I don't want to be a "frustrated novelist" trying to see my players through a storyline, or dropping sequences of interactive scenes in front of them. I want to be the demiurge of an interactive world that grows, evolves and behaves separately from the PCs, but which they can influence and build on as well.
First off, the sentence you've expressed here is an oxymoron, a paradoxical state.
The only reason to create and maintain a "continuous," "growing and evolving," "fully realized living world" is to involve PCs in the goings on within it. But 95% of the time those things are only made concerns of the PCs because the GM makes it so.
"Living world" games are paradoxically heavily GM-driven and GM-enforced, and "the story" (such as arises) only exists on the canvas upon which the GM places it. You say you don't want to "just tell stories," but really what are you doing? You're just constructing your own scenes and fictional character motivations to have your players pull "story levers" to make things run.
Oh sure, the PCs can affect the outcome a bit here and there, but you've already given away the secret up front---you're the real storyteller, because the "living world" is vastly more important than any story arriving from the interaction of the PCs. The PCs---and participation in the game as whole---only exist as a means to pursue the world building extrapolation that appeals to you. You admit you dislike being a player for the very same reason---you have no control over the worldbuilding and extrapolation. Without this, RPGs are boring and unfulfilling to you. The fun on your side can only be had in the way you want it.
And to be clear, I have no problem with this whatsoever. It's totally cool and groovy. Just don't lie to yourself about it. Be honest with yourself about your own motivations. Don't lie to your players and tell them they'll get to experience a "deeply collaborative, character-centric experience" playing with you as a GM.
And interestingly, this particular problem is going to remain with you regardless of choice of rules/mechanical system. You've got a huge range of traditional, GM driven games, from as simple as
Risus or
Tiny d6, all the way up to
GURPS and beyond. Just pick one. It's pretty much all the same from the GM side, other than level of effort to maintain the "appearance of neutrality." If the appearance of neutrality in decision-making is important to you, go to
GURPS. It makes it much easier, since just about everything is mechanically outlined for you. There's probably a chart, somewhere in a
GURPS rulebook, for anything you can imagine.
Secondly, it sounds like the "simulationism" you crave beyond worldbuilding is more focused on setting up tactically stimulating combat exercises that adhere to less abstract, more concrete mechanical inputs+outputs. Again, there's lots of very good "simulationist" rules that will give you this.
GURPS and
Mythras immediately come to mind, but there are more.
Basically I'm saying, if this is REALLY your preference, then don't shy away from it,
double down on it. I personally am about as far on the opposite end of the spectrum from your preferred playstyle as can be imagined, but believe me, there are players out there for you. Find players that are willing to go down that path with you.
