@ mr. Death Just reread compels. Pretty sure I'm not abusing them. I add complication to players life, provided they don't pay off with a FP. If that compel is a limitation of choice, they are being pushed to a certain course of action. I was imprecise to indicate I controlled the action, the player still gets to decided how that action is played out, but the compel still pushes towards a course of action.
Fate also is a simulation, or at least DFRPG is. It's not a simulation of reality, it's a simulation of the Dresden files novels. Which are in turn a *somewhat* realistic fantasy novel.
The reason I'm not going to put a compel after an action is because I'm not introducing the complication. The player is. They put forth a course of action "I'm going to try and shoot the bad guy" I confirmed "With your fifty caliber machine gun, that fires a minimum 3 bullets at a time and uses armor piercing explosive rounds?" They confirmed "Yup". They succeeded on their intended action, shooting the guy, and then decided that they don't want him to die. At that point, I'm still willing to listen to how their explanation of how that doesn't kill him, but I'm skeptical.
The point is they succeed on the action they attempted, which was a potentially lethal action. They tried to shoot him, and succeeded. That should mean they shot him. If you read the metaphor differently, fine, it's your table and all that, but that I find that strains verisimilitude, as well as straining the feel of restricted power, which is a recurring element in the series. Yes, I could compel when they come into a situation like that, (provided they have an aspect like that, which they might not) but unless it's ruminatively appropriate for which I can come up with examples, I'm not going to put forth the compel, forcing them to make a player choice. They can always say it's a self compel if it complicates their life though, and if it really does, great.