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.
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.
