Elf Witch,
Thanks for posting this. Twice I had started writing something similar to explain my position (my computer froze the first time and the second time a friend with seminary training called to clarify questions about his religion for my class paper and, I, accidentally closed the browser rather than minimizing it. For the most part, you pretty much covered what I wanted to say.
The following were just some things that I was going to add if I had written my response which would have included much of what you wrote.
When playing with some min-maxers and char ops people (doing it not just for theory, but to use in play), they are going to take the game and push it to the mechanical limits or break it. This does not mean the game is broken. Often, it means they are approaching a game in a manner that was not intended and this is a player issue (Yes, there may be some things that are truly broken, but that is separate from approaching a game in a manner for which it may not have been designed or intended). When supplements are added, the designers introduce new synergies that can be exploited, but the designers can't test for every combination that can be exploited
Is it possible that someone might simply stumble upon a broken synergy that does not work? yes. However, if something is found to be broken at a table, a good player will understand if a DM needs to nix or nerf an item that is problematic for the sake of the game as a whole.
A good example of blaming the system are found with point buy systems like Champions and M&M. Both games are built to allow any character to be created. The freedom means that players can abuse the tools of the system or stumble upon something that is broken for many campaigns. The designers placed responsibility on the the GMs to define the limits of their campaign and make sure the characters are appropriate. They also assume that players are going to be responsible and play nice with the tools rather than being dicks! Even though players and the GM might not want the responsibility, it does not mean the game is broken. The games do what the designers set out to do and that freedom to build anything requires responsibility.
3e D&D ,while not giving as much freedom as Champions or M&M, gives more freedom than many editions of D&D. Mearls and other described 3e as a toolbox. With so many ways to approach the game and choices of optional material, what is broken at one table is not, necessarily, broken at another. The 3e DMG tells the DM they are responsible for their table and in determining what is allowed, because the designers don't know the players at the table, the party make-up, the supplements in use and which material from those supplements are in use (I only read the 4e DMG n the stores and don't recall what, if any, advice it gives).
(Note: The differences at tables is why I wrote that just because something is created, it does not mean it is a good idea to use it (leaving aside flavor preferences for a campaign or of a given group)).
Again, not all GMs want the responsibility. That is fine. It also poses potential problems when it comes to the next edition. The designers can
1. Continue leaving these things for individual tables to deal with. Min-maxers and char op people are going to continue to do what they do regardless of the math unless either all choice is removed or the DM takes steps to address the issue. And, yes, it is possible that someone not engaging in such practice may stumble on an unexpected synergy. Responsible players, however, will understand when the DM nerfs or nixes the offending item for the good of the game at the table as a whole. Despite the drawbacks, this, allows for a wide variety of approaches to the game and freedom of concepts with the DM setting the limits for their campaign. However, this is not going to please those not wanting to deal with making such corrections at an individual/group level.
2. Tighten the math and create a game that caters to account for the min-maxers and char-ops people and raise everything to their level of expectation. The problem is that one cuts off many concepts that were viable in many other groups just not those that engage/allow the min-maxing, char Ops, or powergaming (using the term to mean people that play for powers or big numbers. Min-maxing and Char Ops would be the tool to achieve it).
3. Tighten the math to address min/maxing and Char Ops by forcing everyone to fall within a particular range (e.g, skills bonuses tied to level, the assumption of challenge DCs scaling with level, monster attack/defense). Again, they run the risk of mechanically cutting off options and concepts that were viable rather than problematic at many tables- possibly at both ends of the power spectrum.
4. Remove all true choice beyond race, class, spells and assigning random rolls.
Option 1: This will lead to some players claiming the game is broke including situations where it may come to how they approach the game or specific elements rather than the game truly being broke (which doesn't mean something might not, truly be broken. Personally, I think there are some inherent problems, but many problems I see mentioned I think are table problems).
Options 2 and 3: These have the potential to lead back to one of the big complaints regarding 4e as being a slave to the math.
Option 4: It might appeal to some players of early editions, but not the majority
I don't know how the designers will win
I have yet to see a perfectly balanced system and that includes non DnD games.
There are three issues that I see one is a game may start out pretty closely balanced but as new splats come out the game slowly starts having power gaps.
The only cure for this is to either say no to them core only or be willing to police them and adjust them if there is a problem.
Then there is the fact that once a game is in play there are some really smart people who figure out how to maximize things go onto any board with a chr-ops and you see it.
Again you have a choice you can whine on message boards that game is broken or as DM you can take control and start saying no to certain combos.
The third is there will always be people who have system mastery and players who are not interested. Now if you end up with a situation where those who have it are walking all over those who don't and they can't have fun with a weaker character and the non system mastery folks can't have fun then there is only one logical choice and that is don't play together.
I know a lot of people don't want to hear this but sometimes certain play styles don't work together. If the issue comes that no matter what you do half your table is going to be unhappy then right there is a clue that maybe this group should either play something else or split into separate groups.