I don't think the rules as written are over generous.  Here, let's say we have a ranger fighting humanoids, attacking in tandem with his companion and otherwise making optimal use of the Command rules.

First that ^ won't always be the case.  The companion might not be acting within its training, the companion might be injured, the companion might just be on the other side of the room, etc.

Still, even assuming an optimal situation, what do we get?  +1 damage puts my d8 damage die on par with a paladin or fighter's d10 damage die.  +2 damage starts to put me on par with the paladin or fighter's superior weapons.  +3 damage means I finally have an edge, except actually the paladin and fighter still have more options to boost damage.

And +1 armor.  Because fighters and paladins can ignore the Clumsy tag on armor, they'll usually be wearing 2-armor.  As a ranger, I won't, so again I get to be as good as the big fighty classes, except for me it's only under certain circumstances.

Where I get to shine, then, is with skill-based activities like tracking and discerning realities, where my companion is giving me solid bonuses (though even then, if I want the sweet +2 bonus, I need to give something up in combat bonuses).  And tracking and being sharp-eyed are things rangers are supposed to be good at.

Mm.  That would mean that if you took that second stat line, your companion makes you immune to interference, and you also get the best Ferocity available, which doesn't sound right at all.

The ranger, in their Command move.  When you work with your animal companion on something it's trained in ...

"…and someone interferes with you, add its instinct to your roll"

Surely that's "add its instinct to their roll"?

Well, I don't know what to say, except that it does work.  I haven't done this with Dungeon World in particular, but I've played and run Apocalypse World games online (also played Dungeon World once and Monsterhearts once), and that model is really perfectly fine.

We can establish tone in discussion, and I can nail down any themes that feel like they need to be stated.  That's the important part, that prevents things like that stumbling into a gritty war story.

At the same time, the group builds characters and makes bonds, and I direct questions to the PCs.  When I have a bit of a grasp on the party, I set the first scene and go from there.  This is pretty much per the First Session chapter in the book, which in turn cribs a fair bit from Apocalypse World.

It's a proven technique, and you really can trust it, even if it does sound a little loosey-goosey.

It'd be nice to get a few posts a day.  However, my own response rate will vary up and down based on how busy I am with work, so at times I might be just updating once or twice in the evening.

I think the point of a playbook is that it say, hey, here are some limited choices that support a specific archetype.  You've got moves, sure, but also look, gear, advancement, maybe a sex move kind of thing, maybe even names.

If you just have one playbook ... I'm not sure that it's a playbook?  Isn't it just "character creation"?

If an Unknown Armies hack wouldn't benefit from specifically-themed sets of character options, niche protection, and etc, then just don't use playbooks.  You can still have a convenient one-sheet character sheet that includes all character creation information, but that's not an AW-style playbook, it's just good design.

Ah, cool.