Bond issued by the Dutch East India Co, 1622-1623, some editing (relocated annotation) by Mike, original image by Oost-Indische Compagnie (Netherlands) (Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons. You can view the unmodified original by clicking on the image.

We all sign our names differently, and the association between an individual and his unique signature is a cornerstone of modern concepts of identity.

So ubiquitous is this association that the term has made its way into the modern lexicon in all sorts of other ways; law-enforcement people talk about “bomb signatures”, hackers talk about code containing “signatures”, restaurants have “signature dishes”, and so on.

What they are all talking about is identifying an individual by virtue of specific characteristics in the way they approach whatever they do.

The bomb techs are talking about the materials, construction techniques, concealment, and placement of the bomb-maker when they talk about his signature.

The cybergeeks are talking about specific coding habits, specific ways in which computer instructions are ordered and processes are carried out, especially relative to each other, and sometimes about deliberately-placed signatures. In theory, there is only one optimum way of coding a computer program or app; in practice, everything is a compromise between two or more priorities, leaving room for individuality and characteristic flourishes.

The foodies are talking about a dish that either no-one else makes, or that no-one else makes the way this particular food destination does, and again this is a unique identifier for that particular establishment, a point of differentiation between them and everyone else in that line of work.

“Signature Traits” in RPGs

As GMs, we use “signature traits” – not frequently, but regularly. Maker’s Marks on weapons and valuables are a common example; the “valuables” part we get from reality, the “weapons” is an extension of reality. Although some weaponsmiths made dress weapons with maker’s marks, until the 1700s, it was fairly unusual for weapons intended for everyday use to include maker’s marks. In fact, it was the rise of manufacturing in the 1800s and quality control inspections for military equipment that made such things as ubiquitous as they are these days.

In a lot of cases, we are talking about something slightly more abstract – work practices and techniques, a “signature” more in the way the term is used by the bomb techs – as a way of identifying a famous metalsmith who didn’t sign his work because it was intended for “workday” use. Or the great carpenter, or legendary architect.

Making your mark

We speak of people “making their mark”, and some will even recognize the term as relating to another signifier of identification; before literacy was widespread, people used to be identified by someone else of good standing to the civil authorities and would then “make their mark” instead of signing their name. Not all details are correctly remembered by all GMs, however; many are of the impression that such a mark is like someone initialing their work. It wasn’t; the mark was a simple “X”, often shaky and hesitant.

But, it was enough to establish a legal relationship between the individual and someone else, whether that be the state or a private individual, and thereby represented binding identification of that individual that was at least as reliable as a signature.

No Signature

Not everything can be characterized in the form of signatures. There is no such thing as a “signature” way of digging a ditch that yields an individual identification. However, broader identification may be possible; I am reminded of the “famous” line about digging a trench in WWI training: ‘Privates, there are four ways to dig this trench by the book: The French Way, The British Way, the American Way, and My Way. You are going to dig this trench My Way!”

The implication of this amusing anecdote, which I have seen in various forms in any number of places over the years, including Robert A Heinlein’s “Time Enough For Love”, are that the more complex the activity, the more scope there is for individual variation, and therefore, the more scope there is for individuals to develop patterns in the way they approach and execute those activities.

You can probably see where this is going already, but I’ll spell it out: The most complex activity that I know of, excepting only life itself, is GMing an RPG. It follows that the more experienced the GM, the more of a “signature” their games should have.

Signature GMing style

I have observed this phenomenon in real life. I’ve played in games run by many different GMs for many years, and – without being able to put my finger on exactly what the differences are – I had definitely reached the point where I could tell who was running the game just from a description of the action, a lot of the time, and could definitely tell when I was playing. I’m sure that my players would say the same thing about my style – ie that they find it instantly recognizable, even if they can’t actually nominate that distinctive characteristics that distinguish it.

Contaminated Signatures

Bad habits can be just as much a part of a signature as anything else, and you can’t really do anything about them until you’re aware of them. These are worse than most such, however; the implication of their being part of your “signature” is not only that they are present more frequently, but that you have started to incorporate techniques for getting around them, further embedding and encrusting them into your gaming style. Sometimes, your players are so used to these that they don’t even notice them anymore. Only when a player from outside comes into the group and has sufficient self-confidence that he will pull the GM up can the problem be recognized. Even then, a lot of GMs – and the players who are used to the GM’s style – will react defensively to such input, and the bad habit can continue or become even more entrenched!

Spring is approaching in the Northern Hemisphere – I’m sure that for the snow-bound residents of North America, it can’t come soon enough, in many cases – and Spring is traditionally a time for a general clean-up, known as “Spring Cleaning” – generally, catching up on all the chores that could not be performed during winter because of the environmental and climatic conditions. Several years ago, I advocated that GMs should also spring-clean their campaigns at such times.

Spring-clean your GMing Signature Style

Now, I’m suggesting that a half-hour spent mentally reviewing your GMing style and trying to first, identify your “Signature”, and second, looking for any bad habits that have crept into that Signature. Why wait for an unlikely turn of events to bring them to your attention? Take charge of yourself and make your GMing Signature exactly what you want it to be. Ultimately, it’s just a collection of habits – and you can form new GMing habits anytime you want to, with a little effort.

I wrote all day Sunday, but it became evident by the early evening that the next part of the “New Beginnings” series was at best a 50/50 chance of being complete in time (as it happens, it would not have been).

Rather than rush it, overwork excessively, or delay publication (a choice that would have detrimental knock-on effects on subsequent articles), I chose to write and publish the “filler” post that you have just read.

I Hope no-one’s disappointed with what I’ve put together for you to read, but it was the only practical solution.

“New Beginnings” should resume next week.