Say Yes or Face the Dungeon (SYoFtD) is a technique that can be used in any role playing game in which the majority of play is confined to set-piece encounters in an enclosed location, or predetermined series of combat scenes.  D&D is the most obvious example of such games, but any game with a strong focus on combat and few mechanical methods for resolving non-combat conflicts is a good candidate.  In this respect, earlier versions of D&D are ideal, as are "old school" dungeon-crawling games such as "Tunnels and Trolls". 

The premise of SYoFtD is that these games that focus on dungeon-crawling already have a conflict resolution system.  It's just rarely recognised and often under-utilised.  That system is the dungeon itself.  The player characters encounter a problem in the game-world, they fight their way through a series of encounters, and then the problem is resolved.

What I argue with SYoFtD is that this conflict resolution method can be used in far more flexible, useful, and player empowering ways than it has traditionally been.  Rather than preparing a separate dungeon for each of a small number of possible conflicts in the game-world (for example, there's a dungeon which is the lair of the bandits terrorising the kingdom, and a dungeon which is the hiding place of the King's long-lost crown), the GM prepares a single dungeon, which is then fitted to whatever conflict the players choose to engage.  Play outside of the dungeon proceeds as normal.  Whenever the players encounter a conflict (they want to do something that the GM thinks should be risky or uncertain) where you'd normally use the game's non-combat resolution method, or GM hand-waving, the GM has a choice - say "yes", and let the players' characters achieve their goal, or make them "face the dungeon". 

Facing the Dungeon:
The GM should give a very short description of the dungeon, something like "It's an zombie-filled labyrinth" or "It's an orc warren with a surprise at the end".  All the players then brainstorm a way for the dungeon to be related to the conflict at hand.  The GM may need to edit portions of the dungeon to make it fit, or better, invent additions to the situation to make the dungeon plausible.  For example, the PCs are trying to get a village of elves on their side in the civil war.  The elves are undecided, and the GM makes the PCs "face the dungeon".  The dungeon the GM has prepared is a nest of harpies at the top of a crag.  After some discussion, they decide that at some point during the negotiations, harpies will capture the son of an elder, one of those opposed to their plan.  If they can rescue the young elf from the harpies, the elves will join in their cause. The GM marks in the dungeon where the young elf is being held, and play begins again - later that night, just after the harpies make off with their captive.

Re-stated for clarity:

  1. The GM prepares a dungeon.
  2. Play begins as normal, with the player characters trying to achieve their goals in the world.
  3. The players want to do something in the game-world that the GM thinks is difficult or dangerous or unlikely, and is difficult to resolve with the ordinary resolution system.
  4. The GM either says "yes", and lets them succeed, or makes them "face the dungeon". 
  5. Facing the Dungeon: The GM describes the dungeon (briefly).
  6. The players (including the GM) brainstorm a way for the dungeon to be relevant to the current conflict.
  7. The characters either defeat the dungeon, and get what they wanted, or they fail to beat the dungeon, in which case they don't.


Advantages:
Here are the key advantages of this technique, as I see them:

Less Prep: I like preparing dungeons.  There's a lot of fun in setting up elaborate situations for the characters to fight through.  It's frustrating though when you do all this work and then it never sees actual play.  With SYoFtD, you still get to prep a dungeon, but you're assured that it will see use.

Player Empowerment: With SYoFtD, player character goals matter.  You don't have to worry about following the GM's prepared plot.  Whatever you decide to do, the GM is prepared.  When the characters find themselves in yet another dungeon searching for another McGuffin, no one is grumbling - they put themselves there.

Drawbacks:
Here are some problems with the technique, or challenges I'm yet to find a way to overcome:

Individual Goals: It's hard to use this technique when each member of the group of characters has widely varying goals.  If one person is looking for their mother's sword, someone else is ridding the kingdom of orcs, and another person is seeking to reclaim the throne, it's hard to make one dungeon accommodate all of those needs.  The best I can come up with is to do what fantasy parties already do - agree to pursue one goal at a time, or to let one goal take the lead while the others are side-quests.  The technique works best when the party functions as a single unit.  The occasional dungeon could be made to serve double purposes - for example it's a dungeon full of orcs, that also contains the "shield of kings", which only a rightful heir to the throne can wield. Or it's the lair of an orc chief, who is rumored to carry a deadly magic sword. 

Scope: Scope is the biggest problem with this technique.  Does a single dungeon let me rid the land of orcs? Can one conflict change the course of history? My advice is to let the scope of the conflicts escalate with the level of the characters (if your game has such a thing), or otherwise to let each dungeon achieve a slightly larger scope as long as the party pursues a single goal.  The other issue is that the scope may be too small.  What to do if the players want to achieve something that feels like it should be a conflict, but shouldn't be the main focus of the session?  The GM may want to prep a few "encounters" - one-shot situations that can be used in these circumstances.

Failure: In a typical dungeon crawling game, failing to beat the dungeon usually means the whole party is dead.  More usually, failing to beat the dungeon is never really in question.  It's just a matter of time.  This is a bit of a problem.  There are a few possible solutions.  Ryan Stoughton's "Raising the Stakes" provides an interesting way to bring non-fatal failure to D&D.  Otherwise, a useful technique is to add a time limit to a dungeon.  D&D parties often need to rest several times before beating a dungeon.  Limiting the number of times they may rest makes a dungeon much tougher, without increasing the chances of the characters dying.

Implementation:

I think the best way to use this technique is in an otherwise traditional game of D&D (or similar).  It doesn't need to replace existing rules 100% of the time (for example, you can still use "Bluff" and "Diplomacy" for their intended uses), but let "facing the dungeon" take care of the major conflict of the session.  Be aware that the normal characters created for a game of D&D won't work for SYoFtD.  D&D players are conditioned to create "blank slates" - characters who won't have a problem following whatever adventure the GM has prepped that week.  For SYoFtD you need characters, or more effectively a party, who have strong motivations of their own.  Without the players providing impetus, there will be no conflict, and therefore no dungeon.