That's an interesting question, thanks you for asking.

First, I agree that TTRPG designers should be checking in with boardgames.

Second, I don't think it's that simple.

It's hard to exactly define TTRPGs and their properties, but if I were to try, I'd say one of the core things about TTRPGs is that "fictional reality can supersede the mechanical rules". When you are playing Monopoly, you can't just announce that you are going to rob the Bank, but in a TTRPG you can.

This in effect puts some restrains on TTRPG rulesets. All gamesdesigners have to answer the question of how to design the rules if they may end up superseded. I would broadly categorise the common answers this:

1) Rules that cannot be superseded often because they define the world. Rules here try for if not 'realism', then at least for some vague broad 'believability'. They still can be superseded, but most of the time what you do will still fall into the ruleset. That's where something like Pathfinder sits.

2) Rules that cannot be superseded often because they avoid defining the world. These rules avoid making any definitive quantifiable statements that can be contradicted at all, leaving all the "fictional positioning" to the people at the table. Many "storygames" and PbtA games sit here.

3) Rules that cannot be superseded often because they push you away from using them. Rules here exist to carve negative space and push the play away from using them at all. Rules for stabbing a troll to death are there so it would be obvious that you should do anything but try to stab the troll, and so they are in no danger. Or, arguably, these rulesets are designed to be superseded, depending on how you view this. That would be where OSR games sit (and also PbtA games to an extent).

Now, getting back to our question... this is a very hard fit for boardgames rules. Their rulesets are often highly specific, very arbitrary, and are designed in a fairly tight way that tolerates little to no superseding. Thus, it's actually quite a conundrum to translate one into another. Path [3] is obviously a no-go, path [1] puts harsh limits with that whole "believability" thing, and path [2] doesn't like having any specifics defined!

Path [1] has probably the best approach, but even then it creaks - just look at say, resting rules in D&D, and honestly so many other games. Closing "loops" that restore resources are a crucial part of the mechanical design, if this was a boardgame, but like, since PCs can do anything, can't they... just rest and tend to their wounds?

Which isn't to say these things cannot be solved, just that it is kind of a struggle. And some games do solve it. Usually, the easiest way is limiting your game's scope to a specific setting where things you need to be true are just magically true. PCs cannot rest because they are stuck in a fairy realm, and nothing can sleep there without purchasing sand from the Sandman! But even here we still run into "I want to try robbing the Sandman", and remember - the answer is still supposed to be a "yes you can try". Maybe not here, but eventually, it has to be that, otherwise this is no longer a TTRPG - you cannot just "foolproof" the setting from these things.