I ran a one-on-one game and it went fine.  I suppose it didn't have much in the way of "depth", but there was a dungeon and some monsters and some treasure and some choices and some dice rolls and a little RP with a rescued NPC.  Pretty much like a one-on-one game of D&D.

Contrasting that, I played a multiplayer game of Dungeon World and the bonds went essentially untouched as well.

Maybe there's some higher-level ideal that we didn't achieve, and don't realize that we are missing, but it was certainly fun, regardless.

But the "things-in-the-dungeon" bond idea sounds like a winner, too.

Hm.  This is certainly less than obvious.

While Sheyas' interpretation is valid if you just look at the move, if you look at the long description of Defy Danger ("Moves in Detail"), it suggests that Defy Danger will indeed let you avoid said danger in pursuit of whatever else it is you're trying to do.

It may seem a little unbalanced, but I think it's mitigated by the fact that Defy Danger is somewhat less reliable than Defend and if you're making another move, basically offers another angle for failure as well.

Also, I'm not sure it's kosher to get stabbed in the throat on a 10+.

Not that anybody asked me, but here's how I would do it:

The monster, when summoned, has basic understanding of what's happening and what the caster wants.

How the monster goes about helping the caster get what he wants in that situation is up to the monster.

If the caster wants the monster to do something that it doesn't want to, or wouldn't think to, then that requires the "command" option.  So futiley throwing itself at the dragon or attacking the leader instead of the nearest enemy might require a "command".

As for how to resolve the monster-fight, I think you did well.  Followed principles and all that. Be a fan of the characters, Think Dangerous, etc.

The dog was fresher and meaner than the Worg.  Let the Worg die.  Or if that doesn't work, if the Worg has the advantage, then "Sometimes, let them decide" / "Show Signs of Doom".  Let the player know that the dog is not going to make it and see what the player does to help (or not).

I think that sounds right, but goodness knows I do this wrong all of the time.

I've encountered this before as well.

I don't want to do the "difficulty" move, but in that case, what should I do?

If a PC trying to shoot somebody, and it's fictionally established that there are high winds (but not impossibly so), then what do I do?  Roll normally and let the wind account for the failure if it happens?  I'll accept that answer, I'm just wondering what the best practice is here.

P.

In my experience, I have had no player characters die.  Some have come close, though.

Players know how much HP they have.  If they are low, and enter danger anyway, that is a choice.  They have chosen to risk death.

Having said that, I should point out that you are in control of the damage.  If this is a problem for you, use monsters that do less damage.  Also, not everything has to be about damage.  On a failed roll, a monster can trip, grapple, hypnotize, blind, or poison a character, or ruin his weapon or steal his food or eat his memories or more.

If a character enters danger, and might die, you have other options.

Of course, sometimes they deserve death.

Wait, why do you need "Search"?  Isn't that what Discern Realities is?  You Discern Realities and ask your questions, and maybe there's something there or maybe the answer is "nothing" or maybe you fumble and the GM makes a hard move.  I don't understand what people are talking about here.

If that's an intentional design choice, so be it, but I've got to tell you that making that choice kind of hurts.

True.  Like I said, "academic".  Probably not that useful an insight in real life.