Philip Reed says on the outer envelope of
Vigilante "This is not a game. This is a work of art. It may disturb you." Believe him. Please.
I rarely write reviews for RPGnet, and I might not be writing this one if it were not for the fact that I publicly promised I would do so. This publication is as hard to review as it is to classify. I listed it as "Modern Day Live Action" above, but it is not. (I also listed it as a "playtest review", but I did NOT play this game. It sure isn't a "capsule review" I have here, however...) Vigilante is a piece of social commentary as art. It is a dark satire. It is perhaps a cry of pain. But it isn't a game. Really.
To describe Vigilante in full is to deny the reader some of the impact of reading it, but to review it in any meaningful way it must be so. If you want the full experience of what author Philip Reed has created, read only this:
Vigilante is an experimental presentation of art, typography and writing, featuring a disturbing look at extreme violence from the perspective of a live-action game. It is slickly presented and professionally produced. But if you are looking for fun, look somewhere else. This is not intended to be fun. This seems intended to create concern and to stir your mind to new examination of an all-too-real aspect of our modern society.
In that regard, this reviewer thinks Vigilante succeeds to some extent, but fears that it may not reach the audience that would most benefit from what it has to say. Someone who is interested enough in such expression to examine it from that angle, willing to spend $9.95 to do so, and open enough to think about what is read -- well, those who fit those categories AND are over 18 (it is not sold to anyone else) AND are likely to be hanging around Steve Jackson Games' Warehouse 23 mail order service AND have not already considered many times the questions Vigilante poses -- well, I think that may be a small group. If you think you are in that group, it can be obtained from Warehouse 23. Vigilante is not likely to be found in your local game store (though some retailers and wholesalers may surprise me in that regard, perhaps unwisely).
Stop here if what you've seen above makes you want to purchase and read Vigilante.
Still with me? OK, onward...
I purchased Vigilante on the strength of my past exposure to the work of Philip Reed, and I'm not sorry I did so. But it is certainly not going to please everyone, and the only way to know whether or not Vigilante is something you should purchase and read -- is to purchase and read it. As such, it is a potentially very disturbing pig in a relatively expensive poke.
Quoting heavily from movies, music and pop culture dealing with urban violence, Reed presents a "modest proposal" in the form of a "LARP" which tells the reader to, basically, go out and kill anyone who the "player" believes is less than worthy to live. Or who might become so. Reed couches his effort in a steady stream of disclaimers that this is "not a game" -- which stands in stark counterpoint to the matter-of-fact presentation of the "game instructions" which tell the reader to kill. The exhortation is not to pretend to kill, but to just go out and do so.
The disclaimers are so firmly repeated that no rational person would miss the obvious irony and believe that Reed seriously means for readers to follow these instructions. Even so, there will be those who will miss the point, either through sheer determination to be thick-skulled or to satisfy an agenda. The morning I wrote this, for example, another crusading Christian rightist uses the cover of Violence by "Designer X" to show the world how sick and depraved things were at GenCon Game Fair 2001. The context of the linked article reveals the author's dogged determination to, in spite of all rationality, misinterpret (perhaps deliberately) everything he saw at the convention. So it is likely to be with Vigilante.
In many ways, Vigilante and Violence can fairly be compared, as both are attempts to so overload the reader's sense of moral outrage as to force them to look at our violent society (as reflected in our games) without a comfortable cushion of complacency. Both use Swiftian irony, profanity and absurd extremism as a tool of expression. And both, in their own ways, preach a bit too much to the choir. In neither case is this reviewer convinced that the message is reaching the level it needs to reach to be wholly successful. But both are decent efforts, worthy of consideration.
Where "Designer X" presents a game with actual rules and a great deal of familiar gaming jargon, Reed takes a more artistic and perhaps more direct approach. Violence is a "game" which seems intended to point to our games and scare us by reminding us of their similarity to abhorrent reality. Vigilante, on the other hand, points to that terrible reality and horrifies us with how much it is like a game. A subtle difference, perhaps, but an important one. "Designer X" wants us to change the way we think about games. Reed seems to want us to recognize that scary image he paints and realize that it is our own reflection. What we do about it is up to us.
Does Vigilante succeed as a piece of art? I'm a reviewer, not an art critic. You'll have to make your own determination. Is it likely to be misunderstood? Oh, yes -- almost certainly. And Reed is evidently all too aware of it. Is it likely to cause significant damage to adventure gaming by being misunderstood? Hardly likely, considering that those who want to take such pot shots at the industry don't seem to need any excuses.
Is it something you should buy? If you don't know that by the time you get this far -- perhaps not. But if there's part of you that wants to examine one long-time game author and enthusiast's attempt at an artistic use of extreme irony of the Swiftian "modest proposal" sort -- well, it beats spending the $10 on one more mindless D20 dungeon crawl.
Copyright 2001 Guy McLimore
Go to forum!
(Due to spamming, old forum discussions are no linked.)