The Three Tenets of Game Balance (with Caveats)

This is something that came up during recent postings that I've uttered in the past. I figured I'd capture it here in posterity.

A lot of people invoke game balance at the drop of hat as the root point of some assertion or another in a number of the numerous gaming arguments that spring up. But I have noticed that very often, when people invoke the term game balance, the speaker and the listener seem to have different things in mind.

To that end, at some point in my hazy messageboard babbling past, I was given to wonder, what is game balance? How do I know if I have it? What does it give me?

This might have many interpretations, but for my purposes I narrowed it down to 3 major goals:

Psion's Three Goals of Game Balance:

1. Play balance - this sort of balance allows the players to all contribute meaningfully to success of the party's goal. When this sort of balance is realized, the players feel or should feel* empowered in bringing about success in the game.
2. Option balance - this sort of balance strives to keep options available to players sufficiently viable that all options that are intended for regular use in the game by a PC remain viable choice for players. This is perhaps the hardest sort of balance to achieve, especially for games with a high degree of distinction between the way options are implemented.
3. Challenge balance - this sort of balance ensures that the GM can challenge the players easily without causing undesirable outcomes. If a player must kill one party member to challenge another unless the GM takes very special precautions, then perhaps that sort of balance isn't being served.

Caveats:

1. Balance is situational: Unless every session is identically patterned after one uniform model, it is impractical to predict whether a given sort of balance will be achieved with a great degree of precision. In one campaign, a rogue may be useless. In others, a rogue will be the star. Though its practical to ask that a GM and game designer present scenarios in a consistent fashion, minor variations will reasonably occur. We, as players, should accept that.
2. Balance comes with a cost: Balancing elements of a rules set will have implications on the way that the rules set plays, how scenarios should be presented (notice the inexorable tie to caveat #1?), and even playability of the game. As such, minor balance discrepancies should be well considered before a game designer or GM acts to correct them.

* - I say should feel because it has become exceedingly obvious to me that some players just cannot be pleased. They will perceive any benefit another player has as excessive, and any benefit they have as insufficient. I really didn't understand this mindset until I had children.