Hmm, why shouldn’t the answer be “yes”? In cases where a minor knock-on effect of an action is overlooked by the action-taker (perhaps an “if X becomes true, Y happens” clause buried deep in another rule), it feels unreasonable for that action to be considered unfinished and potentially even invalid.

Good wording, no problems there.

But I agree wirh Kevan that it is fine to allow other players space to complete the effects of an action you clearly have taken. I especially think this is useful when the effects aren’t personal, such as, “whenever a player does X, the Y-count goes up by 1.”

It actually seems strange to me that automatic results should have to be recorded before they can be called gamestate, but it seems this is accurate!

wikipages are only representations of the gamestate and anyone at anytime can update the wikipages to reflect the true gamestate if the pages are incorrect. Even if this rule passed and only the originator of that change of data can edit the ephemeral gamestate, anyone could still correct wikipages.
see the rest of that paragraph, which would remain unchanged by this proposal, for details.

“The wiki merely represents the Gamestate tracked there, and is not the same thing. In the event that the Gamestate and its representations are different, any Adventurer may correct the representations to comply with the Gamestate. “

Really we should avoid phrasing rules as passive voice “when X is true, Y happens” with no performer specified. Either make the Y effect part of the X action, or write it as “if X is true, any player may make Y happen”.

This is the rule I’m proposing to amend:

For gamestate which is tracked in a specific place (such as a wiki page), any alteration of that gamestate as a result of an Adventurer’s action is (and can only be) applied by editing that data in that place.

If Gamestate hasn’t actually changed as a result of an action unless and until the required data change is made, the rule that “any Adventurer may correct the representations to comply with the Gamestate” is pertinent only to the effect of allowing any Adventurer to revert the “representations” to their previous state – before a particular edit began but was abandoned unfinished.

This creates an apparent dichotomy between a) corrections that can clearly be performed by anyone so long as it is accepted that Gamestate has indeed changed (in spite of the errors or oversights to be thus corrected in the representations) and b) corrections that must be performed in order for Gamestate to change, in which case it is unclear who can perform them. It is the latter vagueness that I attempted to fix in my proposal, but I now realise that it doesn’t quite reach the heart of the problem.

Rather, the matter seems to hinge on the precise point when Gamestate is considered to have changed. It is important to be clear about what separates the essential elements of an action – those that a player must perform before said action can be considered complete – from any knock-on effects it has on the wider Gamestate, including values tracked “automatically” in accordance with the rules.

Of course most things aren’t really automatic, but if a computer might plausibly perform an action, anyone else should be able to as well. I agree with the consensus on this point, and it embraces things like updating the Ruleset (which is explicitly allowed there). At the same time, I think we can agree that all the essential steps of an action must be performed by the same Adventurer unless otherwise stated. This distinction is not acknowledged in the current wording of the rule I cite above, which therefore must be viewed as unsatisfactory.

Even if my own proposal doesn’t actually address the problem, we’ll need a new one at some point. 

PS: I don’t know for certain how the concept of “action” is supposed to be understood. I mean, battle actions are easy, and so are all those “make a blog post or comment” ones, but as to the rest, I can only assume that it has to be just one thing (even when that thing is “edit multiple values on the wiki page”) and that when more things have to be done together, this must be codified in an atomic action.

If this interpretation is correct, it could be that the case of the Weary Vanguard is a rarity and was caused primarily by the rule’s “inartful drafting” rather than the Gamestate Tracking rule’s application in general. Maybe.