Wrote a new blog today about how much setting should go in a rulebook. It's different for every game, but I feel a lot of games put too much lore in with the rules.
I know it's really hip to have your setting lean on your mechanics and vice versa, so neither works great without another, but I am more of a fan of rules that support tone and play patterns that reinforce genre more than specific settings. Probably mostly because I am not big on learning a lot about a setting before I feel good about running a game.
I also like to have lots of room to improv and make a setting my own. I know you can do that with any setting, but I just feel more confident doing that with less definition in the setting.
I could probably drop a little something more into my rulebook as a stinger to get people excited about what kind of fiction the game presents. I guess that could be interpreted as setting, or at least adjacent.
Curious about what other think about this topic.
https://infantofatocha.itch.io/chronomutants/devlog/572397/whats-a-paradox-war-anyway
I think that, like with so much else in 5e, they lean heavily on the DM to fill in the blanks. And while I've come to disagree with that philosophy for mechanics design, I actually really appreciate it for the fluff. It allows me to fill in the blanks with stuff about my own setting rather than have to use theirs. 5e gives you just enough fluff to explain why each race/class gets the features it gets, but then leaves a lot open to interpretation and to the DM's world.
Almost every great 5e campaign I've ever played in or watched in an actual-play used a custom setting instead of Forgotten Realms. Whereas with PF2e, I was surprised when I first joined the community that virtually everyone in the online spaces seemed very familiar with all of the Golarion lore, which I suppose makes sense since it seems more "expected" for PF2e.