There's a lot of similarity between the two (besides just the fact that both are PbtA games), and it made me think, why couldn't they be run together? Some of the players could be Hunters, while the others could be Monsters - I could make two separate groups for that. This would, of course, create a competitive tone between the Hunter group and the Monster group, but it could be fun. Thoughts?

I am looking for a Monsterhearts game, but not one that has such a PvP element, or even Chosen/Hunter archetypes in it. So I would not be interested. However, if you are looking for ideas I do have a suggestion for your concept.

It may be intriguing to have the players mixed together rather than separated. Don't let them know who is "hunter" and who is "monster" in the beginning. You have that emotionally messy area of people potentially starting as friends, then being pressured into competitive/antagonistic social structures.
This message was last edited by the user at 22:34, Mon 05 Mar 2018.

In reply to Sakuro (msg # 2):

That IS intriguing. It adds a sort of Mafia/Werewolf aspect to the game (a bit of paranoia, not knowing who's who). Thanks for the suggestion.

Monsterhearts and Monster of the Week are doing different things.  That’s not to say that you couldn’t add more playable monsters to Monster of the Week or more hunter-types to Monsterhearts - each inspired by the other game. If you’re doing Monsterhearts you really want Strings and Sex Moves, if you’re doing Monster of the Week you don’t need either.

A game of straight up conflict would suit Monster of the Week more.  Monsterhearts would suggest a more simmering situation with forbidden romances, within group conflicts and rivalries as or more important than fighting the other group and people on each side waiting for an excuse to bring the hammer down on the other.