But if the underlying premise of the game is that you don't control your character, and the core mechanics are built around you not controlling your character, then I'm just not really interested. I don't want the premise of the game to be that I don't control my character.
I've already posted, multiple times, what the underlying premise is of the Steel mechanic in Burning Wheel: its that certain dreadful decisions and experiences
have weight, meaning that a gap can open up between a person's intention and whether they can follow through.
Here is the introduction to the rules text (I'm quoting from p 121 of the Revised edition; I don't think Gold edition is significantly different):
Steel is an attribute that represents the character's nerves. It is tested when the character is startled or shocked. The results of the test then tell us whether the character flinches, or whether he steels his nerves and carries on.
When a Steel test is failed, the player loses control of the character momentarily - just as the character loses control of his faculties. The players chooses how the character loses it, but after that the character is out of the action for a few in-game seconds as he freaks out.
A GM can call for a Steel test under three main conditions: When the character is confronted with surprise, fear or pain.
The rules that follow, together with various traits found in the PC build rules, also make it clear that a Steel test can be called for when a character attempts something dreadful like committing cold-blooded murder.
I think the rules make it pretty clear what the premise of the mechanic is, and how it relates to the player's control of the character. And I think these rules are pretty consistent with what is said in the introduction to the game (p 12 of Revised):
Unlike many other rpgs, there is no fixed or predetermined "setting" to play in. . . .
Though the game has no world full of ethics and laws, the rules do contain a philosophy and outlook that implies a certain type of place. There are consequences to your choices in this game. They range from the very black and white, "If I engage in this duel, my character might die," to the more complex, "If my character undertakes this task, he'll be changed and I don't know exactly how." Recognizing that the system enforces these choices will help you navigate play. I always encourage players to think before they test their characters. Are you prepared to accept the consequences of your actions?
Pulling back to a bigger picture, here is how the 5e D&D Basic PDF describes the role of the (non-GM) player (from pp 2, 6 but quoted in reverse order):
Your first step in playing an adventurer in the Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine and create a character of your own. Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You choose a race (such as human or halfling) and a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of your character. Once completed, your character serves as your representative in the game, your avatar in the Dungeons & Dragons world. . . .
In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure.
One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore.. . .
There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.
Here is how Burning Wheel describes "the sacred and most holy role of the players" (p 269 of Revised; the Gold text is the same):
In Burning Wheel games, players have a number of duties:
* Prime among them is the responsibility to offer hooks to their GM and the other players in the form of Beliefs, Instincts and traits.
* Use the lifepaths to build skeletons of your characters' backgrounds, but don't fill in all the details. Let the character develop as play advances - certainly don't write a history in which all the adventure has already happened.
* Players in Burning Wheel must use their characters to drive the story forward - to resolve conflicts and create new ones. Players are supposed to push and risk their characters, so they grow and change in unforeseen ways.
* Use the mechanics! Players are expected to call for a Duel of Wits or a Circles test or to demand the Range and Cover rules in a shooting match with a Dark Elf assassin. Don't wait for the GM to invoke a rule - invoke the damn thing yourself and get the story moving!
* Participate. Help enhance your friends' scenes and step forward and make the most of your own. It doesn't matter if you "win", so long as the story spins in a new and interesting direction. If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself. . . . Above all, have fun. It's easily said, but hard to enact. Listen to the other players, riff off them; take their leads and run with them. Expand on their madness, but rein them in when they get out of hand.
I think Burning Wheel is pretty clear about the role of the players, the significance of the PCs, and the relationship of player to PC. It's obviously not the same as 5e D&D. The differences are primarily in relation to
authorship: who is expected to exercise responsibility over what parts of the shared fiction. And what sort of
challenge to or
pressure upon those contributions is to be expected.
The 5e text spells out one role for the DM, another for the players, and there is no suggestion that either is subject to pressure or challenge or change from the other. The player makes the PC who is their "representative" in the fiction. The DM authors the adventure and the challenges, which the players work through with their PCs.
In BW, the players are directed to
hook the other participants, both players and GM, to push for what they want by using the game rules, to enhance but also rein in one another's madness. Players are even told what to do to make the game interesting if it's not - and the instruction is not
put on an entertaining performance, it's to
create new and interesting situations (which the BW mechanics enable the player to do: see eg my posts upthread about the Circles checks made to meet Rufus, my PCs' brother). The upshot is that the GM's conception of the fictional situation is not free from challenge. Nor is the player's conception of their character.
