This is an interesting comedy of errors. The original poster did not realize that a maze quest instance comes with a list of riddles (inventory item). Solve the riddle at each fork and make it through safely. If you answer wrong, that path leads to an insta-kill trap, with an invisible wall beyond it in case you avoided the trap. To the player not noticing the riddle list, this looked like Trial and Error Gameplay: random, unavoidable death as an intentional design element.
A few pages into the thread, someone mentions the riddle list, but here is what interests me: until then (and after, for those who did not read the thread), at least half the posts were about how much a whiner the original poster was, how this is a good thing because the game has too much easy mode, etc. If you do not suffer, you suck: the litany of the hardcore. But these are people who really think, and will publicly avow, that trial-by-error gameplay is a good thing, especially when “error” is punished by insta-death. (One can only imagine that it would be better with perma-death.) This is odd to me. By what concept is “guess, die, guess, die, pass by process of elimination” fun gameplay?
Note: I am not criticizing the quest in question, which seems to do it right: give the player the needed information to get through without experimental suicide. I am wondering at the population that thinks clearing a minefield by random walks is a good time. On the other hand, recognizing that population, I wonder a lot less about how games end up like that so often (see the link above). There is apparently demand for it. We deserve the games we get, it seems.
Remind me someday to track down the various flash adventure and puzzle games that effectively say, “Welcome to the next-to-last level! Here is a new tool or mechanic: learn to master it in the next ten seconds with no instructions. If you fail, don’t worry! We will put a save or continue mechanic in our next version.”