Did I handle this stuff right?

So Apocalypse World is quite different from most other RPGs I've GMed in my time, and while I think my first session went pretty well, I wanted to throw a couple of the things that happened (particularly when and where I called for moves) to see if people think I was handling it right.

One event that actually had all of us a bit confused at first was when an attacker climbed inside Beemer's armored dump truck while he was on the road and got a knife the NPC passenger's throat.  Beemer, of course, wanted to do something about this, and said how he was going to try to swerve the truck to throw the attacker off balance and get the knife away from him.  This seemed to be a move, but we weren't really sure which one it was.  We eventually settled on "acting under fire" with the "fire" being "does your passenger's throat get cut?"  He succeeded with 10+ so I said the attacker was thrown almost completely back out of the window and dropped the knife.

While this was going on, Crille, a gunlugger was in the back of the truck.  She had previously "read the sitch" and (among other things) identified a man a ways away on the side of the road, behind a hillock of trash, aiming a grenade launcher at the truck as the biggest threat.  Due to Beemer jerking the truck around, I called for Crille to act under fire as she attempted to shoot the man.  The player rolled a 7-9 so I told him, "Well, you can't shoot him before he fires.  You can take him out too, or you can take cover before the grenade hits."

The above two I feel like I handled pretty well.  This last one I feel pretty sure I missed a good opportunity.

Away from the action, back in a garage near the holding, the third PC, a savvyhead named Gears was supposed to be working on repairing a machine gun for the leader of the holding's gang.  A couple of his thugs showed up and talked to him through a slot in the door, being loud and demanding and asking why the hell the gun wasn't fixed yet.  I asked him if he wanted to "read" them.  He did and asked what their intentions were, and I said they just planned to bully him a little.  So he, of course, blew them off, saying "You'll get it when it's done."
Thinking about it later, I feel like I probably should have had them push harder and encouraged him to "manipulate" them, using the leverage of "I'm the only goddamn savvyhead, if you want shit fixed, you need to leave me alone to fix it."

Any thoughts, advice from the experts in the crowd?

The last one sounds fine. He successfully read the situation, knew that they were only going to bully him and was able to use that success to just blow them off. And what were they gonna do through a slot in the door anyway, right? Sounds like you did fine by me.

The only thing I might have done differently was change the 'act under fire' roll to a 'seize by force' roll since you're trying to get the knife away but I think you can make a good case for either.

The last one sounds fine. He successfully read the situation, knew that they were only going to bully him and was able to use that success to just blow them off. And what were they gonna do through a slot in the door anyway, right? Sounds like you did fine by me.

It's not so much that I think I did that one *wrong* as that I think I missed an opportunity to make it more awesome.  The player didn't have anything much to do that whole session... plus during highlighting I went and highlighted his Hot.  It would have been cool to give him a good opportunity to roll it.  And I really think he WAS trying to put some pressure on them, a little, with his savvyhead status.

Oh and what could they have done?  Probably tried to kick in the door and/or shoot him through the slot.  :)  They probably wouldn't have been particularly successful, but hey...

The only thing I might have done differently was change the 'act under fire' roll to a 'seize by force' roll since you're trying to get the knife away but I think you can make a good case for either.

Seizing by force and going aggro were both considered before I fell onto acting under fire.  Going aggro was clearly out after a quick look.  I discarded seize by force because I didn't feel like he was using enough force.  All he was doing was trying to throw the guy off with his steering of the truck, and the text seems pretty clear that when you seize by force you're seizing by fucking FORCE, goddamn it.  :)  But that said, I did feel like I was calling for acting under fire all the goddamn time.

I agree w/Bret, the first two seem fine. If Beemer's move was "I grab the knife out of his hands" that would be more 'seize by force', but trying to drive when people are struggling over a knife? That sounds like acting under fire to me.

About the last one; I'd bring the bullies back into play in the next session - that's an opportunity building, not an opportunity missed. Why are they bugging him? what do they want? how far will they go to get a reaction? Then Gears gets to deal with them again. Lucky Gears.

Seizing by force and going aggro were both considered before I fell onto acting under fire.  Going aggro was clearly out after a quick look.  I discarded seize by force because I didn't feel like he was using enough force.  All he was doing was trying to throw the guy off with his steering of the truck, and the text seems pretty clear that when you seize by force you're seizing by fucking FORCE, goddamn it.  :)  But that said, I did feel like I was calling for acting under fire all the goddamn time.

Well, Vincent did say somewhere (in the book? on this forum? I don't remember) that "Seize by Force" is kind of your 'go to' move when something feels like a move, but you don't know what to make it, so I think that was cool and fine.

But, just to play devil's advocate for seize by force, there's nothin saying you couldn't have made it a lot of force, or asked the player to get a better idea, like "So, are you just trying to jostle him around, or throw him back off the fuckin truck?" cos in the latter case, the guy could get thrown out and crushed by the truck/following cars, break his head on a rock, or other horrible end. Crosshairs.

It sounds like it worked out great and interesting, though. As long as you're following the principles and everybody's enjoying themselves, you're golden.

About the last one; I'd bring the bullies back into play in the next session - that's an opportunity building, not an opportunity missed. Why are they bugging him? what do they want? how far will they go to get a reaction? Then Gears gets to deal with them again. Lucky Gears.

Yeah sounds like you announced future badness. :)

Well, Vincent did say somewhere (in the book? on this forum? I don't remember) that "Seize by Force" "do something under fire" is kind of your 'go to' move when something feels like a move, but you don't know what to make it, so I think that was cool and fine.

You meant this, right?

About the last one; I'd bring the bullies back into play in the next session - that's an opportunity building, not an opportunity missed. Why are they bugging him? what do they want? how far will they go to get a reaction? Then Gears gets to deal with them again. Lucky Gears.

Yeahhhh... maaaaybe.  I guess part of it is just regretting I didn't have that player more involved in things.  Maybe this wasn't the way I should have done it, though, that's totally possible.  But I and he both know why they're bugging him (cuz their boss told them to) but it is definitely a question of how far they'll go.

Yeah sounds like you announced future badness. :)

Ha ha!  Yeah, I guess I totally did. They told him they'd be back tomorrow.

I had those reference sheets John Harper made and I'd intended to keep an eye on them for the principles and moves, but in the heat of play, I never did.  Most of the time I was actually just responding to players successful and failed moves rather than making specific moves of my own anyway.

D'oh! Yup, meant "act under fire" alright.