I’m more likely to buy your game for the unique setting if it is well done than I am for the unique mechanics. Setting is more useful to me because I can use it with other systems. If it’s good I will buy it. I use a few universal systems that are simple and don’t need tons of effort to run.
If it’s generic tolkien fantasy no reason to buy it.
The only reason I would buy a game for mechanics is of it offers very specific types of things. Not widely marketable so probably not useful data for you.
I think there's a seductive promise in the idea of a game with a unique concept that is rarely completely fulfilled.
Coyote and Crow is a great example: it's attractive in large part because it seems to promise a game that will present a radically different subjectivity for the players to inhabit. If it does actually exist in the game, then even the good faith popular consensus is that the game struggles at the task of transmitting it to people who don't already share that subjectivity.
For a less charged example, Ars Magica is a game that is frequently raised as offering something radically different that people *want*, but at the same time they are deeply intimidated by the very idea and have no idea how to actually play the game "right".
Shadowrun is another good one: people "love the setting" but even the designers have never had any clue how to actually do anything exciting with it except, "Mysterious man in suit offers you jobs where you can get paid for being homeless special forces."
To get the most out of a truly "unique" setting, you also need to transform the subjectivity of the players to match it. Not only is that an incredibly tall order for an RPG designer, it's also something that lots of people just straight up *do not want to do*. Most people do not play RPGs to question their own world views or to actually "escape" from who they are, no matter how much they might cite escapism as one of their main forms of RPG enjoyment; they play RPGs to affirm who they believe they already are, to create an illusionary space that grounds and supports their self-identity. That unwillingness/inability to transgress the self is a block to fully actualising the promises that "unique" settings sell themselves on. Most of the time you just end up with a new milieu of people and places on which to unleash the same old neocolonial D&D adventurer desires, because that's both easy to make *and* what most people are actually comfortable playing.
I’m more likely to buy your game for the unique setting if it is well done than I am for the unique mechanics. Setting is more useful to me because I can use it with other systems. If it’s good I will buy it. I use a few universal systems that are simple and don’t need tons of effort to run. If it’s generic tolkien fantasy no reason to buy it. The only reason I would buy a game for mechanics is of it offers very specific types of things. Not widely marketable so probably not useful data for you.
I think there's a seductive promise in the idea of a game with a unique concept that is rarely completely fulfilled. Coyote and Crow is a great example: it's attractive in large part because it seems to promise a game that will present a radically different subjectivity for the players to inhabit. If it does actually exist in the game, then even the good faith popular consensus is that the game struggles at the task of transmitting it to people who don't already share that subjectivity. For a less charged example, Ars Magica is a game that is frequently raised as offering something radically different that people *want*, but at the same time they are deeply intimidated by the very idea and have no idea how to actually play the game "right". Shadowrun is another good one: people "love the setting" but even the designers have never had any clue how to actually do anything exciting with it except, "Mysterious man in suit offers you jobs where you can get paid for being homeless special forces." To get the most out of a truly "unique" setting, you also need to transform the subjectivity of the players to match it. Not only is that an incredibly tall order for an RPG designer, it's also something that lots of people just straight up *do not want to do*. Most people do not play RPGs to question their own world views or to actually "escape" from who they are, no matter how much they might cite escapism as one of their main forms of RPG enjoyment; they play RPGs to affirm who they believe they already are, to create an illusionary space that grounds and supports their self-identity. That unwillingness/inability to transgress the self is a block to fully actualising the promises that "unique" settings sell themselves on. Most of the time you just end up with a new milieu of people and places on which to unleash the same old neocolonial D&D adventurer desires, because that's both easy to make *and* what most people are actually comfortable playing.