I haven’t read the reviewed book, but do have comments on the review and the post by the writer.

I agree that when players become overly familiar with the monsters, a game can become boring. Too many times I’ve heard something like, “Let’s see, that’s a red scrub oak dragon. They take two extra die damage from fire, and are afraid of blue weevils. Winky the Wizard has a couple of those critters in his pouch, and John The Strong Dude can pull out a +3 flaming sword from the two dozen weapons he carries, so this should be an easy kill….” Fairly early on, we made dragon more like they appear in fantasy stories, unknown and individualistic, so you didn’t know exactly what one could do, but had to rely on unreliable rumors or your own wits.

But setting up expectations and then breaking them can be very effective, as Venturella said. I actually did something similar with orcs. After my players slashed through dozens of them, they ran into and slew a small group who just happened to be slaves of a very unhappy noble.

There’s also the switch. I once took the classic sci-fi bit of the transforming virus that slowly changes the victim into an alien/monster, only I put it in a medieval fantasy game. The players, even those who were highly experienced roleplayers, were very unnerved. They couldn’t pull out their handy med scanners or stop at the nearest bio lab for a fix, and had no idea what to do. That is, other than hurriedly trying to find the weird old wise man they’d heard rumours about who lived in the area….

Personally, I think too much randomness is the mark of a lazy Dungeon Master/Game Master. But used judiciously in the mix, it can add just the right touch of spice.

Like the author, I have no familiarity with 4th edition D&D, and only glancing familiarity with 3rd edition D&D.

The RECG is excellent for helping ferment new ideas and variations on themes. If you are someone who gains benefits from random tables, such as the classic ones in the back of the 1e DMG then you will enjoy this book regardless of what RPG you play.

A couple of clarifications on my end:

I have not read the 4e rules and really don’t ever intend to. I have never played 3.x, and haven’t looked at any of those rulebooks since they first came out in 2000. My intention as the author is for this book to be used for the editions released between 1974-1983, thus the “Classic Fantasy Role-Playing Games,” and of course the simulacra or “retro-clones” of such that have come out the past couple of years. Any compatibility with other games or editions is coincidental.

In my own games, I mostly use this book in areas where I feel *something* should be in a particular area, but don’t have any specific ideas of exactly what. The book was never intended to replace existing monster books, just supplement them.

As far as the killing the PCs bit, of course that’s not the job of the referee. But I do believe that one should let the dice fall where they may, with no fudging. I believe that a true challenge in the game is one where the PCs may very well fail. Of course my views color my writing, but nothing in the book prevents you from running your own games as you wish. And as this review points out, the book encourages the referee to use or ignore whichever material he wishes.