Can't Darth Maul's Lightsaber... er, I mean, The Thermic Lance ignore their DT and pretty much one or two shot them? I think the Cram Opener could probably manage this as well. I haven't tried either:)

That would be the Anti-Materiel Rifle. Yes massive damage and it pretty much makes a pizza of anything it hits but... no supressor in vanilla New Vegas. Might as well ring the dinner bell for the Deathclaws.
Yeah the mantis gauntlet will also ignore DT and the unique powerglove Pushy stuns them while you batter them to hell. They aren't hard to kill just don't get surrounded as they ignore DT.

ONLY, the key word was only.

It bothers me when the optimal fighter isn't intelligent enough to tie his own shoe laces.

Min/maxing is just optimizing, really. If the game has a good story and is designed to allow a variety of different character sets to beat all the challenges, I usually don't even strongly consider stat development on my first playthrough. But RPGs are one of the few mechanics-heavy genres out there (wargames being probably the most mechanics-heavy) and to avoid min/maxing just to avoid it is...curious and a little obstinate.

RPGs used to be pretty strongly predicated on min/maxing, actually. It's one of the reasons that so very, very many RPGs use a party system. You maximise the ability of each character in your party to the exclusion of other skills. That's why wizards suck at melee, and fighters probably don't *think* their way out of a trap.

People who don't like to mix/max can be at a disadvantage if the game is set up to encourage such a playstyle, but those who *refuse* to min/max because of some whimsical and arbitrary notion that you role play better if you aren't good at anything are just foolish.

In Brief:

I generally min/max games to death. I don't see the need with New Vegas. ymmv

Long version:

I actually like games that require me to plan out my character in advance. I am kind of perverted in that way, min/maxing is 1/3 of the fun for me. The other thirds are, respectively, character generation and the actual game.

I am playing through New Vegas right now, amusingly; in fact, it has been the ONLY game I have played since April 6. According to Steam, I have about 140 hours of game-play (some of that was probably me leaving it idling, but it is still a lot), and I have only played a single character. I think it is that I have a personal rule that I will never use fast-travel, unless a bug requires it (for some reason, the 188 Trading Post and Primm crash when I walk up to them, so I have to fast travel to use the NPCs in those locations).

As for min/maxing in New Vegas, I did it in a lesser fashion. I printed out the locations of all the Skill Books from the wiki, then made sure I didn't miss one of when I went to a listed location. I never went out of my way to get them, but I did make sure I never missed them.

As I raised my skill scores on level-up, I would only raise them such that all the skill books in the game would get e to 100 skill (or less for some skills). Yeah, you only need 80 with the skill magazines, but I just didn't want the hassle. Also, I did start the game with 9 Int, fully intending to use an implant to max it out. However, since I wasn't rushing (and never using fast travel), I was level 17ish before I even got to the implant vendor. So, I just raise my Charisma from 4 to 5 instead; having a lower than average stat was bothering me more than losing a few skill points would.

I honestly don't think it matters. At level 30 my current skills are: 100 Science, 92 Sneak (need 2 more skill books), 62 Medicine, 100 Speech, 100 Barter, 100 Lockpick, 50 Survival, 40 Explosives, 100 Repair, 100 Guns, 40 Energy Weapons, 46 Melee Weapons (need 1 more book), 40 Unarmed. Hardly min-maxed, there is a lot of waste there (especially Barter, and I even maxed that out after I had over 100k caps). I just started taking more role-playing choices towards the end, because more min/maxing wouldn't help me do anything better. There isn't a skill check in the vanilla game that I know of that I can't pass with those skills and a drug/magazine (there was a 75 Survival check that I needed both for) or bypass by using a different skill check.

Heck, I don't even use the 'best' gun. I use a Trail Carbine, because it is the best scoped rifle that uses the Cowboy perk. I gave a brush gun to my companion (because it has no scope) and left the anti-materiel rifle in storage. I still one-shot headshot 99% of things using the .44 SWC hand-load ammo.

EDIT:
Yeah, I took both Educated and Comprehension as perks, ASAP. So, on that score, I maxed out skill points. I only lost out on 14 or 15 skill points by having 9 Int instead of 10. I honestly don't know what I would have done with those extra points anyway. Throw them into Medicine for better drug usage, I guess...

I don't do a lot of min-maxing. I've tried it in the past with Fallout and Icewind Dale but I just go insane building 300 characters with only one stat different between them. I find the challenge of playing a quirky underpowered character a far more rewarding and meaningful experience. These days if ever I do go for a min-max build it is for a pacifist run.

This thread has inspired me to make every RPG character into Rincewind from now on.

There are only few rpgs where you really need to minmax. (mostly party based/ 2E D&D) Often you can play them with a more versatile character, as long as you dont mind the extra challenge to create such a PC. And i find that a lot more fun, since i am playing something unqiue and challenge is the fun of such games anyway.

And it's the combination of your two points where they stop making sense.. The first part of your explanation makes sense from a roleplaying perspective. Heroes tend to be above average (though personally I find heroes who just happen to make the right decisions at the right times a lot more interesting). The second part makes sense from the game perspective; the min-max effect is to be expected when merging roleplaying with a game system. But it does in no way make sense roleplaying-wise!

That's why I prefer systemless roleplaying, where everyone just thinks up a character that they like without being bound and pushed by the system.

There is a conflict between the game part and the roleplaying part, and the result is often going to make less sense for one part than the other. That's fine. In a way I find that RPG and roleplaying game are really two different words with different meanings by now, where RPG indicates games with more focus on the game aspect, and roleplaying game those with a more developed roleplaying aspect.

I tend to bring a bit of roleplaying even into RPGs (as in, I resist min-maxing), but in the end RPGs often have optimal decisions that make no sense roleplaying wise (which is fine). I just prefer those that allow some suboptimal decisions without *extremely* penalizing me. One of the reasons why I prefer single player RPGs, I suppose.

/unstructured rant

Depends entirely on the mood and the setup of that game. For example action-RPGs like Diablo and Sacred I, almost, only play them because of min-maxing your character. Sure, the story quite awesome in Diablo and quite decent in Sacred IMO but the setup of the gameplay is about becoming immortal without being immortal. For these types of games balancing challenges and the difficulty is probably an art. Obviously it can't be either too easy or too hard.

Now I haven't played through Baldur's Gate and Torment Planescape but it seems that these games relies more on the story and the world itself rather than only on the aspect of combat. However, that doesn't mean I wouldn't try to min-maxing but I wouldn't reload on end just get the best possible outcome.

I prefer building my character in RPGs. It adds re-play value IMHO as you learn from your first play through what works / fails in the build. I usually enjoy my second play through more than the first as I have a greater understanding of the game play and character builds.

I enjoy wringing every bit of entertainment out of an RPG that I can since it may be years before I play the game again. . . =)

Pen & paper RPGs>>>videogame RPGs.

As you say, pen & paper games are not limited, only by GM's common sense (or lack thereof).
But on the other hand, there are video games which actually try to be more than "just kill your way to the end", for example the first Fallout where you can go high charisma + speech and related perks and actually you can play it different way as if you were, say, combat oriented. Also there are games where the only role you play is the "I r a mass murderer, lulz" (Diablo and other action-oriented games) and IMO, they are not a RPG by a long shot.

Actually(again) they are RPGs...just CRPGs instead of normal RPGs.........and again, as I said, unless they really want to or have the time/budget they usually can't or won't do it that way when making PC RPGs.

No, Diablo or other games in the hack&slash genre are not RPGs.

RPGs are defined by roleplaying, i.e. a game is an RPG imo if it provides you as the player with opportunities to express the personality of the character you're trying to roleplay, mostly through dialog and gameplay choices.

Diablo (or Titan Quest or any other hack&slash) doesn't do that. Your PC never says anything, and you have no gameplay choices except to kill everything that moves outside town. In what way is that roleplaying?