I wanted to mention the "choose class wisely" argument first. A fighter with low stats will be less capable than a fighter with high stats in combat. They will also likely contribute less to ability checks outside of combat (although of course that varies). I also dislike being locked into a handful of choices because it's the best I can do with the numbers I have.
But the main reason for this response is that when you say things like :
- "if you have a social contract that allows high and low array characters to play at the same table".
- Implying that you will be ostracized or looked down upon if you don't "comply"
- "all you care is combat performance"
- All people care about is performance is pretty self explanatory. It comes across as judgmental and pigeonholing people who use point buy.
- " and there is no appropriate social contract"
- I can only read this as the "correct" contract.
- "going out of the comfort zone."
- Not sure how to take this as other than people who don't roll have fragile egos.
You say that you did not intend any of this to make it sound like you are a superior role player by using rolls. It certainly comes off that way to me.
People have different ideas of fun. I sometimes build characters using point buy that are optimal for combat, sometimes I don't. Sometimes I want that fighter to have a decent charisma or do a rogue as an enforcer type that relies more on muscle than dexterity. I almost never play truly stupid characters (either above average intelligence or wisdom). It's not about optimization, although of course that is part of it. I want to play a PC with decent stats that are not spectacular. I don't want a 20 at 1st level because I want room to grow. At the same time I want to play someone that's competent, not the tag along.
It's okay to say that you like the random results. Just lay off the justifications that talk about why people choose point buy, especially in a way that makes random sound superior.
