Sure if thats the only example of a stat-raising move I think that is permissible since having higher Chaos also gimps your order.
Some feelings in no particular order:
-Read a sitch-thing - honestly, as to the +1 towards acting on the answers, in my experience no one remembers this even when asking a single answer, let alone three. Evidently not even the people who made DW remembered it because it was absent from the 2nd edition print by mistake (ok thats not even their fault really but I will shit on DW every chance I can okay). Something I'm experimenting with going forward is making this move a bit like "When you read a situation/study a person/etc, ask the GM a question and roll + X. On a hit, the GM does not have to answer directly. On a 10+, the information should be useful and immediately actionable; on a 7-9, it should merely be useful. On a fail, GM makes a move." This eliminates the hypothetical situation of the player asking a question like "Is Mr. Johnson going to betray me at the end of this run" and getting a straight answer without the clumsiness of using preset questions. The difference between the 7-9 answer vs a 10+ answer to that question could be "he does look pretty shifty but he is a fixer after all; however, when he lit his cigarette earlier you recognized the branding on the match box as associated with x venue. If he is a regular then perhaps you could gather information about his off-time there, see what kind of person he is?" vs all of the above plus: "he also brought his attache with you and that is where he stowed away his tablet which he used to take notes throughout his entire conversation. Get the tablet and you will probably get your answer." Of course the key here is that while the GM does not have to answer the question directly he also must be truthful; the lead that the GM suggests must contain the answers to the presented question. For more obvious questions, the answer might of course be more direct. That's essentially Reveal the Dark, with some elaboration, except for all your trivia and perception needs (do you really need 4 moves to gather information in different contexts though?).
That's just me, though.
-Again I think Planar effects is XP done well in a PBTA game, so very very well done on that front. Excellent way to mechanically cement the romance of exploring the planes. However, these effects should still have some role to play even when the party is for example fully leveled (or simply not interested in pursuing xp) so find some other way for them to come into play. Maybe whenever you roll a 6- on that plane, the GM can choose to hit you with that move, ie forcing you to run away when in Gehenna? Of course the persistent conditions are always in play, but they are ultimately boring penalties (but quite necessary to counteract stat bloat, so good thinking there) and lack the excellent way the planar effects reflect their planes. Shaken as a planar condition, though? That's gonna be a "holy fuck" from me, dawg. Maybe have it so that the base condition is always a penalty to a specific moves, but that gets upgraded to shaken if you are aligned *against* the plane. I can easily see that resulting in mixed alignment parties having players boycott ever going to any plane because its totally, like, going to fuck their shit up, but thats still discourages plane exploration less than the current system.
As a side note, and I understand that this comes with the territory, but morality is fucking stupid (in real life as well as in fiction). Yeah I get it, its a fundamental part of the Planescape cosmology, but at least leave some room for interpretation by avoiding phrasing such as "when being evil to others" as is in the Gray Waste's effect. Instead baator's or carceri's effect is much better, although even baator has problems = what if you are helping someone to exploit them, or vice versa? That's how them cool enlightened egoist cats do, brah.
-Plenty has been written about the problems of "Act Under Pressure" being a retarded catch-all and making its stat the best stat. Its not like we must strive for Sawyerist balance, but I think DW actually did it quite well by delegating its roll to every stat. With only 3 real stats and 2 ideological stats, you can make it nice and simple. Have it roll against body for physical pressures, soul for metaphysical pressures, and mind for intellectual pressures. I might be butchering your conception of mind/body/soul so of course adjust to your liking. This might naturally deflate the value of mind so you will have to find some other way to compensate. Still I think that is preferable to the alternative. Also how does this not overlap with Put the Blinds? Is leaving a situation quickly/stealthily not acting under pressure?
-Oh I see, so Torque it off is based on that one intimidation move from Apocalypse World. Honestly, this is the move I have always understood the least, especially the esoteric - to put it mildly - way that Baker recommends using it in lieu of the combat move. I've been streamlining PBTA more and more and in my opinion this is a kind of thing that really does not need a move because it can be intuitively answered by the GM. Someone puts a gun up to your head and tells you to hand over your wallet - what do you do? You're a loyal soldier and someone pulls a knife on you and threatens to stab you if you don't let them into your boss' compound, what do you do? If you really have to think about it, then have it be the parley/social move, because at that point intimidation is just one of the many factors in this negotiation, you are not instinctively responding to the threat of violence, you are bargaining with it.
-Help or Interfere depending on alignment is very clever. Again might reinforce SaMe aLiGnMENt PartY PL0x people but they should fuck off and die so who gives a shit am I right hehhheh
-For Nick the Berg. First of all, nice phrasing on the 3rd option, it was by far one of my favorite aspects of any move in AW but the original wording of the move confused a lot of people. However: "take +1 forward if appropriate". UGH. I like PBTA's brand of story gaming but I still hate mechanical ambiguity. Either give the bonus or not. It could be a conditional modifier, like "gain a +1 forward if you retain your position." So if the third option is you disarming a guy, you get that +1 forward as long as he is still disarmed - but if you let the opportunity slip, or attempt something where the position of having disarmed someone doesn't matter, you lose the bonus. This accounts for the edge cases I suspect you were thinking of when deciding to give the GM the discretion of either giving or witholding the +1 bonus without being a terrible mechanic.
UwU
