I reguarlly have players saying things like "for my moderate consequence ill take Lame Shooting Arm, and wont use my gun any more."  And have to remind them that that's how how Consquences are meant to work especially in the scale of a monderate or minor.

I feel like, as both a player and GM, I see GM suggested decision compels come up as characters become more familiar.  At the outset of a game, it's hard to know what compels seem appropriate to the player.  I've also seen it happen with characters whose troubles really demand decision compels.

+Riley Crowder, why do you think that Lame Shooting Arm is a bad Consequence?  It seems to fit, especially a minor.

+Robert Hanz Only because as soon as they take it they just immediately stop using their gun.  A minor consequence isn't designed to remove a skill option but when they take it them immediately stop using the skill it might affect.  Its mostly just training them on the language of consequence as aspects, so they don't use it to limit them in ways that they aren't meant to do and still have full creative access.

This is specifically with a group of mostly new FATE players so its teaching the different game play style that fate generates.

+Riley Crowder , you could always treat complications like that as a compel.  If your player's understand that it's optional, there's nothing wrong with them choosing to highlight the effects of a consequence like that in exchange for sweet, sweet fate points.

Or just use it as a passive opposition, rather than an outright denial of action.  "Your shooting arm is lame, so there's a +2 passive opposition to shooting."

Which is usually what I push for, but I want to encourage flexible creativity and not getting so caught up in the wound or injury mechanics they have played before.  They have been getting rapidly better as they practice.

Maybe Crippled Leg would serve a game better?

Sorry for posting in this old thread, but I'm a bit confused. You're mixing passive and active opposition and I wonder how that would work. For example "Your shooting arm is lame, so there's a +2 passive opposition to shooting." So I would roll shoot and subtract 2? And then the enemy would roll athletics to dodge?

"If it makes it harder to dodge, that's providing passive opposition." How? E.g. the enemy rolls fight and gets a 4. I roll athletics to dodge and the passive opposition subtracts from my roll?

Btw, +Robert Hanz your Random Thoughts Of The Day helped a lot during my transition from a traditional rpg mindset.

"Your shooting arm is lame, so there's +2 passive opposition to shooting".

This just means that the minimum, passive defense you have to overcome to be successful is +2.  If the opponent's active defense is better, they get that. If it's worse, they get +2.

For me, this is a great way to both have things be relevant mechanically while keeping the range of possible results the same. Adding/subtracting can easily create situations where we've moved the ranges of results apart enough that there's no possible way to succeed/fail.

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification!