True enough.  However, I look at it like this - if I, as GM, would compel them for the situation, I'm willing to give them the fate point.

In the OP's first example, had the player chosen to remain veiled, I as GM might well have compelled the Aspect myself.  Thus, she gets a point.

In the second, given the situation of learning that the bear wasn't an enemy, I would almost definitely have compelled, if the player hadn't.  So, again, she gets a point.

I'm not saying that every self-compel gets points, I'm just saying that the situations presented above, in my opinion, merit points.

As I understand it from the book, yes.  Self-Compels are entirely appropriate ways to get Fate points.  You're being rewarded for playing in character, as it were.

I would generally start them where the others are now.  Why limit the new character?

Well, her High Concept is right in the first post.  Wiccan Sorceress.  Like I said, it would have been Wiccan Wizard, but looking over the refresh costs of both Wizard and 'Faith' based Powers/Stunts, I couldn't have both in even a Submerged campaign.

Thinking on it with some of what's been posted has given me some ideas.  For instance, the Wiccan Rede doesn't preclude self-defence (as most Wiccans understand it, anyway) but say it did.

There's still bindings that redirect force used upon them - Mirror shields, they're called - and if someone's silly enough to send an attack against them, and gets hurt, the usual view is that it was their action that caused the harm.

That, of course, would likely get her in trouble with the Laws of Magic, as well as the Wardens. 

And, yes, the Rede allows for a lot of low-discipline behaviour, as long as it brings no direct harm to others.

So, thanks for all the replies.  I'm only going to work her up to Stage two - saving the first Story until I can find a game for her, so her story fits in - but when I've got that done, I'll consider posting her, either here or in the PbP section.

Yes, I know - but I also know that it's the GM's job to bring it up.  And as a GM myself, I wouldn't allow a Trouble that I couldn't get my head around as far as making it Trouble.

So I thought I'd see if anyone here could help me figure out how it would be Trouble, of if it would be difficult to make it Troublesome.

Fire for healing?  Sure, I can see it.  It's an unbelievably subtle application (meaning Harry will probably never be able to manage) but use Fire to enhance the subject's energy reserves, or to selectively burn out poison or disease.  Very high power, very subtle, but I would allow them.

If we tie it to particular instruments we might as well just make those instruments Focus Items.  To differentiate Focus Song from Focus Item I think you'd have to allow it to be used with any instrument, but it would have to be audible to work, meaning that silence spells or deafening the wizard would remove the ability to use the Focus Song.

Yes, I do think a Stunt to allow Discipline instead of Performance would be the way to go, but I'd add in the option then of using Focus Song instead of Focus Item.

Well, I think I might have gotten the sense that that was the point.  My bad.

Well, if it bothers you, I might suggest a variation on the Focus Items rules.  For the cost of 2 Focus slots, you get one Consequence you can  use for magic of a given type.  So, maybe instead of giving him a bonus to his Conviction or Discipline, Harry's Blasting Rod lets him cast two or three Fuego spells without stressing himself.

I would cap it at a maximum of two, maybe three, and definitely count them as Consequences as opposed to Stress, so they don't just regenerate between scenes.  Not a house rule I would expect to see in play, but off the top of my head, a possible answer to the question you've raised.