Help out a new MC without a snowball's chance in the burn flats?

Hey guys, second post ever I think? First off this forum is amazingly helpful, thank you all for every thread before this one!
I'm an absolute beginner. This is not only my first time MCing ANY game, but my first time actually playing an rpg. I've got a small game with just two players, and we've all agreed that this is a learning experience and really just a test run to try to wrap our heads around this. We played one short mini-session just to whet their appetites and they're even more into it than I anticipated.

Character creation went great, dreaming up the world was great fun and everybody was into it right away. So once we get to actually playing the game, things are going okay and I'm getting by, but I definitely don't really have a feel for the flow of how to get things happening. I found myself worrying about, at what rate should I escalate and fill the game up with stuff? When do I introduce new characters/possible plots/events, and when don't I, and what to do in the interim when the shit isn't hitting the fan? I wasn't sure it was the right thing to drop them into deep shit right in the beginning. And I was really conscious of keeping meticulous track of all of it. But looking back at it, maybe that's the wrong approach.

Should I just be throwing apocalyptica at them left and right and make a big mess, and let the game, the players, and myself sort it out? Am I thinking in the right direction now?

I apologize for the long post. Any help is appreciated.

well, as a new mc myself (ive only run three sessions so far, and its my first gming experience ever), here's the approach I've taken to apocalypse world so far:

1. come up with a core concept first, i.e. zombie apocalypse, nuclear winter a la fallout, or simply a general theme you want your apocalypse to embody.

2. after world creation and character creation, look for where the PCs aren't in control: when you get the actual book and stuff, there's literally a move for the MC that's "look for where they're not in control, push there" there's also "respond with fuckery". by that it means, push where the PCs have no control and watch them try to figure it out. i know it sounds sadistic, but trust me. this step is more of a general rule to follow throughout play.

3.build off of what your players give you: this means watching their actions and moves and come up with ways to reward or screw with them about it, and then reward if they pass your screwing with them. Other times though, it can simply mean an inadvertent action creating a whole new plot line. For example, my brainer came into the session, rolled weird to get info on a certain infection that was taking the town, got his information, then stone-cold executed the poor sons of bitches to stop the infection. I had no intention on any of that happening, but then was able to build off of that into an interesting story. I really should've done more with it than i did, but it was only second session.

4.Also, again in the MC rulebook, there's a thing that says "after every action ask: what do you do?" This one is huge. I have literally planned the bare minimum for my sessions and they've all wound up great. Why? Because of this rule right here. The awesome thing about AW is that the story-building happens around not just what the MC decides to throw at them, but also what the players wind up doing with themselves. That story up there occured because of "what do you do?" I've realized I'm a very improvy GM so, for me, i plan the bare minimum, but the point here is to be flexible and if you get a sudden burst of creativity, go with it! It creates awesome stories.

The thing about Apocalypse World is it's a snowball-y kind of game. I.e. this roll leads to this which leads to this etc. So, always always always be building off of something, even if it's something you just happen to pull out of your hat.

 Seeing as your players are new too, I also suggest this: first, be patient with them. Second, let them try and figure out what their character would do in this situation, and make sure it's their character; and part two to that is ask them questions about their character, even if it's the most minute things, but also try and get at their emotions. "What are you afraid of?" "What does x mean to you?" "What would you be willing to trade anything for?" Things like that, and then give them time to answer. It's about asking provocative questions, and I wish I had the link on me that gave some really cool examples. This process allows them to flesh out the character so you have even more stories to build from! Cause you can totally, absolutely, one hundred percent take something from a character's backstory, file it away for later, then drop it like a bomb a few sessions in.

This is a lot of information, and I kinda suck at explaining things, so I'll just stop here for right now.

It sounds to me like you're doing just fine! Those are all good things to be thinking about, but none of them are worth worrying about unless there are specific things happening in the game that seem like a big problem. Especially if this is your first time playing, and everyone is on board with that, which it sounds like is totally the case. It's easy to get caught up in thinking about 'oh I could be doing this thing better' but when it's your first time with a game, or RPGs at all, it's probably a bit early to be worrying about being the best possible MC at all times.

As for the specific questions about pacing and escalation: that's really going to depend a lot on your preferences, and the preferences of your friends. Our local games tend to be verrrrry slowly paced, compared to many, but it (mostly) works for our playstyles. I personally never met a reflective, apocalyptic-slice-of-life scene I wouldn't be happy to play out -- but lots of people find that stuff boring after some initial setup.

But as the book says, a lot of when to do these things comes down to your players: when they look at you expectantly, waiting for something to happen, well... that's the time to make something happen. Whether that thing is huge and crazy or small and subtle is kind of up to you, and kind of up to the sort of game that's developing.

I would say (though this might just be me representing the bias I mentioned earlier) that it's easy to feel like you need to say big things, or always say bigger things than before, in order to keep the game 'exciting' -- but in fact, it often takes very little from the MC to get the PCs' moving again, and ultimately it is the actions of the PCs that are going to drive the story. So regardless of how big or small your moves are, remember that they should always target the PCs and the PCs' interests, because that's really the goal -- to provoke a response from the story's protagonists, and to see what they do next.

To build on what Daniel is talking about a little bit, it might be helpful to consider the scope of your move and the situations/conflicts in which you'd like to involve the players.  It's the difference between "Maevis comes to you crying, pleading, and bleeding profusely from what used to be her ear.  What do you do?" and "The entire damn lot of the Datsun Cannibals shows up outside the hardhold.  They begin digging in and constructing what look like trebuchets.  What do you do?"

One option is going to be very local and personal, the other is going to be much wider in scope.  As Daniel says it's easy to fall into the trap of bigger, better, wider when it comes to scoping your challenges for the players.  But I find that some of the most enjoyable stuff is smaller, smarter, deeper.  It goes a long way towards making Apocalypse World (and the people in it represented by the NPCs) feel real.

Thanks for the replies everybody, this is super helpful. Mind if I refine/bend my question a little bit?

We have these characters and we're getting a feel for their personalities and the situations they've had themselves pretty comfortably seated in the past few years. Should we play out this situation for a while to get things established, or can I start pushing right away and let the world fill itself in as we go? The more I think about it the more "there is no status quo in Apocalypse World" stands out in my head. (I think I'm getting the book crammed into my head pretty well.) So in the second session, is it too early to be saying to my Gunlugger, "When you get back to the diner Hugo's waiting for you with two buddies and he's got a knife to Foster's throat and he wants his delivery now?"

On the other hand if you like to leave things calm for a while, how do you make sure things stay not boring?

Start pushing right away, absolutely. Part of what should become clear fairly quickly is what 'comfortably seated' means in the context of the Apocalypse; i.e. maybe the players imagine that they have been doing 'the same thing' more or less for the last few years, but what you are going to find out now is just how chaotic and unpredictable that life actually is. You don't need to introduce crazy new threats -- things that have suddenly arrived from outside to disrupt some mythical status quo -- you just want to show that there never really has been a status quo, at least as we would understand it. Hugo with a knife to Foster's throat is how it has always been, presumably, and now here it goes again.

Finding out what the PCs do when this sort of thing happens is precisely the sort of thing that can help you figure out what to do later, when things get really bad. Does the Gunlugger just start shooting guys, the moment violence is on offer -- or is this the sort of confrontation they are used to defusing on the regular. (If you think your player is going to start shooting because they assume this is expected in such a situation you could always ask them: 'has Hugo pulled this sort of thing before?' to present that possibility.)

When I MC I am always alert to the danger of players discussing their PCs lives as history, as stable backstory -- I always try to ask them 'how long have you been doing this?' 'what were you doing before?' 'why didn't that work out?' in an attempt to make it clear that this is not a stable world, or a stable social situation. Whenever someone says they've been doing something or been somewhere for 'years', I try to substitute 'months' and see if they still go for it. Because a year is a whole lot of time in the Apocalypse.

Start pushing right away, absolutely. Part of what should become clear fairly quickly is what 'comfortably seated' means in the context of the Apocalypse; i.e. maybe the players imagine that they have been doing 'the same thing' more or less for the last few years, but what you are going to find out now is just how chaotic and unpredictable that life actually is. You don't need to introduce crazy new threats -- things that have suddenly arrived from outside to disrupt some mythical status quo -- you just want to show that there never really has been a status quo, at least as we would understand it. Hugo with a knife to Foster's throat is how it has always been, presumably, and now here it goes again.

And there it clicked. Just another day after the apocalypse.

lol man, you guys made my responses look weak :p but this is helpful for me too, going on only my fourth session ever