Nothing particularly profound here, just a snappy phrase for a common occurrence

Inspired by [Semi-Rant] Literalisation in RPGs at RPG.net.

It's the old situation where players are given a tool to exploit, and then the game basically tells them not to exploit it. Maybe the original one was the default assumption that all creatures had an XP value, so if you just needed a couple hundred XP to go up a level, you could go out and hunt your neighbors' dogs to make up the difference. "Why shouldn't I?" asks the player. "It's not in the spirit of the game" handwaves the GM (or the rulebook).

The old Runequest weapon-shuffle was similar. Fight with weapon A until you hit (earning an experience check) then switch to weapon B.

All I have to say about this here is: I dislike the solution that entails stigmatizing the player who refuses to go along with "the spirit of the game".

I also understand the concept of not trying to build additional rules to defend against this so-called "creeping Gamism". It's a fair concept. It's just not as satisfying as actually having the rules work. This is a bit of a problem I've had with DitV and The Roach. (A bit unfair to point to the latter, though, as I've only played it in a convention environment, without having read the rules cover to cover. And it was fun in spite of the rules difficulties.)

If I try to think of a rule that really does work, for a fairly difficult problem, the one that keeps coming to mind is Runequest's rules on sacrificing POW. Not that I can remember them very well, but particularly in RQ2, I just remember being struck at their elegance both as a game mechanic and for capturing the essence of (a conception of) bronze-age religion. Another rule I recall liking is the Dragonquest rule on ritual, which made it possible to cast powerful spells provided you spent enough time on them.