I tend to agree with [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] about this - as a general rule classic wargaming/dungeon-crawling D&D doesn't support "say 'yes' or roll the dice", because the GM is meant to have already mapped and "stocked" the dungeon and uses that to regulate what gets introduced into the fiction without being obliged to allow a die roll if s/he doesn't just want to say "yes". And even if you
wanted to play classic D&D in that way, it doesn't have the mechanical framework to support it - there's no general system of calling for checks.
I can see how classic D&D combat can be played in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" fashion, though, and think that's an interesting take on it.
4e D&D has two basic mechanical frameworks: combat, which in mechanical terms is highly structured; and non-combat, which in mechanical terms is very loose and based on either checks or skill challenges. (The skill descriptions in the PHB try to introduce some non-combat subsystems associated with particular skills, eg how much food can you get by foraging using your Nature skill, but as far as I can tell most successful 4e games ignore those subsystems as incompatible with the general spirit and best play of the game.)
Combat in 4e can have "say 'yes' or roll the dice" elements - eg if a player declares "I yell at the orc: surrender!" nothing obliges the GM to call for an Intimidate check as opposed to just have the orc surrender - but that isn't where it defaults to. Much more important for good 4e combat is framing rolls of the dice as an alternative to
no - which requires good working intuitions around p 42, what are suitable trade-offs in terms of spending resources to generate consequences outside the formal "power" framework, etc.
Non-combat in 4e can very much be played in a "say 'yes' or roll the dice" fashion. (Once you ignore those poorly-conceived bit of the PHB skill descriptions, and instead focus on the DMG and DMG2 advice for non-combat resolution.) It works fairly well, but has much lower failure rates than (say) Burning Wheel which makes it
much less gritty and less emotionally demanding on players.
Traveller I'll say something about below.
I think the comparison of Classic Traveller to Dungeon World is an interesting one, because Traveller also has "moves" that - when they occur in the fiction - mandate the deployment of particular resolution subsystems. For instance, if a player declares (as his/her PC), "I'm hanging out at the bars etc hoping to meet a patron" then the next step is (i) to knock off a week of game time, and (ii) to make a patron encounter check. Likewise, if a player declares that s/he (as his/her PC) is performing some tricky manoeuvre while wearing a vacc-suit, then the rules prescribe the check (modified by Vacc Suit expertise) that needs to be made to avoid encountering some sort of difficulty (eg the last time that happened in our game, an oxygen hose got snagged on a rocky protrusion).
I think there are some differences from DW that are worth noting. Most obviously, the Traveller subsystems are all quite different from one another (in probabilities, in structuring outcomes, etc); and when they trigger a need for judgement it almost always goes back to the referee rather than the player (eg the referee decides what sort of difficulty results on a failed manoeuvring-in-vacc-suit check, although in practice of course the whole table might get to have input into that decision).
Another difference is that many of the triggers are much less clearly specified (not always:
when your activate your starship's jump drive is a pretty clear trigger), which means the referee has a bit more latitude in calling for checks - and this can allow the intrusion of a degree of "saying 'yes'" in lieu of calling for checks.
And then there are some domains of activity - most obviously procurement - which are clearly expected to be part of the game (it's full of price lists and expenses and ways to make money) but which don't say what happens (eg have no associated subsystem) if the referee is not just inclined to "say 'yes'" - eg there's no subsystem for being able to obtain fuel at a starport if supplies are running low and so it's not just freely available to those who can afford it. The system as written tends to assume the GM will just make something up to adjudicate this if necessary, which gets closer to some of the standard tools of early D&D refereeing. Another similarity in that respect is the existence of subsystems which sit on the cusp between genuine action resolution and GM scene-framing tools - like the person encounter rules, which state that a check should be made every day, but also at least imply that the GM might curate the making and outcome of at least some of those checks.
The lack of clear "say 'yes' or roll the dice" in Traveller was one of the things that led me to post a bit over a year ago that Classic Traveller is a
dice driven game.
Obviously it's unlikely Marc Miller was thinking in those terms - 'moves' - I'd say he was looking to simulate 'a science fiction odyssey to the distant worlds of the Galaxy' from a you-are-there immersive standpoint, and just made up whatever sub-systems looked helpful. D&D of that era had plenty of similar subsystems, eg Spying & Assassination in 1e DMG, or the Territory Development process in the 1e DMG, or the Escape & Evasion checks in various editions. I would probably include NPC reaction & morale checks, and hireling loyalty, in there too.
