When a group acts on a set, many doors open up. The orbits partition the set, the stabilizers are subgroups, the size of an orbit is the index of the stabilizer, the # of orbits is the average # of fixed points, etc. But when a finite group acts on a finite-dimensional complex vector space, the additional structure reveals even more information about the action. For example, the representation decomposes into irreducible subrepresentations that can be described in a character table.
I would suspect that if a group $G$ acts on a group $H$ in a sensible way, then one can derive additional information beyond the possibilities of a group acting on a set, just like in representation theory. By "sensible way" I mean that the action satisfies the additional property $g * (h h') = ( g * h) (g * h')$ for all $g \in G$ and $h, h' \in H$, which gives a group homomorphism $G \to \mathrm{Aut}(H)$. One example is $G$ acting on itself by conjugation. If $H$ is an abelian group, then 2021 Wikipedia would call this sort of action (together with $H$) a $G$-module, although I think there are different uses of that term.
One consequence of the new property is that $$g * 1_H = g * (1_H 1_H) = (g * 1_H)(g * 1_H) \in H \text, $$ so $g * 1_H = 1_H$ for all $g \in G$; $1_H$ is always a fixed point of the action.
What are some properties of groups acting on groups that are not always true of groups acting on sets?
Imposing too many constraints can make the phenomenon bland. If $g * (h h') = (g * h)h'$ for all $g \in G$ and $h, h' \in H$, then $g * h = g * (1_H h) = (g * 1_H)h = 1_H h = h$ for all $h \in H$, so the action is trivial. This is related to Notions of groups acting on groups, although that question relinquishes the assumption that $g * (h h') = (g * h) (g * h')$.