Many of us are enthusiastic worldbuilders. And many of us worldbuilders also try to make our RPG settings "original".
Yet there is a danger to making a setting that has too many unique elements. After all, the setting isn't just for the game master, but also for the players. They need to understand the setting enough to play convincing characters that exist in that world, and act accordingly. And the more setting information they have to absorb to do so, the more difficult it will be to get buy-in from your gaming group.
Personally, I think settings work best when there are a few strong, central unique elements that support strong themes on what the setting - and the campaign - are supposed to be all about, scaffolded by numerous familiar, common tropes from the intended genre (such as science fiction or fantasy). This should help convey the information the players need most effectively.
But I am curious how you see this issue. Do you regard this as a problem at all, and if so how do you approach it?
I play PbtA games, and those specifically tell you not to do too much work beforehand and "play to find out". As you say, I start with a few core ideas and touchstones. Then, when the players ask a question about the world, I often turn it around on them and say "you tell me. What do you think?" Sometimes I'll make them roll, sometimes not, but I'll always incorporate at least some and often all of what they give me. This gives the players more buy-in, I'm not just reading my bullshit to them; and also gives me a lot more jumping off points for later stuff. Way less work for me, players feel a sense of authorship, win-win imo.
For me, as a GM, this can easily mean more stress since I now need to incorporate player ideas into the setting which might not mesh with my own plans.
The point of pbta games is not to plan insomuch as to define what is currently true in the world and let that evolve as the players (dm included) play.