Hi Andreas
It’s a distinction I make and elaborate on in my book Half-Real. You can check it out here. http://www.half-real.net/
All your concerns will be answered!

(1) Engaging with fiction means to actualize a diverse set of rules, i.e. at the very least readers of fictional texts actualize (a) a language system governed by a multitude of rule systems (i.e. the syntax of texts to name but one prominent sub system of language); (b) genre conventions; (c) cultural rules regulating the consumption of fictional texts (for example, the fact that readers agree that a text is, in fact, to be treated as a fictional text and not as a literally depiction of a real event.)

In this sense, reading a fictional story – much like playing a games – has real consequences. You really lose a game, but, similarly, you also really finish a story. Or, in more abstract terms: Actualizing a set of rules for any type of media will have real socio-cultural consequences for the users.

(2) Rules do also interface with the world metaphorically. When you complete a game, the program will really stop – but if you have won or lost the game depends on a communicative action symbolically as win or loss to the players – the computer, after all, does not care about these categories.

In this sense, rules are dependent on narrative elements to orient their players within the gaming situations and the fictional worlds they construct.

So…I am not sure how your distinction would be beneficial for a critical analysis of games, to be completely honest.