@Willy Vereb
When I get the OOC setup, do you mind being the GM for the reasons you and @Darkmatter brought up? And if not, then @Darkmatter, would you be the co-GM?

The OOC will include everything you've said, btw. But I'm still going with more... restricted fleets. Look at the world today- there aren't more than two dozen aircraft carriers total, in the entire world.

I'll also be including the fact that habitable worlds are rare. Population centers- and therefore, large-scale industry and economics- will be spread out more than usual, and colonies would more common. Planets outside a liquid water zone that don't have an atmosphere, but may be ideal in size and resources, would have to have dozens of terraformers constantly going to keep the planet stable, with a stable global climate. Again, it puts a bit more emphasis on strategy- controlling terraformers means essentially controlling the planet's surface.

I think you missed a 'co' here.

I don't want to hijack the Rp either by any means, I just wanted to offer my thoughts based on trial by fire. I've made a lot of mistakes GMing these things and learned from them.

<Snipped quote by WilsonTurner>

I think you missed a 'co' here.

I don't want to hijack the Rp either by any means, I just wanted to offer my thoughts based on trial by fire. I've made a lot of mistakes GMing these things and learned from them.

Aye, but no rp I've GMed ever really started. Best to have someone experienced, no? And you have good advice. I'd rather have you deciding what to say nay to, than me. I might not be as good of a job.

Another option you could consider is ignoring numbers entirely, and bringing them up only when absolutely necessary. This does run the risk of potentially causing a few arguments in regards to how a war has affected someone, but it allows better story since everyone isnt always focused on military numbers, and it helps prevent a lot of the OOC dick measuring that can sometimes happen.

@WilsonTurnerAlright, I wanted to make a long post about strategies and tactics but it may come off a little insulting.
The long story cut short is that your intentions and proposed rules don't match.
Writing engaging battles is up to the player and their pool of creativity. Weapons and tech limitations almost don't matter.
Same with numbers, I personally can effectively write with any number of ships.
Though because of the influence of LotGH, I prefer playing with large fleets, using formations, flanking an all the other fun tactics you can just barely taste with only a few dozen ships.
There are tons of other issues I can talk about but really there are way too many directions I can approach this thing and it'd only turn into a tl;dr mess.
Let's just say your ideas are based on Hollywood and other popular media instead of level thinking.
If you want to avoid the insane messes space NRPs apparently come down to then you don't need rules, you need action.
When somebody gets lazy and engages in a war of numbers and doesn't even think about where or how these come from, warn him.
It's an effective method, even if admittedly management-intensive.

<Snipped quote by WilsonTurner>That's a misunderstandment of the scale here.
Shall I list how many fighters and ships we produce right now with boorish modern day technology and industry which doesn't involve all the delicious ways to get resources in abdunance?
The setting of most Space NRPs is very much an utopia compared to what we have now.

It's an issue if people get overboard but the cold fact of warfare is that practically everything is repalceable.
It'd hit the nation/civilization's economy and I'd love if players RP that but in effect replacing hundreds of ships in years, months or even days (depending on tech assumptions) is a cold fact with the scale we are all working at.

Even a single-planet civilization is pretty damn huge and can afford plenty of resource or industrial capacity.
Again, it seems to come back to using rules when it should be the responsibility of the GM.

EDIT:
Alright, so a few hard numbers.
- You have a civilization with billions of people.
- You live on a dirt ball with roughly 6 zettatons of mass.
- Assuming the solar system as average you have roughly 4 yottatons of matter to gather, not counting the Sun itself
- You have easy access to devices which generate at least megatons of energy (over thousands of times more than what the entire modern world produces altogether).
- You have ships that are efficient enough and have enough fuel to use these megatons/second or PW range reactors non-stop
- You have ships that not just capable of reaching any of the planets in your star system which each but even travel to other systems.

So yeah, what is really stopping you? I'm not even considering the various tech niceties like matter replicators.
This is more or less the utopia we want and you wonder that civilizations can handle loses in battle?

Replacable yes.
Done in a timely fashion before someone attacks you....maybe not.
If you think about it, while fighters and smaller ships are easier, I'm pretty sure a nation can't replace carriers and dreadnoughts as quickly.

Planets outside a liquid water zone that don't have an atmosphere, but may be ideal in size and resources, would have to have dozens of terraformers constantly going to keep the planet stable, with a stable global climate. Again, it puts a bit more emphasis on strategy- controlling terraformers means essentially controlling the planet's surface.

Realistically, this would only apply to (certain) organic lifeforms. Depending on their respective technological standings, post-singularity nations are likely to disregard preemptive terraforming entirely because a forgiving planetary atmosphere isn't necessary for their hardened synthetic bodies to function properly. Some species might opt to construct their metropolitan centers deep below a world's surface.

And then there are fleet-bound and station-bound factions to consider.

Honestly Wilson, the rules that you're peddling here aren't exactly compatible with a universe where dyson shells, gravity generators, positron cannons, exawatt pulse grasers, and relativistic railguns exist.

What you want is a science fiction RP where Project Orion became the standard after the Korean War and superluminal travel was discovered during the Gulf War.

Space Jam was a great film. Anybody who disagrees with me is wrong.

<Snipped quote>

Realistically, this would only apply to (certain) organic lifeforms. Depending on their respective technological standings, post-singularity nations are likely to disregard preemptive terraforming entirely because a forgiving planetary atmosphere isn't necessary for their hardened synthetic bodies to function properly. Some species might opt to construct their metropolitan centers deep below a world's surface.

And then there are fleet-bound and station-bound factions to consider.

Honestly Wilson, the rules that you're peddling here aren't exactly compatible with a universe where dyson shells, gravity generators, positron cannons, exawatt pulse grasers, and relativistic railguns exist.

What you want is a science fiction RP where Project Orion became the standard after the Korean War and superluminal travel was discovered during the Gulf War.

Then you can not talk and just leave it alone, if you think it's not perfect scifi. Oh, saying "It's science! Do whatever!" is nice and all, but it gets ridiculous after a while. I'd rather have something a bit more organized and reasonable. Everyone doing everything gets old. And since war and the like is inevitable, I would really like to have war for a reason, not... well, just cause. And I'd like there to be an actual reason. Planets in the liquid water zone with their own atmosphere would be rare, and would likely only require a few terraformers to make it all nice and pretty. Everyone there will be happy with an actual sky while they go work. Meanwhile just living in an underground steel box might get a tad depressing. But then again, that doesn't matter, now does it? Not to you, then, but to me, it does.

Go read a scifi book. How many times could it been so much 'better' if they were 'realistic'? You'd probably say always, but having something that holds people back and makes thing valuable is nice, in my opinion, since a do-whatever-with-whatever scifi nrp doesn't really have anything of real value, besides what we make up and decide to shoot other people for.

Right now, this is you.

Now leavemealone

I could engage this conversation on an intellectual level but I'm extremely hungover, so I'll just say this:

Wilson is aiming for an RP in which several nations are making contact as fledgling FTL races if I understand correctly. Myself and some others felt the need to point out what we thought were errors in the RP structure, in an attempt to help.

You simply cannot, aggressively tell a GM to change their setting though. Science - fiction
If he wanted ftl tech based on clockwork who's to tell him no?

Equally, Wilson I think you may have taken the criticism a bit badly.#

I'm off to hydrate.

@Darkmatter
I could've never said that so well.

As for how aggressively I've responded to ASTA- well, ASTA's always been the one to sit on the sidelines, and point out how it should be different, every time. I'm tired of it, tbh.

OOC is nearly ready.