Publisher: Lightspress
A companion to the Mythpunk Fantasy Reference Guide
Harm in the genre of mythpunk fantasy persists as a recorded condition rather than a resolved event. Injury, betrayal, loss, and compromise don’t end when scenes close or attention shifts. Each remains active, shaping how risk is read, how trust is extended, and how response is chosen. The decision this article supports is how players and gamemasters act when past damage still exerts pressure, even when no one seeks apology, justice, or repair. Choice begins from the assumption that harm already exists and will continue to shape outcomes.
Mythpunk fantasy treats consequence as cumulative rathe...
Publisher: Lightspress
A companion to the Mythpunk Fantasy Reference Guide
Harm in the genre of mythpunk fantasy persists as a recorded condition rather than a resolved event. Injury, betrayal, loss, and compromise don’t end when scenes close or attention shifts. Each remains active, shaping how risk is read, how trust is extended, and how response is chosen. The decision this article supports is how players and gamemasters act when past damage still exerts pressure, even when no one seeks apology, justice, or repair. Choice begins from the assumption that harm already exists and will continue to shape outcomes.
Mythpunk fantasy treats consequence as cumulative rather than corrective. Damage alters access, expectation, and behavior simply by remaining present. A history of being harmed changes what feels possible long before anyone names the reason. Acting as though the slate is clean misreads the situation and invites further loss.
This framing shifts interpretation before action at the table. Tension signals residue. The question is how existing harm constrains or pressures the current moment. Decisions made without that awareness tend to compound damage quietly. Decisions made with it trade ease for clarity.
The ledger of inherited harm isn't an object characters consult or discuss openly. It’s the weight behind hesitation, caution, and refusal. It explains why certain options feel costly even when they appear reasonable on the surface. Treating harm as ongoing grounds play in consequence without requiring escalation. Action remains possible, but it’s never unburdened.