I have an idea for a game that is based off of several other games. I was wondering do companies copyright or patent their game mechanics or can anybody use them?
Game Mechanics?
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 04:58
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 05:17
#1
Game Mechanics?
Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or patented. Certain images, symbols and terms from games might be protected in someway. For example, Magic's mana symbols, the tapping symbol and terms such as "library" for the draw deck and "graveyard" for the discard pile may not be used in other games (or at least, they might give you some legal trouble).
Blatantly ripping off mechanics from a single game is considered "not done" in the gaming world, but it is not legally forbidden. However, using several different mechanics from different games and combining them to make a new game is perfectly acceptable and even common practice. For example, Puerto Rico doesn't have a single mechanic that hasn't been used in other games before, but the combination and the fine-tuning of those mechanics create a totally new and unique gaming experience.
Then again, it's a lot cooler to come up with a new twist on an existing mechanic or even a totally new mechanic. For me, that's the fun of designing games.
- René Wiersma
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 06:38
#2
Game Mechanics?
I have a question: If I make a rule for a mixed ccg game, do I breach any copyright? Even if I give away the rules for free and just for fun? I mean, I do not use names that are directly from the CCGs that may be used, and I am not limiting the usable ccgs to any specific products.
And if I mention a specific game anyway, at least as a vital part of the game, is that wrong?
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 12:08
#3
Game Mechanics?
zaiga wrote:
Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted or patented.
I think it might be more accurate to say that "Game mechanics probably cannot be protected by patent, and definitely cannot be copyrighted."
There have been some mechanics that have been granted patents, including the tapping action in MtG, but it's unclear as to whether actual protection exists.
-- Matthew
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 13:04
#4
Game Mechanics?
FastLearner wrote:
There have been some mechanics that have been granted patents, including the tapping action in MtG, but it's unclear as to whether actual protection exists.
I don't think that is correct. As far as I know you are allowed to use a mechanic that basically says: "when you use a card's ability turn it 90 degrees". However, you cannot call that mechanic "tapping".
WotC patented the term "tapping" and the accompanying symbol in combination with the physical action of turning cards 90 degrees, but not the actual mechanic.
- René Wiersma
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 13:13
#5
Game Mechanics?
You can see the whole patent claim here:
The key parts are:
Quote:
4. The method of claim 3, wherein said step of designating one or more of the cards comprises rotating the one or more cards on the playing surface from an original orientation to a second orientation.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein said second orientation is 90 degrees from the first orientation.
6. The method of claim 3, wherein said step of executing a turn comprises the initial step of rotating the player's cards previously designated in a prior turn from the second orientation to the original orientation.
It's also worded as:
Quote:
In accordance with another aspect of the before-mentioned invention, the steps of executing a turn comprise the steps of tapping an element in play by flagging it so all players can see the element is presently in use and untapping the element by unflagging the element so that all players can see the element is available for use.
In accordance with another aspect of the present invention, the steps of executing a turn include the steps of first untapping all previously-tapped elements and using any elements permitted during this phase; drawing an element from the library of elements; entering one or more elements into play to effectuate a state-altering effect associated with the element that enables a player to attack other elements and any player, to defend against such attack, and to modify the effect of any element and rules of play, and alter the state of any element and any player; tapping all elements used to bring the effect into play; discarding elements as necessary until the level of predetermined number of elements is reached; and announcing to all players that a turn is over.
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 13:23
#6
Game Mechanics?
I have looked up that patent as well. I believe that the patent tries to protect the concept of a trading card game that uses a deck, a hand, and "tapping" (e.g., any rule for indicating that a card has been activated or inactivated once in play).
What you have quoted is just the explanation of the tapping mechanic. This mechanic is only a part of the patent. The tapping mechanic is not patented when it is taken out of it's trading card concept.
At least, that's what I make of it. Then again, I'm certainly no legal expert! :)
- René Wiersma
Tue, 07/06/2004 - 18:40
#10
Game Mechanics?
Zaiga, you may be right that because it's only a part of the patent that it isn't separately protected.
More to the point, though, is that I don't believe there's any case law involving game mechanic patents, so even though the patent office granted it, the patent may still be meaningless.
Someone would have to go up against Hasbro, though, to prove it.
On other companies using the stuff in the patent, we don't know that there isn't some kind of legal agreement in place, right? For all we know the 7th Sea folks (and others) may well be paying a small license fee.
-- Matthew
Wed, 07/07/2004 - 06:06
#11
Game Mechanics?
Richard_Huzzey wrote:
I've always thought that you could happily place a stone (or other marker) on a card to flag it, and then remove it, thus getting an identical game mechanic without rotating cards. Indeed, it could be more versatile as certain cards may be permitted more than one stone on them: that's how they handle exertion in Decipher's "Lord of the Rings" TCG.
There are inherent problems with marking a card using a stone, counter or other device that don't exist with rotating a card through 90 degrees. (Try accidentally knocking the table some time :)
OTOH tapping only allows two game states for a card, whereas markers allow for a whole variety of different things (which is why Magic has to use counters as well as tapping!)
Wed, 07/07/2004 - 11:36
#12
Game Mechanics?
"Tapping" by it's strict definition may only allow for 2 game states, but a more broad definition would allow for 4 states - 1 state for each 90 degrees of a circle.
One excellent use of this technique can be found in The Settlers of Catan Card Game. Each side of the card is marked with a certain quantity of resources - 3 on one side, 2 on a side next to it, 1 on the side next to the 2, and 0 on the final side between the 1 and the 3.
Thus by rotating the card one direction, you can add to your total resources. By rotating the card the other way, you can subtract from your resources.
Wed, 07/07/2004 - 13:51
#13
Game Mechanics?
Ok because of a little high level math class in college, let me be annoying and state it is possible to have an infinite number of states(points) based on degrees of a circle, when using a real number system.
Now I wont go into proving this, but basically for any two degree values you can state, there is a way to prove that another value exists between the original two values. So for a quick example, inital two values degree 0 and degree 90, value degree 45 exists between the two.(And so on, for 89 and 90, there is 89.5, for 89.5 and 89.6 there is 89.55 and so on).
With that stated, I will confess that being able to "show" this infinite numer of states with respect to a card game would be hard, if not impossible.
One possibility might be to create an additional game component, such as a "modified spinner" that would lay under a card. Maybe then you would mark one side of the card and when using the card in different states, you would turn the mark towards some specific part of the "modified spinner".
I keep thinking about a game mat for each player with N different "clock-like" circles. It would contain 12(or N) different states to turn the card. The card would lay in the middle of the "clock-like" circle.
Anyways.... sorry for being annoying...
Wed, 07/07/2004 - 15:05
#14
Game Mechanics?
Look, I know you can have several positions for a card (and the Catan example is a good one, albeit one that requires the card to be square) but it's about being able to distinguish between positions easily, and with a rectangular card you can only really have two that can be easily indicated...
Wed, 07/07/2004 - 15:18
#15
Game Mechanics?
Scurra I agree with you that a rectangle card results in problems for number of positions, but I still believe there can be over 2 different distinguishable positions.
A third option, such as used by MTG, a state when turning a rectangle card over indicates a card that has phased out.
And I think most people could also distinguish a rectangle card set at a 45 degree angle, so that a 4th state.
Wed, 07/07/2004 - 15:47
#16
Game Mechanics?
Going on with that, you could also do the 180 degree, basically upside down. I wouldn't recommend 45, 135, or the other degrees since i knew lots of magic players which would do the "half tap" (45 degrees) when tapping.
I guess the 270 would work as well (basically tapped towards the left)
This discussion has talked mostly about Wizards (now Hasbro) patenting the tap symbol and it's action. They also patented (at least I believe) some of the other stuff that makes the game unique so that it wouldn't be copied almost completely and rethemed (which was happening at the time.) This did not effect the other games out there, in fact it was better for the market because it effectively killed the Magic clones (actually probably the fact that they weren't selling probably killed them.)
Games that I remember not sold by Wizards that had tapping was Shadowfist, Legend of the Five Rings, the original Middle Earth, Doomtrooper, Shadowrun, Warlords, 7th Sea, and probably more I can't think of (what's really sad is that I actually owned some of these games, or more correct, still own them.)
The game that no one on this board will probably never want to play or hear about again, Pokemon, was probably the first Wizards CCG game that didn't have tapping. And another useless tidbit of info: Middle Earth didn't use a tap symbol or come up with a new word, they actually used tapping in the card's wording (There was a time that Magic used the word as well, back when I started playing it. I never owned any of the expensive cards but I saw them all, some of them used in real decks without protectors.)
Now that I've successfully wasted most of your time, I'll let you get back to the subject at hand, whatever that was....
-Steve
Wed, 07/07/2004 - 16:18
#17
Game Mechanics?
Yes, I agree that 4 positions may not be as distinguishable as using just 2.
However, I do think there's more to making the positions distinguishable than just the positions themselves.
The card design itself would make a big difference in my opinion. If one designs the cards themselves to look significantly different in each position (by using different colors, textures, designs, etc. on the "top" edge), I think the problems can be overcome.
Does that make sense?
Thu, 07/08/2004 - 09:42
#19
Game Mechanics?
SiskNY dont lose sleep about it, I think that people would understand a multiple position card game, just think about the thought process put into MTG just to figure out the "ultimate deck".
And anti-infringement benefits of a patent are only as good as the effort a company puts into finding and litigating any cases of infringement. I know of at least one game (7th Sea) that uses an identical technique, only they call it "tacking" instead of tapping.
That being said,
Do you mean that you have created something that will dovetail with other games (like a new set of cards for MtG) or a standalone game that uses mechanics from another game? For that matter, are the games you're borrowing from more recent or more historical (like chess or checkers)?
I couldn't agree more. I would rather see one or two familiar mechanics used in new and clever ways than a game that is more of a copy of another game (or games) with little or no creativity. I'm sure that's not what you meant by your original post, I'm just emphasizing the minimum level of creativity to which I would hope you aspire.