There are “rules-heavy” and “rules-light” RPGs, and there are people who prefer each.
Hmm, I think that this is not a good example. I like “rules-heavy” RPGs (indeed, I think that designers and fans of “rules-light” RPGs are very often thoroughly confused about what the consequences of “rules-lightness” actually are). But the “rules” of an RPG and the kinds of “rules” that I think @quetzal_rainbow’s comment is talking about are not really the same thing.
The “rules” of an RPG are mostly not constraints that prevent players from doing things, but rather mechanisms that enable players to do things. (For example, the 3rd edition of D&D has rules for crafting magic items; the 5th edition of D&D has no such rules. The effect of this is not that players in 5e are more free and less constrained than players in 3e. The effect, rather, is that players in 3e can do something that players in 5e generally cannot.)
Of course there are some rules in an RPG that are mostly constraints… but, well, those are also the rules that people are least likely to like. (Although they may be necessary in order for the game as a whole to be enjoyable! In this, they mirror the sorts of rules we’re most likely to encounter in real life.)
The sibling comment by @sunwillrise says most of what I’d want to say to this, and better than I would’ve said it, so I have little to add but that I endorse his response.
I’ll add just one thing:
In my experience, this is a euphemism for “ensuring that high-status people retain their high status, and that (high-status) conflict-averse people don’t have to deal with real disagreements” approximately 99% of the time.