just port the rules/methods across?

I heard a rumor that AW is essentially Poison'd, but with explicit instructions.

So I pick up my copy, read Poison'd through (after studying AW for several weeks now), and it is true, the rules are just jumping out at me like, "oh, this is a move" and what not. AW is a great primer to Poison'd. 

But, I see a brier patch here.  When jumping between rule sets, what confusion awaits? What are good habits when MC'ing AW vs Running Poison'd?

I don't know about that but my only Poison'd game went like this:

GM: "Tom, what ambitions did you take?"

Tom: "I want to live forever, I want to fuck Matt's character, and I want to fuck Phillip."

GM: "...you mean Phillip's character?"

Tom: "Nope."

GM: ....let's play AW.

I don't know about that but my only Poison'd game went like this:

GM: "Tom, what ambitions did you take?"

Tom: "I want to live forever, I want to fuck Matt's character, and I want to fuck Phillip."

GM: "...you mean Phillip's character?"

Tom: "Nope."

GM: ....let's play AW.

Sounds about right. Tom molested me one game. Literally. I sat down next to him, and the next thing I know, he's rubbing my thigh. :)

I think if you can take the basic attitudes about GMing from apocalypse world (like, letting the fiction lead, doing what it demands) and transport them into your play of Poison'd, that's a big bonus. I think that the specific advice about fronts and stuff is potentially disastrous: poison'd has its own means of handling that (cruel fortunes) and you wouldn't want to screw with those too much.

Did you have trouble the first time you ran Poison'd? I find it's pretty intuitive if you're not acculturated to rules-lead-fiction play.

yrs--
--Ben

What of moves on a failed roll... Good idea/bad idea?

Separate them, Capture, put in spot, inflict harm, take away stuff, make them buy, tell them possible consequence and ask, turn move back on them . . .  or any Cruel Fortune that GM can do whenever they like, failure seems like a good time to bring it.

vs, the Poison'd rules say, fail or succeed to no advantage, but if a fight is in the making the GM can bring it.  One is mostly blocking (i.e., . . . to no advantage) the other is making failure interesting.  Thoughts?

If PC vs PC action fails to emerge, then PC-NPC-PC triangles seems good.
Or NPC with motivations in opposition to ambitions, seem good.  Which seem best?