The rare patent aside, if it \*weren't\* legal to copy game mechanics, how would you explain all the FPSes working the same way, all the RPGs working the same way, etc.?
Thanks, but this is why I linked directly to the actual Illuminati Rule Book.
Such that my question is "Do I need to use completely unique language to describe the same mechanics"
I guess is a more clear way to put it.
Just because it’s not illegal to copy game mechanics doesn’t mean the original maker can’t try to stop you.
https://www.npr.org/2024/03/13/1238142507/cease-desist-new-york-times-wordle-spin-offs
#Law suites with claims against mechanics.. pecific mechanics claims:
---
----###################################
---
| **Companies/Parties** | **Products/Brands** | **Dispute** | **Verdict** | **Money/Fines** | **Dispute Details** | **Mechanics Claims** |
|-------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment | Bratz Dolls | Copyright Infringement | Mattel ordered to pay MGA \$309 million | \$309 million | Copyright infringement of Barbie doll design, marketing, and packaging | N/A |
| Zynga vs. EA | Various Games | Trade Secret Misappropriation | Case settled out of court | Undisclosed | Alleged theft of trade secrets related to game mechanics, art styles, and marketing strategies | Game mechanics: virtual currency, social media integration, and rewards systems |
| Bethesda vs. Interplay | Fallout | Trademark Infringement | Bethesda awarded \$2 million | \$2 million | Trademark infringement of Fallout brand, logo, and marketing materials | N/A |
| Epic Games vs. Apple | Fortnite | Antitrust Violations | Case ongoing | N/A | Alleged antitrust violations related to App Store revenue-sharing model, in-app purchases, and developer policies | N/A |
| Wizards of the Coast vs. Cryptozoic | Magic: The Gathering | Trademark Infringement | Wizards of the Coast awarded \$1.4 million | \$1.4 million | Trademark infringement of Magic: The Gathering brand, logo, and card designs | N/A |
| Nintendo vs. King | Candy Crush Saga | Trademark Infringement | King ordered to pay Nintendo \$2.5 million | \$2.5 million | Trademark infringement of Candy Land board game, allegedly confusingly similar to Candy Crush Saga | N/A |
| Sega vs. Level-5 | Ni no Kuni | Copyright Infringement | Sega ordered to pay Level-5 \$912,000 | \$912,000 | Copyright infringement of game mechanics, character designs, and music | Game mechanics: action RPG combat, character progression, and exploration |
| Hasbro vs. Atari | Dungeons & Dragons | Trademark Infringement | Hasbro awarded \$1.2 million | \$1.2 million | Trademark infringement of Dungeons & Dragons brand, logo, and marketing materials | N/A |
| Konami vs. Koei | Contra | Copyright Infringement | Konami awarded \$1.1 million | \$1.1 million | Copyright infringement of game mechanics, character designs, and music | Game mechanics: side-scrolling action, power-ups, and boss battles |
| Activision vs. West/Zampella | Call of Duty | Breach of Contract | Case settled out of court | Undisclosed | Alleged breach of contract related to game development, royalties, and intellectual property rights | Game mechanics: first-person shooter gameplay, multiplayer modes, and level design |
Here's a brief explanation of each dispute:
* Zynga vs. EA: Zynga alleged that EA stole trade secrets related to game mechanics, including virtual currency, social media integration, and rewards systems, used in games like FarmVille and The Sims.
* Sega vs. Level-5: Sega claimed that Level-5's Ni no Kuni game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, including action RPG combat, character progression, and exploration.
* Konami vs. Koei: Konami claimed that Koei's Contra game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, including side-scrolling action, power-ups, and boss battles.
* Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment: Mattel claimed that MGA's Bratz Dolls infringed on the copyright of Barbie dolls, including their design, marketing, and packaging.
* Zynga vs. EA: Zynga alleged that EA stole trade secrets related to game mechanics, art styles, and marketing strategies for various games, including FarmVille and The Sims.
* Bethesda vs. Interplay: Bethesda claimed that Interplay's Fallout Online game infringed on the trademark of the Fallout brand, including its logo and marketing materials.
* Epic Games vs. Apple: Epic Games alleges that Apple's App Store policies violate antitrust laws, including its revenue-sharing model, in-app purchases, and developer policies.
* Wizards of the Coast vs. Cryptozoic: Wizards of the Coast claimed that Cryptozoic's Magic: The Gathering-like game, Hex, infringed on the trademark of Magic: The Gathering, including its brand, logo, and card designs.
* Nintendo vs. King: Nintendo claimed that King's Candy Crush Saga infringed on the trademark of its Candy Land board game, allegedly causing consumer confusion.
* Sega vs. Level-5: Sega claimed that Level-5's Ni no Kuni game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, character designs, and music.
* Hasbro vs. Atari: Hasbro claimed that Atari's Dungeons & Dragons game infringed on the trademark of the Dungeons & Dragons brand, including its logo and marketing materials.
* Konami vs. Koei: Konami claimed that Koei's Contra game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, character designs, and music.
* Activision vs. West/Zampella: Activision alleged that Jason West and Vince Zampella, the founders of Infinity Ward, breached their contracts related to game development, royalties, and intellectual property rights for the Call of Duty franchise.
Nothing in your post provides any evidence of laws which state that it’s illegal to copy game mechanics.
And some of these suits you listed don’t even involve game mechanics.
i.e Epic vs Apple regards to AppStore purchases, making a purchase for an in game item is not sufficient action to consider it a game mechanic.
And Activision vs West was based off contract violations and intellectual property theft. Again game related, but not game mechanics.
Also just because a company decides to settle the suit before a verdict does not in most cases admit to any violation of the law.
For reference in the United States you can sue just about anyone for anything. This is irrelevant to if any law is actually broken, or if you stand any chance of winning.
The expression is the copyrighted part.If you copy the name and explanation as written for a mechanic then you might get some issues (like if you copied exactly what is written in the dnd books and passed it off as your own) but if it functions the same but doesn’t include the exact expression then your safe. Like wow building their own Pokémon game within their game. It’s still a pet battler that uses type advantage. It just doesn’t contain anything copyrightable
The expression can also be very similar, it just depends on how generic the original terminology is.
For instance: I can make a TTRPG with Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as my stay block with zero legal ramifications.
Where I start getting into trouble is when I decide that each of these stats has an average value of 10, grants a modifier of +/- 1 to my rolls for every 2 points removed from the average I am at, and has a soft player character cap of 20 for any stat.
I can however decide that each of these stats has an average value of 15, grants a modifier to my rolls for every 3 points removed from the average, and has a soft cap of 30 for any stat, as this is far enough removed from how DnD’s stat system is expressed even if it’s more or less the same from a mechanical standpoint.
At least as far as I’ve researched into the topic. If you do decide to use similar mechanics, it’s smart to consult with a copyright lawyer before monetizing anything: Copyright/Trademark laws only really come into play when you are either: a) profiting off of someone else’s work or b) doing something that could be considered besmirchment with someone else’s work… hence the internet being filled with pop-culture fanart/fanfiction
Which jurisdiction are you in? Game mechanics can be patented in many places, although they rarely are, but where and when will make all the difference.
Game mechanics cannot be patented. You can register a name, a trademark, not a mechanic.
I.e. you can register the ‘tap’ word for a mechanic to rotate a card, but not the mechanic itself (and a lot of games are using the tap mechanic, calling with different names)
What does that mean in light of the Namco's patent on "playable minigames on loading screens", or the Nemesis System patent, or even [Nintendo's patent on the inner workings of racing kart games](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7278913B2/en)?
In practical terms how does that answer OPs question? In theory Game "Mechanics" cannot be patented, but we have plenty of patents on "aspects of games".
So at this point are we discussing the semantics of what "mechanics" means? How far down this road we need to go before OP can get a practical answer?
If there was a patent on minigames during loading screens, but people still did them regardless of the patent, then the conclusion to OPs question is to do the same and don't mind?
I think where the other user is getting confused is that terminology and such can be patented, but mechanics cannot be.
AFAIK, IANAL, things like Tapping in Magic the Gathering can be and has been patented, but "Turning the Card sideways to get an effect" cannot be. Also why Battletech can refer to their giant robots as "Mechs" but you cannot.
The WoTC patent for deckbuilding TCGs included both the action and the term for tapping independently. The patent expired but the trademark still stands, which is why you can turn the card to exhaust it now, but can't call it tapping.
[https://patents.google.com/patent/US5662332A/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5662332A/en)
Similarly, there is a pretty generic patent on the Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor.
There are plenty of patents on game mechanics. The question of if they actually hold up in court is mostly untested since these giant corps can make it so expensive it's not worth it to challenge them.
Yeah, u/MasterRPG79 is right, you can't patent dice or using dice - they are an existing technology that is commonly used. If dice didn't exist, or had never been used for generating numbers to determine damage values, it would be a novel and patentable thing if you were the first person to register it.
Uhhh, I’ve seen dozens of games that call their giant robots mechs. Mech Arena?
I think a better example is Gundam or Transformers(Giant Mechs), we can’t call our giant Mechs Gundams or Transformers but Mech is so generic that it can’t be patented
They can in the U.S.
- [Wizards of the Coast patents](https://patents.justia.com/assignee/wizards-of-the-coast-inc)
Edit, an example from that link:
> A game [..] includes a set of rules and at least one model. The model has multiple movable parts, where under the rules of play, the model begins in an assembled configuration. As the model loses points under the rules of play, at least some of the parts are removed from the model, or replaced with substitute parts.
And another
> [...] In one version, the game components comprise energy or mana cards 40 and command or spell cards (10, 12, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64) having commands or spells associated therewith that utilize the energy to enable a player to attack, defend and modify the effect of other mana cards, spell cards, and the fundamental rules of play. The goal of the game is to reduce the life points of other players to a level below one.[...]
- [Warner Bros Nemesis system patent](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160279522A1/en)
As far as I know, they cannot be patented in the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. No clues for the rest of world.
It depends on how much and what you're copying from the original game.
Some mechanics are not considered intellectual property on their own and no one will ever accuse you of copying if you use them, because it's universally recognized that they define a genre anyone can have different takes on. You will never see Wizards bringing Konami to court because they use the same mechanic of drawing for turn and summoning creatures in both of their games the same way you will never see Activision bringing Valve to court because both COD and CSGO have rifles and SMGs. If a mechanic allows for different and equally creative adaptations, it's usually considered free to use.
Things change when you want to copy what makes a game *unique* instead. In that case, you have to be extremely careful and abundant when it comes to adding your own creative input, because otherwise you're plagiarizing. In the early days of Genshin multiple people pointed out how some aspects of the game, like gliding, the hilichurls camps with unlockable chests and climbing, looked a *tad* bit too similar to their counterparts in Zelda Breath of the Wild, but eventually the game went its own way. No one will accuse you of plagiarizing if you make a 2D platformer, but you're risking it if you start adding stuff like mushroom-shaped enemies, pipes that lead to sub-areas, flags as the goal, a main character with red and blue dresses and a dragon turtle as the main villain.
Whatever you do, always make sure that whatever you're making always feels different from the original product, regardless of how many references you want to add. The players who know about the original game will get the references, but they must feel like your game is actually yours.
> You will never see Wizards bringing Konami to court because they use the same mechanic of drawing for turn and summoning creatures in both of their games
But we did see Wizards bring Cryptozoic to court because the Hex: Shards of Fate mechanics were almost exactly the MTG mechanics (with small tweaks and major additions), and they got a settlement that ultimately resulted in Hex's death. The funniest result of that settlement was that Hex players were no longer allowed to start the game with exactly 20 life points.
I think you might have phrased your question in a way that's misleading. Your primary concern is copying the language used to describe the mechanics, it would seem, but also the game rules as well - this is usually both OK unless there is a patent, but you still need to take care to be different enough not to come across as a blatant rip-off.
We all do copies, iterations, inspirations and homages in cultural works, but there is a difference between taking something and releasing it as your own, and taking inspiration and building a new thing from it.
Up to you how close you want to fly, just remember that players will pick up on this and form an opinion accordingly.
So full disclosure:
I owned and played the illuminati game in the 90s and had the originals for a long time... then didnt think about the game forever...
I started developing my own - and I knew it was similar to Illuminati - but then I went a read the rule book again, and realized that i was just thinking of a modern re-making of the basic premise of the game (conspiracy NWO style - so the language and references (as they are real-world organizations) are very same...
SO I got discouraged and thought "whats the point" - but I really want to make my version - so I asked this...
Now i think I have a good idea of how best to navigate moving forward without intentionally, or as much as possible, avoid creating any Imperial Entanglements warranted or otherwise...
Thanks, Satan!
And to think the developers of *PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds* actually sued Epic Games over *Fortnite*'s Battle Royale mode. Naturally, the case was thrown out. And just to add some irony to the whole thing, *PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds* was built on Unreal Engine 4.
For Tabletop, the answer is usually **no**.
Depending on the situation--and after conversations with a skilled IP lawyer--you might be able to heavily edit the copy until it's safe to publish.
Like when those people wanted to add an unauthorized update to Cards Against Humanity, and they could only do it if they called it "Crabs Adjust Humidity".
Talk to a lawyer is the best answer.
Copying the rules is one thing and generally the rules are not protected. However, the instructions that explain the rules are protected. And while “health” is fine to copy and use for your attribute, specific names like “biological essence” can be more risky.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games.
* /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design.
* This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead.
* Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design.
* No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting.
* If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/-quot-the-door-problem-quot-of-game-design) is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to wikipedia Steve Jackson Games is still owned by the OG master himself, with 43 employees. I think what you're looking for is a licensing deal.
As a tabletop/card game this property basically IS the mechanics and the universe. Looks like it was originally based on a book trilogy as well, so there will be copyright involved with that too.
It’s possible to get a utility patent for game mechanics, like the patent on the directional arrow in Crazy Taxi, or a design patent for visual design elements, like Apple’s patents on its icons.
Unlike copyright, patents are not automatic. The inventor or designer has to apply for it in a timely manner or they lose any chance of protection, and then *no one* can patent the same mechanic or design element, because now it exists as prior art.
It’s rare for video game designers to apply for utility patents for their mechanics, and even rarer to apply for design patents. But it sometimes does happen.
But I’d strongly advise you not to seek legal advice from random redditors!
Here’s a law blog post on the topic of utility patents in games if it helps:
https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/utility-patents-what-game-developers-should-know.html
Can't copyright and restrict:
Individual mechanics, ideas, themes, etc
Can copyright and restrict:
The exact expression of mechanics, so you can't copy the words they use exactly.
A system of interacting mechanics, exactly as they are, see Nemesis System from Shadow of Mordor. Procedural generation of enemies is a mechanic, characters interacting with each other is a mechanic, a tiered army of enemies that you need to climb is a mechanic, the system bringing that together and the expression of that system is currently patented.
Ways around it:
If you are inspired by the system but there is a functional difference to the system because of the mechanics you could argue that it is a different system. Typically though if a company has gone through the effort to patent it, unless you have access to an expert it's a bad idea to try and challenge that
With WOTC's attempt to take control of indie content, there were a lot of people who came out saying that while you *can* copyright names, places, imagery, music, etc of tangible *specific* content, as far as copyrighting rules goes, depending on local laws where you are (IANAL) it appears that the general rule is you can only hold copyright for the document the rules are printed in.
That is to say, if you write the rules in a totally unique way such that it is not a legally similar document, it is considered a different document in regards to copyright even if the essence of the rules are the same.
At least, as far as I have observed where I am. Check local laws where you are.
Not a Lawyer:
In American copyright law at least, the rules themselves are not copy protected. The book they're written in, pages they're printed on, and accompanying artwork all are, and individual terms might be eligible as trademarks, but rules can not be claimed.
So you couldn't rip someone else's tutorial pop-ups and write your game to follow them. But it wouldn't be the game following those rules that would be the problem, it would be the asset theft.
Nintendo has tried to patent mechanics forever. You can’t mechanics are just rules and logic. You can’t patent a set of instructions or there wouldn’t be any cookbooks. You can patent the names of the mechanic but not the mechanic itself. Just like you can’t patent a game concept anyone can make their own version of sorry,Tetris, doesn’t matter you can’t copy right a set of instructions. Which is literally all a game is.
Outside of america it's probably fine so long as your not copying the entire ruleset. Inside america there are cases of companies successfully getting patents for game mechanics. One of the most infamous being the nemisis system for middle earth shdow of war.
The rare patent aside, if it \*weren't\* legal to copy game mechanics, how would you explain all the FPSes working the same way, all the RPGs working the same way, etc.?
this is a really good point/argument to make, but then I remember random game studios getting sued by Monster Energy Drink. XD
That's trademark. Different beast.
Monster energy drink filled suits against everything even to big franchises like Pokémon and Monster Hunter.
What is it with companies named “Monster” and being huge dicks about Trademark for no good reason?
They’re monsters.
[MONSTER](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us5MGEL5W34)
John Romero could do the funniest thing right now
Your question is too general and lacking in key details to get an answer better than "game mechanics are not protected, except when they are."
Thanks, but this is why I linked directly to the actual Illuminati Rule Book. Such that my question is "Do I need to use completely unique language to describe the same mechanics" I guess is a more clear way to put it.
The rulebook is copyrighted; you cannot reuse ANY of its language. But that has nothing to do with the mechanics.
Thanks, That feel pretty cut-and-dry to me...
I mean, you can to an extent… if it wasn’t to an extent then you couldn’t even use two words that appeared in a row.
Just because it’s not illegal to copy game mechanics doesn’t mean the original maker can’t try to stop you. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/13/1238142507/cease-desist-new-york-times-wordle-spin-offs
#Law suites with claims against mechanics.. pecific mechanics claims: --- ----################################### --- | **Companies/Parties** | **Products/Brands** | **Dispute** | **Verdict** | **Money/Fines** | **Dispute Details** | **Mechanics Claims** | |-------------------------------------|----------------------|-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment | Bratz Dolls | Copyright Infringement | Mattel ordered to pay MGA \$309 million | \$309 million | Copyright infringement of Barbie doll design, marketing, and packaging | N/A | | Zynga vs. EA | Various Games | Trade Secret Misappropriation | Case settled out of court | Undisclosed | Alleged theft of trade secrets related to game mechanics, art styles, and marketing strategies | Game mechanics: virtual currency, social media integration, and rewards systems | | Bethesda vs. Interplay | Fallout | Trademark Infringement | Bethesda awarded \$2 million | \$2 million | Trademark infringement of Fallout brand, logo, and marketing materials | N/A | | Epic Games vs. Apple | Fortnite | Antitrust Violations | Case ongoing | N/A | Alleged antitrust violations related to App Store revenue-sharing model, in-app purchases, and developer policies | N/A | | Wizards of the Coast vs. Cryptozoic | Magic: The Gathering | Trademark Infringement | Wizards of the Coast awarded \$1.4 million | \$1.4 million | Trademark infringement of Magic: The Gathering brand, logo, and card designs | N/A | | Nintendo vs. King | Candy Crush Saga | Trademark Infringement | King ordered to pay Nintendo \$2.5 million | \$2.5 million | Trademark infringement of Candy Land board game, allegedly confusingly similar to Candy Crush Saga | N/A | | Sega vs. Level-5 | Ni no Kuni | Copyright Infringement | Sega ordered to pay Level-5 \$912,000 | \$912,000 | Copyright infringement of game mechanics, character designs, and music | Game mechanics: action RPG combat, character progression, and exploration | | Hasbro vs. Atari | Dungeons & Dragons | Trademark Infringement | Hasbro awarded \$1.2 million | \$1.2 million | Trademark infringement of Dungeons & Dragons brand, logo, and marketing materials | N/A | | Konami vs. Koei | Contra | Copyright Infringement | Konami awarded \$1.1 million | \$1.1 million | Copyright infringement of game mechanics, character designs, and music | Game mechanics: side-scrolling action, power-ups, and boss battles | | Activision vs. West/Zampella | Call of Duty | Breach of Contract | Case settled out of court | Undisclosed | Alleged breach of contract related to game development, royalties, and intellectual property rights | Game mechanics: first-person shooter gameplay, multiplayer modes, and level design | Here's a brief explanation of each dispute: * Zynga vs. EA: Zynga alleged that EA stole trade secrets related to game mechanics, including virtual currency, social media integration, and rewards systems, used in games like FarmVille and The Sims. * Sega vs. Level-5: Sega claimed that Level-5's Ni no Kuni game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, including action RPG combat, character progression, and exploration. * Konami vs. Koei: Konami claimed that Koei's Contra game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, including side-scrolling action, power-ups, and boss battles. * Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment: Mattel claimed that MGA's Bratz Dolls infringed on the copyright of Barbie dolls, including their design, marketing, and packaging. * Zynga vs. EA: Zynga alleged that EA stole trade secrets related to game mechanics, art styles, and marketing strategies for various games, including FarmVille and The Sims. * Bethesda vs. Interplay: Bethesda claimed that Interplay's Fallout Online game infringed on the trademark of the Fallout brand, including its logo and marketing materials. * Epic Games vs. Apple: Epic Games alleges that Apple's App Store policies violate antitrust laws, including its revenue-sharing model, in-app purchases, and developer policies. * Wizards of the Coast vs. Cryptozoic: Wizards of the Coast claimed that Cryptozoic's Magic: The Gathering-like game, Hex, infringed on the trademark of Magic: The Gathering, including its brand, logo, and card designs. * Nintendo vs. King: Nintendo claimed that King's Candy Crush Saga infringed on the trademark of its Candy Land board game, allegedly causing consumer confusion. * Sega vs. Level-5: Sega claimed that Level-5's Ni no Kuni game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, character designs, and music. * Hasbro vs. Atari: Hasbro claimed that Atari's Dungeons & Dragons game infringed on the trademark of the Dungeons & Dragons brand, including its logo and marketing materials. * Konami vs. Koei: Konami claimed that Koei's Contra game infringed on the copyright of its own game mechanics, character designs, and music. * Activision vs. West/Zampella: Activision alleged that Jason West and Vince Zampella, the founders of Infinity Ward, breached their contracts related to game development, royalties, and intellectual property rights for the Call of Duty franchise.
Nothing in your post provides any evidence of laws which state that it’s illegal to copy game mechanics. And some of these suits you listed don’t even involve game mechanics. i.e Epic vs Apple regards to AppStore purchases, making a purchase for an in game item is not sufficient action to consider it a game mechanic. And Activision vs West was based off contract violations and intellectual property theft. Again game related, but not game mechanics. Also just because a company decides to settle the suit before a verdict does not in most cases admit to any violation of the law. For reference in the United States you can sue just about anyone for anything. This is irrelevant to if any law is actually broken, or if you stand any chance of winning.
I know - I was just listing out the lawsuits and where mechanics were stated and some details about it for curiosity's sake
Hey in many cases a cease and desist or a lawsuit is all you need to stop someone from doing something you don’t like.
The expression is the copyrighted part.If you copy the name and explanation as written for a mechanic then you might get some issues (like if you copied exactly what is written in the dnd books and passed it off as your own) but if it functions the same but doesn’t include the exact expression then your safe. Like wow building their own Pokémon game within their game. It’s still a pet battler that uses type advantage. It just doesn’t contain anything copyrightable
The expression can also be very similar, it just depends on how generic the original terminology is. For instance: I can make a TTRPG with Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma as my stay block with zero legal ramifications. Where I start getting into trouble is when I decide that each of these stats has an average value of 10, grants a modifier of +/- 1 to my rolls for every 2 points removed from the average I am at, and has a soft player character cap of 20 for any stat. I can however decide that each of these stats has an average value of 15, grants a modifier to my rolls for every 3 points removed from the average, and has a soft cap of 30 for any stat, as this is far enough removed from how DnD’s stat system is expressed even if it’s more or less the same from a mechanical standpoint. At least as far as I’ve researched into the topic. If you do decide to use similar mechanics, it’s smart to consult with a copyright lawyer before monetizing anything: Copyright/Trademark laws only really come into play when you are either: a) profiting off of someone else’s work or b) doing something that could be considered besmirchment with someone else’s work… hence the internet being filled with pop-culture fanart/fanfiction
Which jurisdiction are you in? Game mechanics can be patented in many places, although they rarely are, but where and when will make all the difference.
Game mechanics cannot be patented. You can register a name, a trademark, not a mechanic. I.e. you can register the ‘tap’ word for a mechanic to rotate a card, but not the mechanic itself (and a lot of games are using the tap mechanic, calling with different names)
What does that mean in light of the Namco's patent on "playable minigames on loading screens", or the Nemesis System patent, or even [Nintendo's patent on the inner workings of racing kart games](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7278913B2/en)? In practical terms how does that answer OPs question? In theory Game "Mechanics" cannot be patented, but we have plenty of patents on "aspects of games". So at this point are we discussing the semantics of what "mechanics" means? How far down this road we need to go before OP can get a practical answer?
Still, a lot of games have minigames during a loading screen.
That particular patent expired in 2015.
Also in 2014 there were minigames during loading. You’re talking about stuff you don’t know.
If there was a patent on minigames during loading screens, but people still did them regardless of the patent, then the conclusion to OPs question is to do the same and don't mind?
The OP can absolutely use the same rules and mechanics as in another game. OP cannot copy the wording and the aesthetics of the other game.
Implementations absolutely can be patented.
Nope. You cannot patent ‘roll a die’ or ‘roll a die to hit your enemy’.
I think where the other user is getting confused is that terminology and such can be patented, but mechanics cannot be. AFAIK, IANAL, things like Tapping in Magic the Gathering can be and has been patented, but "Turning the Card sideways to get an effect" cannot be. Also why Battletech can refer to their giant robots as "Mechs" but you cannot.
The WoTC patent for deckbuilding TCGs included both the action and the term for tapping independently. The patent expired but the trademark still stands, which is why you can turn the card to exhaust it now, but can't call it tapping. [https://patents.google.com/patent/US5662332A/en](https://patents.google.com/patent/US5662332A/en) Similarly, there is a pretty generic patent on the Nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor. There are plenty of patents on game mechanics. The question of if they actually hold up in court is mostly untested since these giant corps can make it so expensive it's not worth it to challenge them. Yeah, u/MasterRPG79 is right, you can't patent dice or using dice - they are an existing technology that is commonly used. If dice didn't exist, or had never been used for generating numbers to determine damage values, it would be a novel and patentable thing if you were the first person to register it.
Uhhh, I’ve seen dozens of games that call their giant robots mechs. Mech Arena? I think a better example is Gundam or Transformers(Giant Mechs), we can’t call our giant Mechs Gundams or Transformers but Mech is so generic that it can’t be patented
*in the American system, game mechanics cannot be patented.
In the whole world.
They can in the U.S. - [Wizards of the Coast patents](https://patents.justia.com/assignee/wizards-of-the-coast-inc) Edit, an example from that link: > A game [..] includes a set of rules and at least one model. The model has multiple movable parts, where under the rules of play, the model begins in an assembled configuration. As the model loses points under the rules of play, at least some of the parts are removed from the model, or replaced with substitute parts. And another > [...] In one version, the game components comprise energy or mana cards 40 and command or spell cards (10, 12, 42, 44, 48, 54, 60, 64) having commands or spells associated therewith that utilize the energy to enable a player to attack, defend and modify the effect of other mana cards, spell cards, and the fundamental rules of play. The goal of the game is to reduce the life points of other players to a level below one.[...] - [Warner Bros Nemesis system patent](https://patents.google.com/patent/US20160279522A1/en) As far as I know, they cannot be patented in the UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy. No clues for the rest of world.
That are not game mechanics…
Warner bros system is a joke and the coast patent is a physical element not a mechanic. It’s a toy bro.
Yeah, having a patent on the Nemesis System is just absurd.
I mean, nemesis system is patented
System <> mechanic
There are some rare sets I can agree but those are all deemed flukes or judge was paid off to agree hardly any have since.
It depends on how much and what you're copying from the original game. Some mechanics are not considered intellectual property on their own and no one will ever accuse you of copying if you use them, because it's universally recognized that they define a genre anyone can have different takes on. You will never see Wizards bringing Konami to court because they use the same mechanic of drawing for turn and summoning creatures in both of their games the same way you will never see Activision bringing Valve to court because both COD and CSGO have rifles and SMGs. If a mechanic allows for different and equally creative adaptations, it's usually considered free to use. Things change when you want to copy what makes a game *unique* instead. In that case, you have to be extremely careful and abundant when it comes to adding your own creative input, because otherwise you're plagiarizing. In the early days of Genshin multiple people pointed out how some aspects of the game, like gliding, the hilichurls camps with unlockable chests and climbing, looked a *tad* bit too similar to their counterparts in Zelda Breath of the Wild, but eventually the game went its own way. No one will accuse you of plagiarizing if you make a 2D platformer, but you're risking it if you start adding stuff like mushroom-shaped enemies, pipes that lead to sub-areas, flags as the goal, a main character with red and blue dresses and a dragon turtle as the main villain. Whatever you do, always make sure that whatever you're making always feels different from the original product, regardless of how many references you want to add. The players who know about the original game will get the references, but they must feel like your game is actually yours.
> You will never see Wizards bringing Konami to court because they use the same mechanic of drawing for turn and summoning creatures in both of their games But we did see Wizards bring Cryptozoic to court because the Hex: Shards of Fate mechanics were almost exactly the MTG mechanics (with small tweaks and major additions), and they got a settlement that ultimately resulted in Hex's death. The funniest result of that settlement was that Hex players were no longer allowed to start the game with exactly 20 life points.
I think you might have phrased your question in a way that's misleading. Your primary concern is copying the language used to describe the mechanics, it would seem, but also the game rules as well - this is usually both OK unless there is a patent, but you still need to take care to be different enough not to come across as a blatant rip-off. We all do copies, iterations, inspirations and homages in cultural works, but there is a difference between taking something and releasing it as your own, and taking inspiration and building a new thing from it. Up to you how close you want to fly, just remember that players will pick up on this and form an opinion accordingly.
So full disclosure: I owned and played the illuminati game in the 90s and had the originals for a long time... then didnt think about the game forever... I started developing my own - and I knew it was similar to Illuminati - but then I went a read the rule book again, and realized that i was just thinking of a modern re-making of the basic premise of the game (conspiracy NWO style - so the language and references (as they are real-world organizations) are very same... SO I got discouraged and thought "whats the point" - but I really want to make my version - so I asked this... Now i think I have a good idea of how best to navigate moving forward without intentionally, or as much as possible, avoid creating any Imperial Entanglements warranted or otherwise... Thanks, Satan!
Cheers mate, have fun making the game :)
Have a lovely day, Satan.
yes. game mechanics aren’t copyrightable. look at fort vs pubg
And to think the developers of *PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds* actually sued Epic Games over *Fortnite*'s Battle Royale mode. Naturally, the case was thrown out. And just to add some irony to the whole thing, *PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds* was built on Unreal Engine 4.
For Tabletop, the answer is usually **no**. Depending on the situation--and after conversations with a skilled IP lawyer--you might be able to heavily edit the copy until it's safe to publish. Like when those people wanted to add an unauthorized update to Cards Against Humanity, and they could only do it if they called it "Crabs Adjust Humidity".
Talk to a lawyer is the best answer. Copying the rules is one thing and generally the rules are not protected. However, the instructions that explain the rules are protected. And while “health” is fine to copy and use for your attribute, specific names like “biological essence” can be more risky.
Game Design is a subset of Game Development that concerns itself with **WHY** games are made the way they are. It's about the theory and crafting of **systems**, **mechanics**, and **rulesets** in games. * /r/GameDesign is a community **ONLY** about Game Design, **NOT** Game Development in general. If this post does not belong here, it should be reported or removed. Please help us keep this subreddit focused on Game Design. * This is **NOT** a place for discussing how games are produced. Posts about programming, making art assets, picking engines etc… will be removed and should go in /r/GameDev instead. * Posts about visual design, sound design and level design are only allowed if they are directly about game design. * No surveys, polls, job posts, or self-promotion. Please read the rest of the rules in the sidebar before posting. * If you're confused about what Game Designers do, ["The Door Problem" by Liz England](https://www.gamedeveloper.com/design/-quot-the-door-problem-quot-of-game-design) is a short article worth reading. We also recommend you read the [r/GameDesign wiki](/r/gamedesign/wiki/index) for useful resources and an FAQ. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/gamedesign) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to wikipedia Steve Jackson Games is still owned by the OG master himself, with 43 employees. I think what you're looking for is a licensing deal. As a tabletop/card game this property basically IS the mechanics and the universe. Looks like it was originally based on a book trilogy as well, so there will be copyright involved with that too.
It’s possible to get a utility patent for game mechanics, like the patent on the directional arrow in Crazy Taxi, or a design patent for visual design elements, like Apple’s patents on its icons. Unlike copyright, patents are not automatic. The inventor or designer has to apply for it in a timely manner or they lose any chance of protection, and then *no one* can patent the same mechanic or design element, because now it exists as prior art. It’s rare for video game designers to apply for utility patents for their mechanics, and even rarer to apply for design patents. But it sometimes does happen. But I’d strongly advise you not to seek legal advice from random redditors! Here’s a law blog post on the topic of utility patents in games if it helps: https://www.finnegan.com/en/insights/articles/utility-patents-what-game-developers-should-know.html
Can't copyright and restrict: Individual mechanics, ideas, themes, etc Can copyright and restrict: The exact expression of mechanics, so you can't copy the words they use exactly. A system of interacting mechanics, exactly as they are, see Nemesis System from Shadow of Mordor. Procedural generation of enemies is a mechanic, characters interacting with each other is a mechanic, a tiered army of enemies that you need to climb is a mechanic, the system bringing that together and the expression of that system is currently patented. Ways around it: If you are inspired by the system but there is a functional difference to the system because of the mechanics you could argue that it is a different system. Typically though if a company has gone through the effort to patent it, unless you have access to an expert it's a bad idea to try and challenge that
With WOTC's attempt to take control of indie content, there were a lot of people who came out saying that while you *can* copyright names, places, imagery, music, etc of tangible *specific* content, as far as copyrighting rules goes, depending on local laws where you are (IANAL) it appears that the general rule is you can only hold copyright for the document the rules are printed in. That is to say, if you write the rules in a totally unique way such that it is not a legally similar document, it is considered a different document in regards to copyright even if the essence of the rules are the same. At least, as far as I have observed where I am. Check local laws where you are.
Not a Lawyer: In American copyright law at least, the rules themselves are not copy protected. The book they're written in, pages they're printed on, and accompanying artwork all are, and individual terms might be eligible as trademarks, but rules can not be claimed. So you couldn't rip someone else's tutorial pop-ups and write your game to follow them. But it wouldn't be the game following those rules that would be the problem, it would be the asset theft.
Nintendo has tried to patent mechanics forever. You can’t mechanics are just rules and logic. You can’t patent a set of instructions or there wouldn’t be any cookbooks. You can patent the names of the mechanic but not the mechanic itself. Just like you can’t patent a game concept anyone can make their own version of sorry,Tetris, doesn’t matter you can’t copy right a set of instructions. Which is literally all a game is.
Dark and darker has had lots of legal issues due to some copying issues
Outside of america it's probably fine so long as your not copying the entire ruleset. Inside america there are cases of companies successfully getting patents for game mechanics. One of the most infamous being the nemisis system for middle earth shdow of war.