I would say, I don't normally use @
Manbearcat's type of procedure because I want the challenges to represent material changes in the fictional position of the PCs. Its quite possible in his system for the end result to 'the same just one day closer' and since length of journey isn't a very important plot element for its own sake, that isn't really a material change.
So a quick thought on this:
When you say "challenges to represent matieral changes in the fictional position of the PCs", I'm reading that as "engages with/challenges theme/premise." Is that correct? Assuming that is correct, I have the following thoughts on that.
A D&D 4e game at Heroic Tier (broadly) has the following:
(The game's broad premise of)
*
Danger expressed in a Points of Light way (same as Beyond the Wall, C7's The One Ring, DW).
*
Discovery (for all participants, GM included) in a "what did we learn about the setting and characters this session" type of way (same as Apocalypse World, DW, Blades).
(An individual game's specific)
* Themes and premise baked into
Character Theme/Background/Race/Class (these are the equivalent of Bonds and Alignment in DW).
All 3 of these are shared entirely with DW (and are the questions you address in the
End of Session Move).
Therefore, so long as the fiction addresses one of those three aspects of play, I'm finding it difficult to imagine how it would fail to "engage with/challenge theme/premise?" If as the situation changes in any given Skill Challenge (be it Parley, Perilous Journey, or Other) with adversity arising around one of the 3 above, then a "material change" is happening.
Even if, ultimately, a journey is segmented into 3 stages (3 days) and one successful SC equals "one day closer", I don't see how that is evidence of neglect of theme or premise. Now, if there are no failures on moves made in a day's travel, then that also tells us something about the above 3 in the same way that all characters' succeeding on their Perilous Journey roles in DW does. The game is less interesting because failure is the machinery of challenge/adversity/more danger and more decision-points (therefore more outputs that express character and setting). But that is the just the way things go in a dice resolution system. Sometimes players come up with the nuts. Now if failures emerge and a GM sucks at dynamically changing the situation and putting interesting obstacles in the way of the PCs (we know that happens for sure as we've seen that cited as "evidence" that SCs are a terrible mechanical device)...then that tells us more about the GM than the system!
Let me know how you (or anyone else) disagree(s)?