10 January 2010
Today’s Tabbloid
PERSONAL NEWS FOR riorio2@rogue-games.net
ROGUE FEED
REVIEW: Mazes & Minotaurs
(1972 Edition)
JAN 09, 2010 11:26P.M.
Rob Conley has sagely stated that the old school renaissance is “about
going back to the roots of our hobby and see what we could do
differently. What avenues were not explored because of the commercial
and personal interests of the game designers of the time.” It’s an attitude
a lot of us involved in this quixotic little movement share to one degree
or another. That’s why, for example, you’re seeing people actually
publishing megadungeons rather than just talking about doing so as
their forebears did. It’s also why science fantasy settings are making a big
comeback these days — they’re all loose threads from the early days that
just beg to be rewoven into the tapestry of the hobby and the old school
movement has given gamers the inspiration to do just that.
Another such loose thread is classical mythology, especially as
exemplified in Ray Harryhausen films like Jason and the Argonauts. By
all accounts, Gary Gygax was very fond of these movies and early D&D
includes lots of little references and homages to them, such as Talos the
triple iron golem mentioned in the AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide. It’s
this thread that Paul Elliott and Olivier Legrand pick up and weave into a
remarkable “neo-old school” game called Mazes & Minotaurs. Moreso
than, say, X-plorers, M&M is presented as a product of an alternate
history, where the first RPG, published in 1972, was based not on a mish-
mash of medieval European history, pulp fantasy, and pop culture but on
the myths and legends of the ancient world.
Mazes & Minotaurs is available in two versions. The first, which I’m
1
reviewing in this post, is the “original” rules set and a corresponds to
OD&D in terms of its length (just 74 pages) and complexity. A 1987
“revised” edition, which I will review in due course, corresponds roughly
to AD&D and other heftier fantasy RPGs and comprises many more
pages of text, divided into three volumes. Both versions of the game are
presented as if they really are products of another world in which the
hobby began a little earlier and its influences were a little different. The
books, which are available only as free PDFs, include lots of commentary
by the authors on the origins, development, and controversies
surrounding the game’s imaginary history. Some of this imaginary
history cleaves a little too closely to the real history of the hobby, with
M&M standing in for D&D, albeit with little twists, while some of it
reasonably insightful and/or trenchant satire of that real history. I have
mixed feelings about this approach, in part because I think some of the
commentary perpetuates false (or at least mistaken) notions about old
school D&D, such as the nature and purpose of experience points, to cite
one example.
Despite such quibbles, Mazes & Minotaurs is a remarkably well done
game whose spirit, if not its “body,” is in line with most old school design
principles. As already noted, the game is brief and its rules are
suggestive, demanding interpretation by the referee (or Maze Master, as
he’s known in M&M). It’s not without anachronisms that reveals its
origins in the 2000s rather than the 1970s, however. Most of them are
small — an underlying universal mechanic, an explicitly prescriptive XP
system, lengthy monster stat blocks, etc. — but they do violence to the
alternate history on which the game is so charmingly constructed. All of
these are perfectly defensible design decisions and most are probably
more in keeping with contemporary gaming sensibilities, which is why I
say that M&M‘s “body” isn’t quite as old school as its spirit. That’s not a
criticism so much as an observation.
M&M characters have six attributes — Might, Skill, Luck, Wits Faith,
Grace — each of which is associated with a particular character class:
Barbarian, Spearman, Noble, Sorcerer, Priest, and Nymph, respectively.
Each class has a single special ability, such as a barbarian’s ability to add
his Might bonus to damage or a priest’s ability to call upon their patron
deity for miracles. There are a number of combat-related derived
attributes, like Defense Class and Hits, the latter of which, while not
random but based primarily on one’s class and level — another example
of the game’s contemporary origins. Magic is based on power points.
Magic, whether of the sorcerous, divine, or dryadic variety, is nicely
open-ended and subtle. There are no fireballs or similarly flashy magic
here, something that I think suits its inspirations very well.
Combat is straightforward and does not deviate much from what a D&D
player would expect. There are a number of new wrinkles here, such as
charges, shield walls, two-weapon fighting, and the use of subterfuge —
Today’s Tabbloid PERSONAL NEWS FOR riorio2@rogue-games.net 10 January 2010

complexities not found in games of the same supposed vintage. There
are, however, explicit rules for disengaging and retreat, which I
appreciated. There are also rules for a wide variety of physical actions,
which, while discussed separately, share similar mechanics, where high
rolls on 1D20 are always better. NPC reactions, henchmen, loyalty, and
morale are all given the treatment one would expect. Experience, as I
noted, is more explicitly prescriptive than OD&D, with “fighting classes”
gaining XP through defeating enemies and “accomplishing great deeds”
“magic classes” gaining them by defeating supernatural enemies and
“exploring the unknown.” There’s enough wiggle room in these
categories for each referee to use them as he wishes, which recalls AD&D
2e’s late, unlamented XP rules, not to mention other more recent games.
Whether one sees this as a boon or a bane is, I suppose, a matter of taste.
For myself, I’m not too keen on them.
xiphos, and forming a shield wall as you prepare to face down the Derros
pouring out from their hidden citadels beneath the earth.
Presentation: 7 out of 10
Creativity: 7 out of 10
Utility: 6 out of 10
Get This If: You’re looking for a minimalist fantasy RPG that’s not
inspired by the European Middle Ages.
Don’t Get This If: You’re expecting a “realistic” treatment of the
ancient world as the basis for a fantasy roleplaying game.

A large portion — over 30 pages — of the book is made up of monster

descriptions. The run the gamut from those clearly derived from Greco-
Roman and mythology to pop culture references to oddities invented
from whole cloth. The result is not unlike D&D‘s bestiary, except with a
more strongly classical twist and quite unlike the approach taken by
Oriental Adventures. It’s extremely well done in my opinion and, in
many ways, the real brilliance of M&M is the way it conjures up an
unholy goulash inspired by Greek myth rather than European legendry.
Less successful, I think, are the monster listing themselves, whose
statistics are lengthier than OD&D’s precisely because, despite all the old
school chrome, M&M is a modern game and, like most modern games,
doesn’t see ambiguity as a guiding virtue. That’s not to say the monster
stats are excessively long, but they contain a lot more mechanical
information than, say, Moldvay/Cook or even Mentzer’s rulebooks had.

Closing the book is a brief overview of the World of Mythika, a fantasy

setting based on Greek myth — basically a re-imagined Mediterranean
world. There’s also advice on creating adventures and random tables for
generating “mysterious islands” of the sort Odysseus or Jason might
encounter in their travels. There’s also a short list of magic items, such as
weapons, armor, potions, and the like.

All in all, Mazes & Minotaurs is a very impressive piece of work, all the
more so because it manages to include so much in so short a space. It’s a
game I’d very much like to play at some point, so you can take that as you
will. What M&M is not, however, is a particularly convincing old school
forgery, even if it supposedly originates in an alternate universe. Unlike,
say, Encounter Critical, whose anachronisms are better hidden, M&M,
in both its rules and its commentary, shows its hand. It’s a work of clear
homage to the old school, making many esthetic choices in imitation of
its forebears, but its foundations are a bit too rational to be a genuine
product of the early days of the hobby. That’s why I called it a “neo-old
school” game, more like Castles & Crusades than, say, Mutant Future.

Again, that’s not meant to be a criticism but an observation. I suspect

that, for many gamers not immersed in the Old Ways, Mazes &
Minotaurs will be a much easier introduction to minimalist roleplaying.
M&M has more “training wheels” than OD&D (or, for that matter,
Labyrinth Lord or Swords & Wizardry), but I doubt they’d spoil the fun
ride you could after donning your Corinthian helmet, hefting your