Yeah, there have been players since the start who saw some flavor of the game being them vs GM. So, "winning" was seen as "winning at the player-GM" level. Anything to get around or prevent actual mechanics from applying was the target.Because I had people like you. DM "as you rattle the latch you are poison" You, "What I never said I was touching it! And I have gloves on".
So DM ", As you rattle the latch a small needle pokes thru your glove," You," My gloves are quarter of an inch thick."
So DM," As you examine the latch you trigger a pressure plate a cloud of gas..." You, "What. I said I always hold my breath while checking for door traps. And how much weight triggers the trap. Plus I have on a full helm and mask on my nose and mouth".
So DM,"Charlaquin this is a freaking game. You rolled dice. You failed. Now I can spend the next 5 minutes coming up with FICTIONAL reason on what happen. Or you can accept the fact OCCASIONALLY the MECHANICIS derived and create the fiction."
So what words could I use when you FAILED a roll to make you happy.
When this applied to enemies getting dead, it most often showed up as trying to find any case in the rules where you could get around HP and AC. Was there ever any gap not covered for what happens when? Dagger to throat, dropping large objects, "chokeholds" - any reason to take it from character and mechanics vs character and mechanics to "what can I argue the GM unto?"
Now, obviously, back in the day, there were many more gaps in the rules so there was a lot more "resolution through GM judgement call" in various aspects of the game.
I think I am supposed to say "but its just a playstyle and all are fine" but really, my fondest memories are not the SOPs and the "but my..." drives to turn the resolutions to the GM call you wanted through arguing.
My fondest memories of "success" are cases where the choices led to favorable resolutions within the mechanics - whole thing coming together, not bypassing things to GM calls it.