what came first, the rules, or the idea that the rules represent?
I think this question shows that the rules are built on top of the abstraction. They allow us to fulfill the abstraction in a methodical way. I think changing the abstraction to fit the rules is odd as the diden't come up with the rules before the idea that the rules mimic. So instead it is the rules that must change to fulfill the abstraction, as the abstraction is the core of the idea.
if I make a typo witch i do alot, you are still able to understand my underlining idea. we can fill in the gaps. I feel that the rules and abstraction work in a similar way.
Saying that the reality is formed by the rules presented removes any type of logical reasoning that we have to understand the game. By reading the rules, its flavor text and the title, it quickly becomes apparent what the underlying abstraction is. We also have flavor text to help us fill in the gaps. if we use the rules in much the way a computer reads computer code, its very likely we will not be able to play the game considering how many typos and mistakes are printed in the game.
while i do think its important to carefully read the rules, I think both sides can become too extreme. On one side we have the dm who thinks rogues and cant sneak attack with spells or flasks because of its underlying abstraction and on the other side we have games that make no sense be they can be so far removed at times through poor game mechanics and their inability to represent anything of substance. Other times the game can fall apart using karmatic because of impossibility to use without because of its recursive loop created in its actions.
ultimately both sides have thier faults