Well, with that definition every game fits, since it's just a matter of defining "stupidly dangerous".I think what people really mean by it is "there should be a theoretical possibility that not everyone always survives if the group picks stupidly dangerous fights".
Victory over everythig not being a given is not actually a standard for all games.
The point is instead that we can put every ttrpg into one out of three categories:
On one hand we have games where combat is intended to be avoidable, and where ending up in combat can kill you (and by the laws of mathematical averages, actually will kill you if you don't avoid enough combats). This isn't quite a theoretical category, but it is by far the smallest and least popular one. I am only vaguely familiar with these games since I don't play them.
On the other hand we have games focused on combat, and combat-as-sport specifically. Whatever you or WotC may say about "equal pillars", the game is really all about combat, and upgrading your character to have fun doing combat. Avoiding combat is mostly just losing out on adventure.
Then we have the middle category, which I could derisively call "people who are bad at math". Games that purport to belong to the first category, but mathematical analysis proves they really belong to the latter. You might not have levels and hit points, but you have enough defensive reactions and action points and what not that in practice you still aren't dying. Personally I don't have time for games that try to hide the real probabilities behind nonsense like dice pools and convoluted multi-step procedures, but that might just be me being baseline proficient in maths.
But let me take a (likely) obscure example: the Swedish-language Samuraj game. As you might guess it's a game set in feudal Japan. What might surprise you is that it uses a pretty standard fantasy game engine (in the simplest terms, it's Basic Role-Playing), which is exceedingly lethal. Attacks hit a specified body part. You maybe have 4 hit points in each of those. But weapons still deal basically the same damage as in D&D - so a sword deals 1D8 damage, for instance. Ouch. If we disregard dodging and armor it's easy to see that this is a combat-as-war game. So it's all down to specific adventure scenarios.
Some work (almost regardless of your "level" you will die to an entire rabble of bandits, but if as soon as you cut the head bandit in half every one else flees, congrats, we have a writer that understands math) and some don't (if you're expected to have your standard half-dozen fights as you infiltrate the evil castle, as if you were having this scenario in yer bog standard D&D game, we have a writer that is completely oblivious to math).
Something like that. Anyway, we're off topic.