Underscore

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

How do you know when a game is under you? Here we go.

When you can enhance the game at your table outside the original author's intent.

I know there are higher levels and you can personally make the game harder. Isn't that the time to create your own?

Sure beats sifting through hundreds of topics to find the right way to play. Or what stands out and/or disappoints you the most about this game?

 

[Almacov]

How do you know when a game is under you? Here we go.

Yeah, here we go...
I have never played/seen a game I would consider "under me", but this might be because I personally would see such a judgement as being in the realm of arrogance, and can generally find something interesting, if not likeable, about any system. Have there been games I've seen that aren't to my taste? Certainly. Some of them have even been popular games. (On the elecronic side of gaming, I really dislike the design of God of War, for instance.)
More often than not, games have elements that I like, and elements I'm not as fond of.

When you can enhance the game at your table outside the original author's intent.

I think this can be done with any game, good or bad. It's especially true with pen & paper RPGs, as most are essentially nonfunctional without a degree of creativity and imagination on the side of the player.

I know there are higher levels and you can personally make the game harder. Isn't that the time to create your own?

I'm not sure what you mean by that first sentence. It's not computing.
As for the second though, if you're disappointed in a game, I'd encourage you to try making your own. It's a healthy exercise.
In my experience though, sometimes it's worthwhile playing under a design you're not 100% comfortable with or fond of. When doing so, try keeping an open mind and exploring the play experience for structures, ideas, and nuances that are engaging. You'll usually find some, and taking an interest in what works and what doesn't (Even what works for other players, or things that work but are "diamonds in the rough") will both make you a better game designer, and a better player. (As participating in pen & paper games almost always involves an element of active design.)

Sure beats sifting through hundreds of topics to find the right way to play. Or what stands out and/or disappoints you the most about this game?

What sifting through hundreds of topics does is give you a little sampling of a lot of peoples' play experiences and thoughts. That element of perspective (when applied properly) can be very useful for reasons I've talked about above.

When it comes to your last question, there are loads of threads on this board listing either standouts or disappointments in 4e, and I've seen several of both in my personal experience with the game.
I may come back and share some later, but for now I feel strangely weary.

Happy Holidays, and good, open-minded gaming to ye!

 

[Prestidigitalis]

This post belongs in the General RPG discussion, if it belongs anywhere at all. It has no content specific to 4e rules, fluff, or design concepts.

It also comes perilously close to meriting the label "troll", but that decision is ultimately up to the moderators.

OP: You seem to want to stir up a discussion about how creative DMs can make existing RPGs better. Sadly, using phrases like "under you" (by which you probably mean "beneath you", as in "not good enough for people of your high station") is likely to derail any possible discussion.

 

[Dragon Sin-Camealot]

Thanks for all the imput. I'm trying to find a reason to stick with the game. I'm testing to see if RPG's like this are overlearned.

You can count on me to let the truth destroy fiction and maybe gaming. Nah, my insight isn't that important.

 

[Almacov]

Thanks for all the imput. I'm trying to find a reason to stick with the game. I'm testing to see if RPG's like this are overlearned.

Well, overlearning as described here is a concept that would apply to the players of a game, rather than the game itself.
From what I've seen, the way individual players handle the game can be wildly different from one another, and each I've seen play or played with has brought enough of their own leanings, personality, preferences, perceptions and thought to the game that it has been far from an automatic, rote, procedural thing.

In your testing - or in any testing for that matter - I'd encourage you to ensure you to be sure you're starting with a hypothesis rather than a conclusion. (At least if you're planning to share it here, it would seem wise.) [Just to be clear, this is a caution, not an accusation.]

You can count on me to let the truth destroy fiction and maybe gaming. Nah, my insight isn't that important.

And try not to fall into the trap of hubris and snark. It's dreadfully easy to do on the internet, it really is, but it just doesn't do anyone any good.

If your insight isn't important, that's a conclusion you've drawn on your own. (Although I'd hazard a guess that it isn't a conclusion you've come to at all, so your motives in that statement are, well... not hard to estimate.)

If you want to have a discussion on truth destroying "fiction and maybe gaming" though, Prestidigitalis is right in that General Discussion is likely the place to do so.
If you have specific opinions relating that idea to fourth edition D&D though, feel free to share them in 4e Discussion within the initial post of a thread unambiguously about that.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

You can count on me to let the truth destroy fiction and maybe gaming.

I don't even know what that means. Your truth has no bearing on the fiction I might read or write or the gaming that I participate in. Are you threatening to break your own toys?

Nah, my insight isn't that important.

Transparently false modesty screams "look at me!" as it runs naked down the street.

If, by chance, you are a worthy person -- compassionate and generous, interesting, perhaps even insightful -- then I suggest that you find a way to reveal it in your posts.

 

[Neonchameleon]

How do you know when a game is under you? Here we go.

When you can enhance the game at your table outside the original author's intent.

I know there are higher levels and you can personally make the game harder. Isn't that the time to create your own?

Sure beats sifting through hundreds of topics to find the right way to play. Or what stands out and/or disappoints you the most about this game?

If you have some specific comment to make here, then would you mind making it please? As it is, what I'm reading is a near-contentless hypothetical. And frankly if I couldn't play an RPG in ways not envisaged by the original designers I'd be disappointed by both the RPG and by myself.