Personally, I think the solution is to get rid of the sense of urgency in the first place.

Instead of either limiting the player's options, putting a time limit, or creating story/gameplay dissonance, the story should be altered so that the issue doesn't happen.

If you want the game to be more urgent, make it an action game; time limits fit there much better than they fit RPGs.

(Of note, I actually like the approach taken by Zelda: Majora's Mask; there is a time limit, but you can reset the world (and the time limit) by playing a specific song.)

I presume you talk about quicksave? I usually don't use quicksave, but the good old "enter menu, save game, continue game". This also means that I tend to save only in lull moments, not in a middle of action. Hence, I am less likely to save in a bad spot. And even if I was, there are usually the older save games to fall back...

(My main reason not to use quicksave is because quite often I tend to get quicksave and quickload buttons mixed up, so I accidentally load an old game while I wanted to save, or vice versa. I hate it when either one happens.)

For quicksave, this problem can be lessened too by the game circulating several quicksave slots, and not using only one.

Another thing that would help is if the game autosaves from time to time, on top of your manual saves.

In BG2 ToB I tried abandoning my elf wife with child to see what would happen.. but I immediately reloaded because I felt too bad O_o'
(I wonder if it's still possible in Beamdog's EEs)

But that cuts out many story possibilities that are classic RPG fare : Rescue missions, hostage situations, capturing a fugitive (or being a fugitive), any kind of dynamic warfare (invasions, city battles, etc), and even the simple idea of a mission with any kind of timetable)
It gives a very static situation, that may struggle to engage the player. Sure, most RPG already have a static gameplay, that's the reason there is such a dissonance. But it would severely limit the type of story you can use as a backdrop for the player's cheerful slaughter, mayhem and destruction.

That's OK; it's a game, not a book or movie. Furthermore, it's a game in a slow paced genre.

If one wants urgent situations, one can either use a non-interactive medium (like a book or movie) or a fast-paced video game genre (like an action game). Urgent situations just don't match up well with RPG gameplay.

Right, let's no longer have stories where the world is in danger in RPG's.

But I WANT my RPG's to have some excitement. Why should I play a yawn fest?

It doesn't have to be edge-of-your-seat every moment (and probably shouldn't), but what sort of story can be played when there can be no sense of "maybe I should actually go over there and take care of the problem"?

No, it's too exciting. Let's make the next RPG about filing your tax returns.

Don't joke. I just did that last night, and nearly had a heart attack when the program seemed to lock up and I realized I hadn't explicitly saved. Thank goodness for auto-saves.

Congratulations on not getting screwed by that. O_o

Some things I read make it very, very difficult for me to smother my laughter. This is one of those things.

The idea is to maybe have the problem not be a sudden immediate danger, but rather something that has been an issue for a long time. Alternatively, have the problem not be something that affects the general population. In fact, when we look at the plots of old RPGs, we actually see that as a trend.

For example (some spoilers ahead):

Wizardry: The first game's plot is really just a feud between two overloards, one who wants the amulet of the other. (The fourth game turns it around here.) In fact, the only game in the (Sir-Tech) Wizardry series to use "the world is threatened" as a plot is Wizardry 5. In Wizardry 8, there is a bomb that can destroy the world, but only if you try to ascend.

Ultima: You don't really get "the world is about to be destroyed" for a while. In 1-3, you have the world already having been taken over by evil. In 4, the world is at peace, so there's no pressing issue. 5 is like 1-3; it seems Blackthorne has been in power for a while. In 6, the gargoyles haven't been invading villages and attacking the general population.

Might & Magic: In MM2, the world is going to be destroyed, but not until 100 years after the game starts. (This time limit, while mentioned in the game itself, is not actually implemented to my understanding.) World of Xeen has the world being sent into the sun, but it's going to take a while. (I have read that at least one of the Xeen engine games has a time limit in the game's code, but it doesn't properly function.)

Dragon Quest: In the early games (through 5), the world has been overrun by monsters for quite a while; there's no sudden danger of it becoming worse. In 7, the world has been sealed off, so the world isn't about to be destroyed any further. (Of course, that changes later, but at that point, the game actually doesn't let you travel freely at that point.)

In Shadow of Chernobyl, when I was already far into the game and well-equipped, I stumbled upon an injured stalker in the tunnel below the road in Cordon. I had no medkit on me but I actually felt so sorry for the guy that I sprinted all the way back to Sidorovich and bought some medkits, hoping that the guy would still be alive when I came back. He was and I felt surprisngly good about myself for saving his life, despite knowing that I wouldn't meet the guy again and that he was just a friggin' worthless NPC who'd die in a few minutes anyway.

Not sure but I bet Heffner is keeping tabs on that shit.