I realized I have an opinion about whether to include rule variants inline or gathered together at the end, and spit it out in a tiny
Kickstarter comment box. Here it is for posterity.
I think it's easier to read rules variants grouped with their use case, rather than sprinkled in line. e.g. Instead of:
"When an opponent dies, it explodes, killing 1d6 nearby beings but increasing the hubris of the survivors.
Alternate rule 1: If you are playing a particular deadly campaign, it will kill 2d6 nearby beings.
Alternate rule 2: If you want to play a more contemplative campaign, it does not kill anyone when exploding, but each player must share a story about a time their character saw an explosion and how it made them feel.
[Onto the next rule] Ennui is distributed when…"
The rules could instead be structured like this:
"When an opponent dies, it explodes, killing 1d6 nearby beings but increasing the hubris of the survivors.
[Onto the next rule] Ennui is distributed when…"
APPENDIX I: More deadly campaigns
Explosions: Opponent-death explosions will kill 2d6 nearby beings.
[Other rule changes for this kind of campaign go here.]
APPENDIX 2: More contemplative campaigns
Alternate rule 2: No one is killed by opponent-death explosions, but each player must share a story about a time their character saw an explosion and how it made them feel.
[Other rule changes for this kind of campaign go here.]"
Mark Bittman uses this structure to explain recipe variants to great effect in How to Cook Everything.
BTW,
Erik's Kickstarter is great! It's a minimalist RPG that can be played orally. It does not need backing anymore, but he's going to make a non-paper version of it free for everyone when it's done,