In this paper, we test how constrained choices affect the provision of public goods. Specifically, we implement two public good games with different levels of discretization in contribution choices and find that limiting options leads to higher payoffs. Using a novel experimental design, we are able to distinguish two separate channels through which payoffs improve. As might be expected, higher payoffs can be explained, in part, by more cooperation and higher rates of giving in the treatment with constrained choices. However, we also find that subjects provide public goods in a more cost-effective manner when facing fewer options, suggesting that constrained choice can lead to better decisions, even conditional on the same level of giving. Together our results indicate that the simple availability of choices, or lack thereof, can influence behavior and outcomes, with important implications for a wide range of settings like charitable giving and environmental conservation efforts.