Your reply seems to suggest that you interpreted my post as making a statement of fact with which you disagree. However, when quoting me you omitted the part of my post where I explicitly said that I was providing my opinion.... Did you misunderstand my post as making a broad claim regarding how character identity must be understood? Or am I misunderstanding what you're trying to communicate with your rebuttal?I'll put to one side possible counter-examples to your account of what defines a character (eg perhaps a character is defined as always knowing every last scrap of trivia).
As was posted way upthread, one function of a game system like Burning Wheel (or even Prince Valiant, though it's less intense) is to put pressure on who the character is, including in the sense you've defined that.
I quoted the relevant text from the Burning Wheel rulebook; here it is again (p 9 of Gold; Revised is the same):
In the game, players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are a list of abilities rated with numbers and a list of player-determined priorities [ie Relationships, Beliefs, Instincts, some traits, etc]. The synergy of inspiration, imagination, numbers and priorities is the most fundamental element of Burning Wheel. Expressing these numbers and priorities within situations presented by the game master (GM) is what the game is all about. . . .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?The in-game consequences of the players' decisions are described in this rulebook. The moral ramifications are left to you.
I think it's obvious that this is presenting an approach to RPGing, to the place of the character in the fiction, and to the player's relationship to their PC, which is pretty different from default D&D. I posted this example/illustration not far upthread:
D&D characters are not expected to change. (I quoted some AD&D text upthread which emphasises the importance of not changing, especially in relation to alignment.)
In other RPGs this is not necessarily the case: characters are expected to change, or to be revealed, in ways that outstrip any single participant's authorial control. (Much as, in D&D, combat is normally expected to unfold in ways that outstrip any single participant's authorial control - hence controversies around "fudging".)
In aesthetic terms, this can be looked at both "internally" and "externally". Internally, it may help produce the type of emotionally laden play that @Campbell and I have tried to articulate upthread. Externally, it may produce a shared fiction that has a higher degree of drama and thematic content, compared to an adventure story in which the interest and excitement flows primarily from the thrilling action rather than the inner struggles of the protagonists.
To clarify: I understand and agree that different game systems have different mechanics with different goals. I was merely trying to answer @hawkeyefan's question by re-explaining what I personally see as the difference between using a mechanic to determine whether a character knows a particular fact and using a mechanic to determine how your character reacts or feels.