Just the opposite. Most RPG systems are mathematical in nature and for me it's a challenge to figure out the system and create a mean motherf****r. To make it more balanced, I never play below the Hard difficulty.

It's what I miss in newer RPGs, there aren't any complex systems to break. The customazation of characters is more limited (stats and abilities don't have such an impact as in older games) and with level scaling it gets even worse.

My problem with New Vegas is not knowing about things. For example, not realizing there was an Int implant I "wasted" points leveling a skill beyond where it was useful. I mistakenly thought (probably when drunk) that taking the perk to get an extra TAG skill was a better idea than the perk that gives you an extra point for every skill book (duh!).

It always bothers me.

Also, when there is stuff like skill books in a game, I get to a point where I'm done naturally leveling all the skills I would use the most and then am compelled to spend oodles of time running around to collect all the skill books I don't yet have to get them to their target values (no one's making me of course, it's my own compulsion).

I picked New Vegas because:
1) You won't easily level every useful skill for your chosen playstyle
2) There's an insane amount of traveling and time taken out of doing the stuff you would normally do to run around and collect skill books, etc., compared to other games.
3) There's other interesting perks you might take, but the ones that boost skills are the ones you normally take, unless you are playing through with a melee bruiser and you don't need many skills.

Lol, it's actually the way you're supposed to play....fighters get high strength, archers/thieves high DEX and whatnot.

LOL, you're seriously misguided on what an RPG is
RPGs are all about playing the way you want to play, not being forced to play in a particular way, there is no supposed to

Except for the fact that most RPGs are combat-heavy and balanced around rather min-maxed characters.
Unless you play on easy/casual, you'll have to try to maximize your PC's combat effectiveness depending on its class.

Personally it doesn't bother me, because most characters want to survive and therefore want to be effective in combat. So it makes sense that they would concentrate on their strengths.

Instead of minmaxing, I do what I call "second statting" where I try to max out a primary stat along with a stat that would compliment a given class.

For example, I am playing Knights of the Chalice. I created a party with two knights, one cleric, and one wizard. This game allows you to swap two stats at the time of creating your characters. I made sure my fighters had their primary stats (Strength) maxed out and also had a high Dexterity stat since being able to avoid incoming attacks is just as good as blocking them and a high Dex helps with ranged weapons as well. Clerics also benefit from a decent Charisma stat since that ties into their ability to Turn Undead. Wizards in this game should have a high Constitution stat because, dear lord, everything in this game goes straight for your wizard , from wolves to archers, so they'll need some HP in order to survive the initial round.

Actually yes there is a supposed to, as in if you do your stats differently than the optimal way then you're gonna fall flat on your arse while playing. You want to play 100% your way? Then LARP or tabletop. PC RPGs are pretty fair in letting you go your own way, but due to the limits of budget/time/platform/etc there's never going to be a game where you can do 100% of whatever you want.

I don't like min-maxing. Specially when a game forces me to do it. I usually play melee, but I don't give it much of a priority, and only really throw away a few skills I don't use (I never played as a ranged weapons user, so I never put anything on archery or related. Well, except on Fallouts and Arcanum).

I was getting kicked so hard in Arx Fatalis that I had to quit. Left a note to min-max something when I try it again.

What has doing "100% of whatever you want" got to do with stats? Wanting (and being allowed by the game) to punch the old shop keeper in the face rather than pay his bill has nothing to do with strength.

Games where combat is the only option are not RPGs, they are games which happen to have a leveling system.

No I meant wanting to play and not have to min-max to play properly....in most RPGs you either play to your classes strengths or get demolished.

Oh and btw RPGs with heavy emphasis on combat are RPGs, pal.

Min/maxing makes sense when you think about it.

You're (typically) either some great hero, or an exception individual who's going to become a hero by saving the world.

So of course there's a reason for that. Your average commoner with bog standard stats is not a hero, and if he tried to save the world he would get eaten by a goblin. The reason you can do it is because you're stronger, or smarter, or quicker then everyone else.

To keep a balance (since this is a game, after all), you also have to be negative in some other area. it makes absolute sense that you would pick a weakness that does not hurt your primary role (since again, you're a hero not a commoner, and should be exceptional at what you do).

If someone with bog standard stats could save the world, then how much of a threat was it, really? I mean think about it, the big bad was defeated by a mage who's barely smart enough to cast 2nd level spells? A fighter who's not strong enough to wear plate armor? An archer who's just average at best at shooting a bow? Is that really what 'anti-minmaxers' want?

I take it you haven't read the Discworld novels where extrememly average if not below average people save the world all the time.

I actually did play Arcanum (2nd time through) with a rather gimped Half Ogre spellcaster (shaman or something). It was pretty fun to play that way too, but I had always intended that.

I think in the typical Fallout type setting I'd be too afraid of not being able to take out massed Deathclaws (or that game's equivalent) to do that on my first playthrough.

H2H with a Deathclaw is doable. Not recommended but certainly doable. Paralysing Palm and a few other melee perks and a Deathclaw gauntlet will do the job.

I like to stick to the sniper rifle though.

BOOM...HEADSHOT! M-M-M-M-MASSIVE DAMAGE!