I can't really offer useful commentary on game mechanics - my own biases are too entrenched.
I don't see why that's a problem, so long as you have a conscious reason to preserve your bias. As an example, I tend to be more than a bit "anti-heroic." I think if an RPG has humans as a character race and magic in the game mechanics (that said humans can potentially use), then your magic mechanics aren't truly "right" unless they are so clear and so grounded in the real world that you could imagine seeing a "
THAU 131: Introduction to Thaumatology" listing in a university course catalog.
Obviously, people who prefer high fantasy aren't going to be interested in anything I come up with in terms of magic. Fine and good, but if make my biases and the reasoning behind them clear at the outset, they can ignore it and go on to something that interests them,
without feeling like I wasted their time. As such, I can even gain "goodwill points" from someone who firmly believes "I'm doing it wrong." And on the other hand, those who are "simulationist" in their views about RPGs find out early on that I'm not going to lead them through an explanation and yet still leave them with something as unsatisfactory as "I ate a berry and it un-broke my arm.... it doesn't have to make any sense, it's magic."
In short, people's tastes in what they expect from their RPGs are such a broad range that regardless of what your biases are, chances are very good that there is someone out there who largely shares them. There is likely even someone out there who not only shares them but will thank you for being able to articulate the reasoning behind those biases
better than they ever managed to do.