Well, actually Dungeon World caused thoughts that I was already having to snowball, thoughts inspired by the 4E D&D supplement Combat In Motion (reviewed by me here). Combat In Motion seeks to solve certain issues in 4E combat where the mechanics don't accurately represent the fiction, or needlessly break up the narrative. I'll simply quote the book's author here regarding 2 of the new off-turn actions (he was kind enough to provide a lengthy email commentary after reading my review):
This rule was initially developed to address what I call the "Sir Lancelot" problem.
If you have never seen the comedy film, "Monty Python's Holy Grail" -- see it! There's a strange sequence in the movie where Sir Lancelot can be seen running toward the camera from a great distance. Two sentries at a castle gate watch his approach. He is miles away yet the sentries do nothing. Lancelot keeps running yet never seems to get closer. Still the sentries are unmoved. Suddenly Lancelot is there and decapitates them both.
How did he do it?
Lancelot must have been a player of 4E!
As you note, in D&D 4E, a creature can cross a vast distance and the targets of its charge can do absolutely nothing about it. In Enhanced 4E, it's different; a humanoid creature of speed 6 can sprint a maximum of 17 paces before his enemies may flee or move to engage him.
Of course, Outpace can also be used by a group of allies to advance together: An option that is now especially valuable when advancing against an enemy force with ranged weapons.
This action too was an outgrowth of the Sir Lancelot problem. Now when Lancelot charges the castle, the defenders can riddle him with ranged shots while he remains on open ground.
In standard 4E, defenders could do this only if they were prescient enough to "ready" a ranged shot---and once they took this shot it was gone. So to hold off a would-be charge, the ranged defenders would have to keep their standard action readied and never actually use it. Moreover, because of the hit point system, the one shot they did get wasn't terribly dangerous to most player characters---so it failed to discourage crazy charges. By making a hit from an interdict slow the progress of a moving creature, it gives ranged defenders the potential to hit multiple times a creature that foolishly allows itself to get caught in open ground."
While I'd already supported the introduction of these 2 actions after reading the book, the author's rationale really made them "click." These weren't simply rules that were "kinda neat" from the perspective of tactical play. These were rules that support the fiction of the game! Ultimately, the draw of a Tabletop RPG is that your character can attempt anything, as opposed to a video game where characters can't interact with certain objects or can't enter certain areas because the designers never coded those possibilities. A lot of times RPG rules act more like computer code, restricting player options, unless the GM is skilled enough to put the rules aside in certain cases. Many times players won't even think about it, though (I know I never thought about how absurd it was that 4E creatures could cover such vast distances without fear of a reaction just because combat is designed to be turn-based).
Admittedly there's no "one true solution" for making game mechanics that fit as seamlessly as possible into the game's fiction. Dungeon World takes it to a bit of an extreme, and some players will prefer more structure than that system offers. For example, there are no combat rounds, you simply continue your conversation, triggering "moves" where applicable, and your fellow players are expected to jump in and react to the unfolding story. Combat In Motion seeks to patch 4E, eliminating the most egregious offenders in terms of rules that contradict the common sense of the fiction.
To put forward another example from a game that I've been talking and reading a lot about lately, 13th Age uses a turn-based structure for combat but introduces rules for a lot of free-form elements. One of my favorite new rules from the Escalation Edition ver. 6 is Situational Weapon Use; basically, if the narrative suggests that a dagger would be more useful than a big greataxe (for example, fighting while grabbed or in a confined space) then the damage dice get reversed (daggers would gain a higher die and bigger weapons would deal d4s). Many classes also gain free-form resources allowing them to improvise elements of the fiction for mechanical gain.
Obviously game mechanics are necessary to arbitrate outcomes and to somewhat represent the physics of the game world. Otherwise it's less a game, and more the players simply making up a story as they go along. But adhering to the rules even when they don't make sense is undesirable, and some rules can do a better job than others at providing the flexibility needed to work around these conflicts.
Ultimately, humans have an intuitive sense of how the world works by virtue of the fact that we live in it and interact with it every day. Rigid, complex simulationist rules might seem like a fair way model the game world, but not all corner cases can be covered. Sometimes simple mechanics that play off of the fiction and appeal to common sense can be more realistic. As a player and especially as a GM, it pays to scrutinize rules and ask "why does this rule work the way it does?" "Is this rule doing what I need it to do?" "What alternative rules might work better?" Knowing how to answer these questions will go a long way in deciding what system is "right" for your group.