I recently had a conversation with a friend who, by all means, radically diverges with me on what he think makes for optimal game design. His criticism of my manner was to suggest "There's no Plato's Perfect Form of Dungeons and Dragons."
Which pretty much sums up his opposition to my position-the position that, there is indeed a theoretical "best" or "perfect" model, and that the purpose of game balance discussions is to move us closer in that direction.
Of course, there was no argument as to why there is no Plato's Perfect Form of Dungeons and Dragons. But to be fair, that would have been a lengthy philosophical conversation in and of itself.