You don't trust the math. I don't trust your ability to talk about game balance without it. If you''re not willing to engage with averages and probability when discussing the balance of a game with random elements, you're not worth listening to on that topic.
The math is an intrinsic part of the game, it's part of the abstraction of how we interact with the world, it's also the only impartial storyteller. That said, I think the question of optimization has an impact on the game, more from how people know it should impact the game, than from how it actually impacts the game. I'm sorry you've had to meet someone on the internet with a different philosophy about the game than you. One thing at least I think we can both agree on, if the player is given a number of ways to build a character, but one is clearly superior than the others, then that is no choice at all, and is a failure of the game's design. I think the difference between us is that, min-maxing a character isn't inherently the goal of the game, unless you reduce it to its mathematical components.
As for Niara's comments. The blandification, great word, of the game's setting and character is strong. So much about D&D is institutional knowledge, any subversion of that knowledge directly affects everyone's ability to use the material, material which in recent years has been somewhat lackluster. I've seen them use 'player agency' as a way to excuse how unpolished some things are, but in the past seven years or so, the player base has ballooned without WotC really giving the newbie a truly comprehensive primer in campaign building. Something that One D&D might end up doing, when they eventually get to the DMG. Without commenting on minutiae of the playtest, I would've liked to see WotC revamp skills, which would have happened with the Rogue, and maybe make it so not all the classes were designed combat-first.
I'd also like now, to know how the new background rules will interact with Fairy PCs.
