The game may be found (for free) here: https://gshowitt.itch.io/honey-heist
Honey Heist, by Grant Howitt, is a one-page tabletop RPG in which players plan and (attempt) to execute “the greatest heist the world has ever seen.” In Howitt’s words:
One: You have a complex plan that requires precise timing.
Two: You are a GODDAMN BEAR.
As one can imagine from the premise alone, the appeal of Honey Heist is to play out a comedy-of-errors story in which a group of non-anthropomorphic hat-wearing bears pass as humans well enough to execute an elaborate plan well-enough to secure fame and fortune, while likely leaving a path of destruction in their wake. This game knows its appeal and uses this knowledge to leverage its writing for maximum comedic effect. For instance, the game includes a mechanic that encourages flashback scenes in which “you and the other bears plan out the heist over coffee and cigarettes in the back room of a seedy bar.” This brilliant writing is reflected in the character and world creation options, allowing players to play as, for instance, a retired, muscly, cargo-pants-clad panda who can eat anything that looks like bamboo, who is trying to steal “ultradense megahoney from especially posh bees” from someone who is “maybe too obsessed with honey.”
Once the roleplaying begins, the outcomes of player actions are determined by rolling a d6 against one of two stats: Bear and Criminal. The Bear stat is used to “maul stuff, run & climb, …, and generally do bear stuff.” Criminal, on the other hand, is used to do “anything not directly related to being a bear.” Players may have zero to six points in each stat at any given time. Each time an action is performed, players roll a d6, and the action succeeds if the roll is less than the number of points a player has in the corresponding stat. Here is the catch: each player always has six total points between their two stats, and these points can move between stats depending on the outcome of the game. Each time the plan fails, a point moves from Criminal into Bear. Each time the plan goes smoothly, a point moves from Bear to Criminal. If either stat reaches six, then that player will be out, either from betraying the party and being “lured into to a life of crime,” or losing it and going full bear mode to be “picked up by animal control in half an hour or so.” The core mechanical task of the players is to balance their stats between Criminal and Bear so that they can succeed at their preferred tasks, but not stray too far from their role as both bear and criminal.
While this core mechanic sounds engaging on its face, I found that it did not live up to my expectations due the immersion-breaking pressure it puts on the players and GM. When playing this game as the GM, I found myself reluctant to move too many points into one stat or the other out of fear that the party would fail in an unsatisfying defeat. This meant that the mechanic had little relevance in our game because it was underutilized. The players found the mechanic tedious, as it sometimes punishes them for taking the actions that they think would be the most fun. Counter-intuitively, it also punishes players for switching between Bear and Criminal actions, which is what the mechanic also requires in order for players to not lose. I should note here that one can intentionally move points from one stat into another by either having a flashback scene or eating some honey. This gives players a way to recover from going too far in one direction or the other while still keeping the story engaging, but in practice, the players and I found it tedious and immersion-breaking to have to stop the action to keep a number from going too high. Even though the mechanic serves a valuable purpose (i.e. preventing players from going far enough towards bear or criminal to kill the source of the comedy), it is a source of player frustration that, at times, takes away from the comedy. Perhaps a system that rewards players instead of punishing them, or at least a system that does not immediately remove a player from the game for a few missteps, would feel less annoying.
Moreover, having the result of player actions be a binary success or failure was boring and did not fit the comedy-of-errors tone of the game. While this is not a flaw with the game itself, I view it as a huge missed opportunity. Some of the most memorable moments in Dungeons and Dragons come from “critical failures” and “critical successes,” in which players not only succeed or fail, but do so in spectacular fashion that often complicates the plot in interesting (and frequently, funny) ways or gives the players a satisfyingly awesome win. To me, one of the greatest appeals of the premise of Honey Heist is the promise of generating such absurd moments, so missing opportunities to encourage them is not ideal. An action system as complex as DND isn’t needed to implement such a mechanic. This “yes and” approach to skill checks is taken to the extreme in Caltrop Core, a very simple d4-based TTRPG system in which every skill check results in an “absolute” failure or success, or a “partial” failure or success, so that no matter the outcome, the plot will be progressed in new and interesting ways. I think Honey Heist could have greatly benefited from a system like this since it keeps the plot fresh and exciting as the situation is constantly unfolding in delightfully unexpected directions, in true comedy-of-errors fashion.
Overall, I think that Honey Heist is a great (and hilarious!) experience due to the creativity of the premise and the fantastic execution of the writing. However, in my view, the limitations of the core mechanics of the game hold it back from reaching its full potential.
