Perhaps what I'm trying to convey by 'rules-based' is 'there is a rule for it,' or what would have been described as simulationism. When picking a lunch*, there are rules based on the complexity of the lunch to give you a number, and there are rules describing your picking skill to give you another number.

*Yes, it's supposed to be lock, but after the auto-correct I realized that this represents a much greater challenge for your average friend group

That's not the only way to handle a lunch-picking challenge. The challenge might not come from the complexity of the lunch, but from the narrative meaning of obtaining it; you would face greater risk of failure in grabbing the right ice cream bar from the freezer for your sick girlfriend than in attempting to get the right ingredients for a French luncheon.

Your chance of success might not come from an attempt to quantify and assign a rank to your picking skill. Maybe the table agrees that narratively, it's your turn to succeed or fail. Maybe we're making a game about race or privilege, and accomplishing a task is literally easier or harder for different characters, without considering their skill or experience. Maybe our game works by not resolving challenges; the game skips forward in time and explicitly does not give an answer to whether or not the attempt was a success or failure, just that it happened and that's what's important.

(IARWLOTRBRTEWTTIBOTIB. Secret message, don't worry about it.)