Characters & Consequences
For many Dungeon/Game/(Insert Name Here) Masters the first and most obvious consequence that many Players will face is the consequence of death. Death is the ultimate result of violence, dropping ones guard, snubbing a noble, or Isaac Newton and a particularly large rock. It is in truth the ultimate consequence that a Player character can face; though it is (and should) not be the only consequence.
Death can and should be a potential outcome in many cases where a Players character either choses to or is forced to confront violence; however most of what Players should face isn't imminent doom but the consequence of failure. Death is a consequence of failure but it is one that a character might not recover from depending on the circumstances so to further blather on: Death is the ultimate consequence of failure but not the sole consequence of failure. Violence isn't always on the table and Players aren't always aware of the stakes of any or every encounter they have: This includes social encounters that could end in violence, or violent encounters that end sociably. This is the point where most people will note the many alternatives to dying that a character has including (but not limited to): being knocked unconscious, robbed, imprisoned, turned into furniture, turned into a newt, turned into a pet spider, turned into the pet of a spider, forced into a mulan-esque training montage, socially disgraced, outcasted, fist fighting the DM, and being forced to give up the party mascot who developed Stockholm syndrome a few months ago. All a drop in the bucket of the many ways that failure can be addressed but the item I am trying to address is how DMs and Players view those consequences, as well as how many DMs should have more than one consequence ready depending on the circumstances the Players find themselves in. Players should also being willing to embrace those consequences and accept that their actions can and will impact what consequences they might face.
I bring up the idea of Players accepting those consequences in the spirit of fairness assuming that DMs don't act maliciously but I know fairly well how assumptions make asses; I already have too big of one so I'm not keen on becoming an even larger one. The point stands that while some DMs might dole out consequences like candy for even the most minor infraction, failure, or stumble most are either like to pull punches and or feel some timidity at the idea of 'punishing' Players. Ideally the Player is not being punished, their characters are facing consequences both good and bad, it is a setback or nudge forward that can add content to the game/narrative/fun if handled appropriately by both Player and DM alike. The ideal is that the game is fun/engaging and sometimes for that fun to be engaging you have to be willing to be setback or be the one setting someone else back; if you aren't capable of either then I can't play a certain card game or board games with you.
Death is a consequence but it shouldn't always be THE consequence. Players should be willing to let their characters die and DMs should be willing to kill them when (and only when) appropriate; There's a world of other consequences that may be more fitting, fun, or intriguing. It is (usually) the ultimate end but that doesn't mean that the end can't be fun and that you can't begin again.