Monday, February 12, 2007

Proposal: We Need Compensation II-rc2

Timed out and failed, 4-6. Josh

Adminned at 14 Feb 2007 01:19:52 UTC

Replace the first paragraph of 2.1 Filmographies with

Each actor has a Filmography, which is stored in a wiki page called “Filmographies”. This is a list of the films that each Actor has starred in, and for each film:
* The year of that film
* The role that they played in the film
* The amount of Fame earned from the role

When adding a role to eir Filmography, an Actor shall calculate the fame e has earned for that role as specified in 2.4.1 “Role Values”.

Replace 2.4 Fame with

Every Actor has a Fame statistic, tracked in the GNDT.  Fame is an unbounded non-negative integer.  Actors start with a Fame of 0.  An Actor’s Fame is the sum of the Fame earned from each of the roles in eir Filmography.  At any time, an Actor may update the GNDT to reflect the current Fame value for any Actor.

2.4.1 Role Values

A role’s Fame value is determined solely at the time the role is added to an Actor’s Filmography, and cannot be changed except as explicitly stated by other rules.

* If the role is as an Extra, it is worth 1 Fame.
* If the role is as a Minor Character, it is worth 3 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is not currently the subject of any Gossip stories, it is worth 5 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is currently the subject of exactly one Gossip story, it is worth 3 + DICE5 Fame.
* If the role is as a Named Character, and the Actor is currently the subject of more than one Gossip story, it is worth 1 + 2DICE5 Fame.

Calculate Fame values (per 2.4.1) for all roles currently in the Filmographies.
Update all Actor’s Fame values on the GNDT.

Ok.  I reduced the fame values to something more reasonable.  The expected values for the gossip story cases are 6 and 7, respectively.  Thus, having a gossip story is generally a good thing, but also more risky.  The idea behind this is that fame is a measure of the value that an Actor adds to a movie simply by being in the credits, and publicity for an Actor can either help or hurt a movie.  Also, a named role will never produce less fame than a minor role.

Addressing Hix’s comment on the previous iteration:  The proposal that this would have conflicted with has failed, and similar proposals can still work, they just have to act on a role’s fame rather than an Actor’s total Fame.  In the long run, its all about the movies, right?



02-12-2007 03:05:41 UTC

for Sure, lets see where this leads us, could be interesting.


02-12-2007 09:55:28 UTC



02-12-2007 12:15:11 UTC



02-12-2007 14:00:02 UTC

Values are rather large, but I think that the fame cap should be raised anyway.


02-12-2007 15:21:36 UTC

against Not convinced that this is a fun game mechanic.


02-12-2007 16:06:10 UTC

against I still don’t like Fame being some set-in-stone function of my Filmography.  Heck, why force it to be tracked in the GNDT at all, in that case?  Also remain unconvinced that this is an interesting mechanic.


02-12-2007 16:13:02 UTC

against Similar to Hix, I don’t like the idea of Fame being fixed.


02-12-2007 22:30:20 UTC

I don’t know…I’d rather this was a component of fame, but not all it consists of. Good start though…. imperial


02-13-2007 05:28:09 UTC



02-13-2007 10:25:33 UTC

for Disagreeing with Hix, of course.

Just kidding. I like it. It’s not a “set in stone function”. It’s randm and it doesn’t need to be the only way to change fame.


02-13-2007 13:16:45 UTC

except that it is: “An Actor’s Fame is the sum of the Fame earned from each of the roles in eir Filmography.”


02-13-2007 20:02:00 UTC



02-13-2007 22:28:18 UTC



02-13-2007 22:41:42 UTC

against I think it’s much easier and more intuitive to modify an actor’s fame, rather than a role’s fame as the proposal is worded now.


02-14-2007 02:55:04 UTC

CoV against


02-14-2007 02:56:02 UTC

cov against