This seems an obvious non-sequitur.
The best moments in a sporting match, or a sporting season, can be entirely related to the game as played by the rules of that game. (Eg they needn't involve external elements llike, say, a crowd pouring onto the pitch.)
The best moments in a performance can be entirely related to the performance as a performance. (Eg they needn't involve eternal elements like, say, someone forgetting his/her lines or a string on an instrument breaking.)
I have no idea why you would think or assert that the performance of any system cannot involve change, or variation, or highs and lows, or better or worse examples. That's not true in sport. It's not true in music. It's not true in spaceflight. Why would it be true in RPGing?
Are you
seriously suggesting the experience of playing a game of Dungeons & Dragons is directly comparable and analogous to playing a game of football? Or watching a performance of
Les Misérables ?
And, by extension, that playing that game of football is the same as performing
Les Mis?
However... to answer your question... YES! The best moments in a sporting match or performance aren't "entirely related to the game as played by the rules" or, in the case of a performance, related to the text as written in the play (which is more analogous than the performance itself).
These actually give great examples. Because think about the most textbook game of <sportsball> in history. No surprises and everything goes as expected. Routine play after routine play. Is that exciting? Not really. The greatest sports moments in history come not from textbook following of the rules—after all, junior high kids can play a game following all the rules—but from the intersection of the rules with exceptional talent at the right moment. The amazing odds defying pass, or spectacular breakaway goal, or gravity defying catch.
Ditto performances. Again, a High School Musical can put on Shakespeare. They can recite the words line-for-line and emphasise all the best bits. And it can be good. But when you get an exceptional, captivating performer who knows how to read the audience, then the performance comes to life in a way that transcendence the written lines. The play is important: the performance wouldn't be as good without the foundation of the play. But the combination of the play and the performer makes something exceptional.
Regardless... I've said my bit and you will likely still do not get it. After all, you continued to misrepresent my arguments in my last post, insisting that I was advocating "ignoring" the rules. I can't imagine this explanation being different.
So I think I'm out of this side conversation...