Aaron, I think the whole dynamic of the cleric holding out healing unless the other party members supplicated his god could have just as easily ocurred without a Parley move.  It would still be great role playing, and add a ton of terrific flesh to the fiction.  I just don't see what the actual Parley move adds to this whole dynamic, other than an XP-mine which encourages meta-gaming.

Also, why should a PC gain XP by caving into the demands of an evil cleric?  That's not a very heroic thing to do.  I would rather give them XP for standing up to the cleric and not caving.

I think the Parlay move should apply to NPCs or Monsters only. If players threaten or bribe one another, or whatever, it shouldn't involve a roll, let the players make their own decisions for their characters and move on.

I would think that the leverage should be something that the monster wants, like a bribe of gold, or a concrete threat against it.  How did the player actually interact with the ghost in the "fiction"?  That would tell you what leverage, if any, the player held over the ghost.

You don't always have leverage because you're not always sticking your sword in the monster's face.  That's a quite aggressive action that might very well backfire.

Unless they tweak the level progression/XP rules, you'll have to be playing a LONG LONG time to get beyond 10th level!

Like Nathan, I roll for many things too, when they come up. Or let the player roll for some things. The best is when they find gold.  I "borrow" the method from Warhammer Quest.  Let someone roll as many d6's as they like, that's how much gold they find, but if any of the dice come up 1 there is no gold!  You should see the player squirm when faced with the classic conflict of fear versus greed :)

"the (G)M(C) don't roll dice in *W"

That's what I thought, it's kind of a cultural norm in these games that the GM shouldn't roll any dice.

@noofy: What you say about the GM determining damage works well in theory, and if you have a group of players who are really cool with that.  But it has the potential for some messy side effects.  "Hey, why did you just kill me with full damage when you dealt half damage to Walton just 20 minutes ago??"  For me, this puts way too much fiat in the hands of the GM.  I like the added randomness of a damage roll.  After all, that's what the PCs have to do.

A rabbit and an elephant might both be "normally encountered" on the open plains, but I don't think that fact should be the fictional basis for determining their hit points.

I see another advocate for variable monster damage! :D