Gee, I thought the whole point of a proper balance between risk and reward is to be properly compensated with rewards based on the amount of risk involved (and for the level of risk to equal the quality of the rewards). You know.. because that's good game design balance.
There is no standard for such. That idea came around during MMOs where people demanding they get a tit/tat reward for all the excessive grinding they did in their gaming.
Now, if you still think it's acceptable for a boss fight to reward one player with two legendary items while the same boss fight yields a potion and non-magic armor to another player, then the only thing truly pointless here is listening to anything you have to say in this discussion.
I think the reward of gaming is solid game mechanics and challenges of play, not shiny loot. Again, you seem to be arguing MMO design goals.
By the way, this is a game for entertainment, not real life. So maybe you can lay off the "in life there are no guarantees" examples? Because that's just a really stupid argument to be throwing out there for what should be obvious reasons, and yet you keep on using it..
Brilliant Mr. Wizard, so define what entertainment is? You going to be so pretentious as to claim you know what everyone finds entertaining? How about we drop the completely useless definition of what a game is and use a more practical one, shall we?
A game is a contest of rules where the results are determined by skill, strength or chance. A game can be entertaining or a form of entertainment for some, but a game itself is not specifically entertainment. You having fun in a game is entirely subjective.
There is no sane way to make a game fun for everyone because you can not design the rules and obstacles to fit every ones idea of what fun is.
An RPG is about role development systems within a given story. The goal is to develop that character and navigate them through a series of obstacles and challenges within that story.
Since this is a GAME and the goal is to play a game, then obviously the idea is to create situations where there is a chance for failure. A game without contest, rules to delineate success and failure is not a game, it is just an exercise in function.
So again, since we are playing a game, it seems that attending to the mechanics of play rather than trying to massage peoples egos or helping them to deal with their low self esteem, that we would emulate many aspects of life which also is filled with obstacles that provide success and failure to which the dedication and persistence to accomplishing a goal often gives people enjoyment. That is, those who enjoy playing games.
Though you seem to be arguing not for a game, but rather a generic entertainment simulator. My suggestion, open up a brothel, it fits your idea of what gaming is more accurately. /shrug
