In my experience, no but yes 
No… as individual game elements can always be extracted from their systemic context and then somehow ported to other systems.
Yes… because the results are often less than ideal. The more something works in tandem with everything else in an organic and holistic way, the better results it will grant.
And the reverse if usually also true, like the one rule everyone always “forgets” to use, or the play-goal only one person at the table really wants to pursue, they either fade or get in the way… or work because something else somewhere else is actually doing the heavy lifting, and the new rule is then reinforcing that other thing.
There exist a whole unofficial category of rpgs that a now defunct italian forum used to affectionately call “GWEP” (Gut Wrenching Emo Porn) as they focused on eliciting a strong emotional response from the Players.
A few famous examples are:
- My Life With Master
- Montsegur 1244
- Monsterhearts
- Kagematsu
- A flower for Mara
- Previous Occupants
- [trigger warning] [spoiler]Gang rape[/spoiler] (it’s actually a thoughtful, victim-empowering, very controlled and safe play experience about a very dark topic… not a “fun game”, but a deeply emotional and eye opening experience carried through “play”)
Some are about negative emotions. Some are about positive ones. Some are about the emotions you either bring to the table, or the ones that the game makes you (more or less consciously) highlight.
And the mechanics in place are very different from game to game.
From what I could notice, one recurring element is the inherent “humanity” of every character involved, both PCs and NPCs.
Reduce a character to a bunch of numbers and a game function (usually an obstacle) and they will easily be dehumanised… and then whatever happens will be of little emotional impact.
But give them a name, a face, a few traits that somehow signal their humanity, their being people “like you”, and it will be much easier to feel something for them and what they do.
This is relatively easy to extract and transport to, say, a fantasy adventure game. One could even write a few procedures and rules to make it easier to do (during prep and or on the fly). It’s a structure explicitly present in Apocalypse World which I then expanded upon in Fantasy World.
It single handedly turned a “seek and destroy” mission into a wondrous journey. But then, is this element supported or smothered by the rest of the game system?
Another technique is to simply and directly ask questions about a PCs emotions, then use them to inform play.
What are you afraid could happen?
How do you feel about this thing? And why?
The trick being not to judge, but to challenge: say, the Paladin is committing casual genocide because it is rightful to do so for some religious/code reason… ask the Paladin how they feel about it, if they see it as genocide or not, and why.
Take the answers, and use them to test their convictions.
Is it still rightful in this case? And in this other case? What about now that someone else is doing it to you?
Dig, explore… what would you consider wrong? what line you would not cross?
Again, this is easier to do within a system that supports this kind of activity.
Most PbtA games use this technique within their “moves” to unearth what the Players (through their PCs) care about, in order to help both the GM and fellow Players to serve up stuff that will surely be interesting and engaging, if not specifically “emotional”.
These are the two top mechanics that come to my mind and that could be easily injected into most games.
Others are more entrenched in the overall structure of a specific game, so maybe are less useful to your query 
