The "No Myth" style isn't a style ~ it's an acknowledgement of a thing that happens in RPGs.
The basic concept is that nothing exists unless explicitly stated. That is a fact. Until the GM says, "This thing is true," that thing is not true and can be altered.
Dead Gods and APs are not "no myth". The Dragonlance modules are not "no myth". As best I can tell from reading people's posts, most RPGing done by ENworlders is not "no myth".
Here is "no myth", as per
the website I linked to under the heading "practical techniques"; I've grouped some points together because they are really elaborations of the same basic point, and I've replaced one infelicitous instance of "PC" with "player":
* Nothing about the world or the storyline is sacred. There is no preset plot; there are preset genre expectations.
* The GM should handle all PC actions by agreeing that they succeed, or working out a conflict with the [player] that they can roll dice for. Every die roll should be significant. Every die roll should have a goal and/or something at stake.
* Boring bits can (and should) be fast-forwarded through. Time should be spent on situations in direct proportion to how interesting they are.
* Players should try things.
The above techniques are not things that are done in all RPGing. Nor are they consistent with all RPG systems. Just to pick some easy examples - all classic D&D rulebooks, 2nd ed AD&D rulebooks, all RM rulebooks, and the Classic Traveller rulebooks contain rules and advice that directly contradict "no myth" techniques in multiple ways: classic D&D has "sacred" dungeon elements; RM and CT generalise this to a lot of world elements; 2nd ed AD&D advocates pre-set plot; none advocates "scene framing" and, as per my post not far upthread, most have rules for handling the passage of ingame time that are inconsistent with "no myth" pacing techniques; none advocates "say 'yes' or roll the dice", and the only one of those systems that is easily driftable in that direction is CT. (Classic D&D spellcasting, in particular, is a long way from "say 'yes' or roll the dice", because the player never has to roll the dice!)
"No myth" is a term that recognizes the sovereignty of the GM when establishing truth in the game.
Not remotely. As per the second of my four dot points above, the essence of "no myth" is "say 'yes' or roll the dice". That is about as close to an anithesis of GM sovereignty that one can get while staying within the confines of something that is easily recognisable as RPGing.
I posted in your thread, and have replied to your subsequent posts, because it seemed like it might be interesting. I have nearly 20 years experience GMing Rolemaster, which I think is undoubtedly an "advanced" game of the sort you are interested in (even if you happen not to like it's general - though not universal - use of percentile dice).
RM's approach to PC build, to action resolution, to initiative (across the dozen or so published initiative variants for the system), to encounters (including encountter tables which I think are of the general sort you are interested in), to buying and selling (which includes rules reflecting facts of economic geography plus other contributors to supply and demand), all seem to fit your concept of "advanced" RPGing. Even though I haven't GMed RM now for nearly 10 years, I'm still very happy to talk about it, and similar systems (though I don't know eg GURPS, Harnmaster as well as I know RM).
I'm also happy to talk about ways in which other systems differ from RM or AD&D - including mechanically complex systems like BW which could (on a casual read) be misatekn for something like a RM or RQ variant.
But it won't be a very productive discussion if yu aren't going to take seriously ideas about other ways of RPGing that differ quite a bit from the default approach of AD&D, RM and the like.
I'd say the most advanced rpgs right now - in 2018 - have very little to do with AD&D
I think if one had to identify, right now, a single most advanced trend in RPG design, PbtA might be the strongest candidate.
To get a
complete negation og AD&D I think you have to go to a systyem like HeroQuest revised - no lists; pure free-descriptor PC building; total synthesis of the setting of difficulties and the needs of pacing; totally uniform resolution mechanics across all spheres of action declaratoin; etc - but I'm not sure it is as "advanced" as PbtA. Compared to PbtA (of which admittedly my experience is modest) I find Cortex+ Heroic, which is closer to HQrev than PbtA is, can generate heavy demands on a GM to make its system generate clear fiction-grounded complications with teeth. I think that HQrev would make this even harder. (But would certainly exhibit the free-flowing, open ended aspects that are the great strength of Cortex+ Heroic as a system.)
I think these demands on the GM - the fact that, in a sense, the system doesn't "play itself" right out of the bos - distinguishes these more fully-AD&D-negating systems from ones like BW, DitV and PbtA, and reduces their claim to be "advanced".