I made all decisions in pencil and allowed anyone wanting to the opportunity to change them. That seemed to be a nice compromise. I was surprised how popular the 'grab and go' approach was - few people changed anything.

The only real snags I hit were mismatches of expectations. There was a table with one person wanting a fantasy setting that takes itself seriously, and three piling on puns and anachronisms. My last table of the con was the toughest - there were 5 players at the table, representing at least 3 different creative agendas. I don't think the kinds of problems that table had can be addressed in game design, so it's more a hazard of throwing random strangers together than a problem specific to Dungeon World.

The two players who did more than one session were very surprised with how differently everything played out. I tried to explain that it is a situation to handle in your own way, not a script of encounters handled in a set sequence.

The only time things got clunky / wonky in handling mechanics seemed to center on A) the lack of a formal initiative system or B) rolls to aid or hinder another party member. Before I derive any criticism for the game from that, I'll have to go back and see if there is something I misread in the actual rules.

Speaking of actual rules, I read them front to back between my test drive game at home and the con games. (OK, maybe I skipped most of the monster definitions). I had the pdf on an ipad for reference, and in 6 games, I pulled it out to search the text twice! I did have double sided basic moves sheets printed, and a GM cheat sheet prepped, but still - that is amazing. I think you have a very consistent and intuitive (once you've grokked it) rules set.

Printing and printing and printing now, but really excited. I ran a test drive for friends that hadn't played to simulate a con situation. Character creation took longer than I thought, so I'm going to pregen characters and tell people they can modify details if they see a better choice on the playbook. Main thing is starting with stats assigned, I think that saves a lot of time in a convention scenario even if everything else is chosen at the table.

Having thought about it some more, if this is used, the player should get to choose which stat to roll based on whatever criteria they want.

In response to Daniel Wood's question - I'm sure a lot of AW games would end better without an epilogue, and many would work better with a totally open one. I find it's easier to improvise story when I'm working with some constraints. Also, many of the games I like have a game ending procedure defined. I don't think Apocalypse World should have a single officially correct answer, but I do think it would benefit from having options laid out.

For what it's worth, I have none of the LE playbooks and I'm willing to trade my time / effort / embarrassment for any of them (especially the Maestro D). Any of you with them - here's a golden opportunity, make the hard move :)