There was a thread here tin which means of awarding XP was discussed but I can no longer find it. At any rate, we played with XP awards:

• For making checks
• For activating bonds
• For killing monsters

I started off in the first game marking XP for bonds and monsters:
Marking XP for bonds was definitely cool. It really brought bonds into play in a big way. It was harder for some classes though (I'm thinking of the Wizard, who has three bonds which are all somewhat adventure specific), so they might need to be re-jigged in some cases.
Marking XP for monsters (according to level as discussed in that thread) definitely had a D&D vibe for me as GM,. "How much XP do we get for the lizard men?" Awesome. But it diverted attention from the moves to the outcome, I think to the detriment of the moves.

Mike marked XP for checks and bonds, and this is what I switched to halfway through the second game I ran. I really like the move focus that marking for checks gives and definitely don't see it as a jarring vestige of Apocalypse World as John Harper said (from memory, apologies if I have the facts wrong).

I ran a couple of games at Gateway over the weekend, on a Spout Lore miss I made a move, often Vomit Forth/Impregnate With Gygaxia (i.e. Show Signs of Doom), sometimes something harder.

I ran MotW at Gateway 2011 in LA over the weekend and it went down really well. All 4 players had a great time and one of them wants to run it for some friends of his.

Here's my report

In the first session, I ran Monster of the Week for a full table of four players. I had played with three of the four before and GMed for two of them a couple of times. Monster of the Week is designed to handle episodic monster hunting settings (Buffy, Angel, Supernatural, X-Files) and my scenario "A Town Called Malice" was at the X-Files-y end of the spectrum. I offered a restricted set of characters; the investigation types rather than the ass-kickers with the exception being the Initiate as a thematic anchor for the group (the group were associated with his ancient order of monster hunters). The character options were: the Mundane (think Xander), the Expert (Giles), the Flake (the Lone Gunmen) and the Spooky (a creepy sorcerer); the Flake was not chosen. I won't say too much about the game as I expect to run it again, so suffice to say it went well.

Between the game itself, and subsequent conversations, I learnt a lot about running AW games and about running MotW specifically. The playbooks we used were all flavourful and the history options resulted in a fun group dynamic and really supported the theme and genre. My only concern on that front is that calling gear "crap" is too much of a hold-over from AW. Maybe just call it "gear" or "stuff" (as the text does frequently). "Crap" is jarring.

Aside from that, as I was looking back through the playbooks to see if I had specific comments about the player moves, I realised that while all of the moves are really evocative and fit the genre really well, I am uneasy about some of them.

The Initiate's Sacred Oath is a mechanically sub-optimal choice (does nothing useful and lets you mark XP once per "quest") and the Mundane's Don't Worry, I'll Check It Out and Always the Victim seem like they'd probably generate only the same amount of XP (or less!) as having one of the active playbook moves with a checked stat.

Have you considered giving these very flavourful moves to the respective classes for free, then having them pick 3 moves from the rest? Perhaps there's a dynamic that happens in play that makes these abilities more useful than they appear. Has anyone else had more experience with these moves?

Another continuation: The Loathsome Temple

Plunk the Thief is 4th level
Florian the Bard started at 2nd and didn't level (as far as I know?)
Rathnait the Fighter hit 4th level right at the end of the session.

Rathnait (my character) has One Man Army, Dual Wield (Ranger ability) and (now) a Improved Weapon (but I will probably change that to Merciless).
*Dual Wield is very good... perhaps too good compared to the other available powers? Has it been balanced for the new class-based damage rules?
*One Man Army has a badass name, but I don't think we've fought enough groups for it really to show it's use. Well... I fight groups all the time, but no one else does, so it doesn't shine in comparison.
*I like the choices available for fighters. There are enough straight up combat modifiers to go that route, plus a couple of other paths based on other stats to make a CHA or INT fighter a cool character to play.