Common norms matter. Chairs and doors account for human dimensions. Speed limits account for human reaction times. Font sizes account for human visual acuity. Game controllers account for the shape of human hands. And while outliers may benefit from variations, there are also variations nobody would ever appreciate or be able to take advantage of.
Game design needs to account for the same kind of norms, and the more
common those are the wider the potential market. Even the app must be designed with these considerations in mind. So is it like a spreadsheet? A series of dropdowns? A smart character sheet? Because regardless of what you decide it
will end up being more appealing/accessible to one demographic over another. So who exactly is it designed
for?
Like it or not human limits
exist, and if even one person has trouble playing a 'tabletop' game without the aid of an 'app' it's a red flag that should be evaluated.
So, if I have zero problems with these TTRPGs without a chargen app, but OPs players do need it, who decides when the baseline is beyond people's ability? How do we know by your standards where a TTRPG is no longer one?
Then it's a tabletop RPG for
you, and a mixed media game for
them. Question is which one's the outlier.
And ability is only part of the equation, as someone might be
able to play a thing but not
enjoy doing so. So are these character apps a feature or a bug? Are they an
intended part of play? Do players find them fun to engage with in themselves or the price of admission?
"Most people" is doing a huge amount of heavy lifting here.
Apparently so are the character creation apps.
Most people are not professional athletes. Most people do not have eidetic memory. Most people can not do advanced mathematics in their heads. So you can either design for common human norms, or for outliers which
will make your games less accessible to the former.