Blood of the Covenant, or synonyms for that... "Pact" has too bad connotations, but "Bond", perhaps? "Accord"?

Or just have that particular playbook be the weirdo that doesn't have the same kind of genealogy rules as the others, making them less of a threat to the inheritance of others and justifying their special trusted position.

This would definitely be a "don't consider these ideas binding" playbook, specifically intended for an apocalypse with some type of capitalist structure remaining.

Yes, 1-expense should be considerably more than 1-barter. Perhaps the Flush move could be more like the Touchstone's different "hope" things -- as long as the Suit stays in favour with their employer and keeps handing out money, everyone is eager to please and serve them, and they get what they want. However, it should also come with a downside -- the influx of cash should disrupt things, make people debase themselves, perhaps give some bright motherfucker the idea to ransom or blackmail you.

Actually increasing Expenses should probably be intended for more significant expenditures, ones that are "start a new life" kind of money for someone in the wastelands. Remember, the point is that the Suit is essentially a first world person in a third world country, with all the discrepancies in income and ugly colonialist baggage that it implies.

The Hoarder is really my least favourite playbook, at least out of the ones I've played with. As an MC, I found that spending my hold to make the Hoarder want things is not the least interesting, and far less organic than most other mechanics of the game. The less this design takes from that source, the better.

While the spontaneous and group-based setting creation of AW is good at providing a place for the PCs in the world, I often feel as though certain clichés pop up ever so often. I have tried to identify some of them, to make them more avoidable (for myself, if no one else).

The acultural apocalypse: I think this might be the consequence of taking the playbooks' approach to names and gender identity and assuming that this applies for the entire setting. This type of apocalypse has communities, but they don't really have any sense of cultural identity, no common traditions, no celebrations, no common modes of dress, nothing that differentiates them from the next hardhold in terms of who they tell themselves that they are. Even in fifty years, a lot of traditions and shibboleths can become established, so it's probably a good idea to have a more anthropological approach to communities in AW.

The gimmick cult: This is a cult doesn't really seem to have a purpose other than to worship. Its activities are all centered around being part of a cult, with very little that actually makes the cult attractive. This makes it seem shallow, all ceremony and no psychology. I think, perhaps, that the Hocus playbook should come with an extra question: what does your cult promise? That way, the important part of any cult would be front and centre, instead of being an afterthough once you've decided whether they disdain hygiene or are perverse and decadent.

The term 'psychopath': I really dislike this one. It has a clinical meaning, and labelling large parts of the post-apocalyptic population with it makes things dull, about as fun as deciding that they are Always Chaotic Evil orcs. Deciding that large amounts of people of the setting are clinically incapable of empathy or remorse makes the game less interesting, since it removes something that is present in 99% of humans from social interaction.

The 'no status quo' status quo: I sometimes see the term 'no status quo' used to justify why something the PCs created should be impermanent and make no difference. They overthrow the hardholder and institute an elected council? It will fall to infighting and create a new strongman, no status quo. The savvyhead builds irrigation facilities for the desert? There will be no long-lasting agriculture, no status quo. The problem is that this attitude creates a much stronger status quo, one where every attempt at lasting change just becomes another quaint feature of the entropic wasteland that seems to overtake anything. The meta-status quo where every attempt to build something lasting is doomed to fail, because that would be seen as creating a status quo. My reasons for opposing this are also partially political: while "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" is an interesting motif and a good foundation for tragedies, it is also a fundamentally conservative attitude, one which tells us that all attempts to change things for the better will only make things worse. In order to preserve player agency, and in order to make the 'no status quo' principle ring true, there needs to be room for lasting, positive change of the setting.

You can have anything, the Hoarder's schtick is all about having access to stuff. Your hoard will want it back at some point, but it'll probably be there for you if you go looking.

I'm now thinking of doing the same for post-Black Death Europe. The Brainer becomes the Witch, the Chopper, the Condottier, the Battlebabe, the Masterless Man, etc.

I'd say that Glorantha is so very different from D&D in terms of expectations and focus that Dungeon World would be a poor fit.

Anyway, priority one should obviously be a Duck playbook.

Something interesting I noticed about the statlines: the gunlugger is the only playbook that can start with Weird+2 without it being their primary stat. Has anyone done anything with the Weird potential of the gunlugger?

I think the basic paradox is this: the more useful Barter gets, the less apocalyptic does the apocalypse become. If people are desperate and poor, they will likely need every piece of Barter they can get just to scrape by. If they're willing to trade, to pay people for doing stuff for them, it means that there's some sort of surplus that leaves room for a functioning economy with some amount of specialisation. Whenever you as an MC decides that an NPC would be willing to part with 1-barter in order to buy a gun or some other piece of equipment, you've decided that there exists a person materially secure enough to forego enough resources to biy food for a month in order to get some other thing. That's a powerful statement about how the world works! Just like the Maestro D' and the Skinner, the Operator makes the setting a bit more civilised -- in order for these playbooks to work, people have to be willing to pay for stuff other than that which is essential for their survival.