CHA-fying Danger + Parley = Selling b*llshit?

So last game was constantly interrupted and we played so bad I felt it didn't deserve an AP :(

However, it produced something I was thinking about before.

So, the thief frees the long-forgotten deep elves from their web-prisons and tell them he was Just That Savior From The Prophecy—totally made up on the spot by the player, but since I liked it, hey, now it's setting-canon. So I told him, "well it seems you are defying the danger of being attacked by the elves since you are totally mocking their traditions. I think it's charisma-based" He succeded and then continued: "you elves should actually help me kill the spider lord who imprisoned you. I will lead you to its death—as the prophecy said—and loot its treasure". So he was manipulating the elves, using The Prophecy and their hatred for the spider as leverage. Weak hit, so they needed to be sure he was going to actually lead them in the front row—not just staying in the back looting the spider's treasure while the elves were being slayed. Initially I said that he needed to provide evidence that he was the savior, but we realized this was actually impossible fiction-wise.

So my question is: is this a bad application of the moves caused by the habit of having the bluff skill in D&D that allows a character to convince an npc that there is a three-headed monkey behind them?

Also, I ruled the small group of elves was actually a single hireling with warrior+2, protector +2 and loyalty 0, but I regret this choice—it doesn't make sense, he didn't actually recruited specialized hirelings. They are just npcs waiting to be slaughtered by a bigger npc.

If you can't or won't provide concrete assurances on a Parley, you're essentially unable to get what you want.  That's okay.  It's up to the GM to say what does and doesn't count as leverage and assurance according to his prep, etc.

Though, I would have handled the original thing a bit differently.  When the PC says "I'm their saviour!" as the GM, I'd say "really?" and then the PC says "yes" and you don't roll to Defy Danger so long as, you know, he can prove it, or at least that there's some way for the dark elves to know he's not full of shit.  If the PC says "no way, I'm lying" then, sure, you're Defying Danger (the Danger being they catch you, you big liar).  I'd probably also ask a bunch more questions about how the PC ended up in that position, etc etc.

The problem here seems to be a lie that was made into canon because the player rolled, which isn't how facts get made in Dungeon World.  Facts are when a) the GM knows something or b) the GM asks the players for more info and then knows it.  You know?

That's a very good point Adam. There is a temptation in DW to give the players authorship on ANY successful roll. This can lead to substantive problems as illustrated by (not that) Adam.

The GM needs to be able to:
*Use what they give you
*Ask questions
*Leave blanks
*Look for interesting facts

The moves relevant to this situation is to sometimes disclaim decision making or to turn their move back on them. Its the GM's agenda, the GM's primary role to Make the world fantastic & Fill the characters' lives with adventure! So don't pass that off onto the players all the time or whenever they roll a hit.

Sometimes as GM your prep or your idea for what's going on needs incorporating too. Adam's suggestion to grill the player a little more and then determine the defy danger move for the lie is very important. You need to slow down sometimes and pull apart the fiction a little to grab at the gold you are uncovering as a group.

Its important to build on the situation and use the time honoured story game technique (impro) of 'Yes and....' rather than an outright No, but this technique needs to be tempered by the GM's principles, moves and established prep in order for the moves snowball to gather focus rather than creative disparity.

If you are uncertain as a GM about the situation or setting, then by all means ask questions of the players by addressing the characters until the answers 'click'; when they gel with the group's collective zeitgeist as tempered with your judicious facilitation as GM. Then all you need to do is restate the answers you 'know' as fiction or moves (or both) until you need to ask more questions and the whole cycle begins anew.

Great Post Adam! and what a great answer by Adam. Awesome stuff by the Adams :)
Slow Down...