I have found in the games I have run (mostly store or convention one-shot pick-ups) difficulty in adjudicating situations when two PCs are trying to convince one another to do something.
Here's a truncated "Actual Play":
So the Chopper is trying to get his gang organized after a drunken party (and a botched Pack Alpha roll) to sack this caravan. However, the caravan is being guarded by the Gunlugger.
Some shots were fired, and the Chopper's gang is mostly dead and in disarray, but the Gunlugger and Chopper are friends, so they sit down to negotiate.
What followed was a half-an-hour if-you-do-this, I'll-do-this back and forth, where neither would agree to the other's terms, but would add one more conditional instead. Like the Gunlugger wanted to hire the Chopper and his surviving gang to protect the caravan. But the Chopper would only do that if the Gunlugger recruited replacement members. But the Gunlugger said he couldn't do that right now because he's contracted with the caravan, etc.
I normally let PCs negotiate between themselves before rolling, but I'm thinking I'm "doing it wrong" both in this case and with Apocalypse World in general.
I can break down all of the other moves into actionable bits, but with seduce/manipulate between PCs, I instinctually let it drag out until it's this tangled mess.
I'm thinking that I should have simply asked the Gunlugger to roll seduce/manipulate with the Chopper rolling Hx to interfere right away? And then, based on the way the rolls fall, have the Chopper do the same back for his conditional?
Any thoughts/advice?