As much as I like the direction, and admire you for being the first to attempt this, I don’t think I agree with your weighting. It doesn’t seem plausible to me that a person with two gossip stories and a major role (say, Linsey Lohan) should gain less fame than a mere minor role (say, Paul Giamatti or Ray Winstone). While I accept that, at that point the fame generated from the press eclipses the fame generated by the film, the rule should probably reflect this.

I admit that the weighting may not be optimal.  I tried to come up with reasonable values to avoid the “filling in blanks” problem.  In my mind, the primary thing that this brings to the table is the framework,  which I designed such that it is easy for future proposals to modify the values.

I suggest that you vote for this proposal if you like the framework it presents, and then make a proposal to change the values if you don’t think they’re right.

We’re still a ways away from anyone getting a Named Role, and there’s still time to fix the values, but if this is the direction we want to go in, we should get the superstructure in place so that we can move on to discussing the values.

Thats way too much fame

Lets discuss the values in the comments here, then repropose it in a way people are happy with.

there is no such thing as negative publicity. The more Gossip stories circulating about the role, the more fame that should be generated.

This conflicts with any rules that allow for the increase or decrease of Fame (and there is at least one such rule currently on the proposal queue), since you’re proposing a strict formula for fame in terms of the state of the Filmography.

Bandwagon

Too much fame, too much randomness. I’d be fine with the same proposal minus all “DICE6"s.

No publicity is bad publicity… 

I like it, but the fame stat needs to be increased more per major role, even w/ 2 gossip stories.

Self-kill.  I’ll adjust the values and try again.