Yeah, no, I see where you're drawing the connection. You're saying that the author of this article clarified the subject to be all participants.
I think it's a fair observation to say what I said, but I agree that it's not fair to call it the same thing.
Fair observation of what? Because you just agreed that you missed a central point of contention.
So to clarify, "No Myth" is a methodology characterized by placing the responsibility for adjudication (or 'declaring things to be true') into the hands of all participants, player and GM alike (and in some games, eliminating the GM entirely).
No, not that either. Adjudication is handled by the ruleset and the GM. No Myth means that elements of the backstory and setting do not exist until established in play. All players, GM or not, have rights to establish setting and backstory elements. The specific rights and their distribution are system/social contract dependant. Adjudication of action declarations by payers are still handled by the system with GM and player inputs.
Again, an example is the PCs are sick in a dead end. A player declares they are searching for a secret door. In No Myth, the existence or non-existence of a secret door isn't denied because it hasn't cine up in play. Most systems that facilitate No Myth play will determine the secret door's existence with a game mechanic. Success establishes the secret door according to the player's declaration. Failure leaves the result up to the GM (usually) to add fiction that doesn't meet the player's declaration.
Fair. However, I'm not the one who provided that link...
... so I don't really see an issue with using it as a sole resource. (I'm still not quite sure if pemerton was offering these articles as an example of advanced RPGs or just as an alternative style.)
:/
You also puts it in your post, which is what I was referring to. You linked it again. [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s first link is true, but then you also linked it. And then quoted only the first line... maybe you recall?
So you've gone from claiming I'm a liar to claiming I'm just plain ignorant?
Whoa, where did i call you a liar. I said you were wrong. And, yes, you are ignorant of these playstylea you've only just now been made aware of. That's not a negative, unless you insist on remaining ignorant.
There's a difference between, "I don't understand what you're saying," and, "I don't understand the concept." It's clear that I'm struggling with the articles pemerton linked. I suspect that's because they're rather poorly written, but I'm willing to accept that I need to put forth more effort. But I'm fairly confident I understand the concept, given the variety of games I've played (and created, though not published).
Dude, you dont understand the concept.
That's okay, its a big jump because it's not at all how your used to thinking about play. And its not better or worse and you can like it or not and you can even never ever think on it again. But, I can say from your statements that you don't get it, and that's fine. Please, believe me when I say this isn't a failing on your part. It's a very different paradigm made more difficult to understand by the theories it sprang from being developed in very obtuse ways. Honestly, pem's links aren't super helpful without a lot of additional reading.
I can attempt a plain talk primer, if youre interested, but, honestly, from what I've gleaned from you, I really don't think it's a good fit for what you're looking for in a game.
I don't know how much more I can assist with clarifying the concept, but the definition I offered is not "creating or adding to processes independent of a goal." It is (for the third time): ahead or far or further along in progress, complexity, knowledge, skill. I also offered definitions for those four terms; and I acknowledged that the term "progress" is tricky because it requires a clear destination (or goal, or purpose).
These are meaningless without a goal, and if everyone's bringing their own goals, the meanings of each are going to change. For instance, Blades in the Dark is a successor to Apocalypse World with a narrow focus on playing scoundrels in a post-apocalyptic fantasy world. It's set in a single city and has some really nifty relationship mechanics with the factions in the city, but has nothing but a blurb about each faction and no encounter tables at all. Is this advanced to you? Its also a Story Now style game so the core gameplay would probably look pretty alien to you.
I haven't pushed for an answer to that question because I know that it will automatically exclude a significant number of games, systems and literature; and so I've offered it to the audience to define, so that someone can provide another example of an advanced RPG.
The reason you don't have any takers is because claiming your game is advanced is seen as a statement of superiority, and most posters around here aren't interested in that. They want to share cool stuff, though, and if you drop the advanced bit and just state your goals and ask for advice, you'd get plenty.