I don't understand the analogy.Which on the surface seems utterly self-defeating from any sort of analysis perspective, as decisions taken by the players are - or most certainly should be - based on and driven by the internal logic of the game world.
It's like analysing the motion of a ship at sea without bothering to look at what's generating the waves and-or how waves work at all: sure you can find out how much the ship rolls, the timing, pattern, and so forth; but you still have no idea what is behind said motion.
The waves on the sea are real things exercising real causal power. The gameworld is an imaginary thing that exercise no causal power.
The explanation of why a ship rolls requires talking about the forces to which it is subject. These include forces imparted by waves.
The expanation of why a participant in a game made a certain decision requirs talking about the "forces" to which that person is subject. These forces do not include imaginary things. They don't even include beliefs about imaginary things considered on their own. You also need to talk about desires with respect to those imaginary things.
To give a simple example - if confict breaks out at a table because one PC tries to assassinate another PC, it is no good simply saying "Well, I was playing my character!" The relevant factors, rather, are things like that you chose to play a certain character, that you chose not to have your character forgive/repent at the relevant time, etc. The fiction in an RPG isn't spontaneously self-generating. It is authored. And authorship is a species of decision-making. Talking about the gameworld as if it had its own causal potency just obscures this.