In a few questions I've raised in the past, it's been pointed out to me that it is not enough to just include the tags you categorize the Q into, but also call it out in the body of the Q itself. I've had this pointed out for a statistics Q, a designer-reasons Q, and most recently, a rules-as-written Q.

This is fair enough: it helps with clarity. But we don't seem to treat a family of tags the same way. Game system tags (3.5e vs 4e vs 5e D&D, for example) are added in without need of mentioning them in the body. And in fact, even if the body makes it clear which system it is using, if the Q is not yet tagged with the specific system (*not* the same as using the system-agnostic tag), we wait until the querent tags it with a specific game system first before answering.

Using game systems tags is one of the first things a new querent will learn. If they have a 5e question, it is easiest to find the 5e tag. Therefore, game systems have the most used, most visible tags, and they are the most demonstrative of how tags should work. If there is an exception being made for them that the other tags do not share, it is not entirely clear. If adding the 5e tag to a question is enough to mark it as a 5e question, then a new user will understandably rationalize that adding a rules-as-written tag will make it a RAW question. And adding a statistics tag will make it a statistics question. And so it goes.

Has this been discussed before? If so, where? If not, why do we consider game system tags to be different from all the rest, in the regard that you have to be explicit with the latter in the body, but the former does not?