Most space settings either vastly underestimate the immense resources and numbers involved with space (such as Warhammer 40k) or invent some contrived reason for everyone to be too backward to actually utilize the resources of space (such as Battletech). It's understandable since space is usually just a different backdrop for the same kind of stories, there's little difference between a paladin being told to slay a bandit gang by his king and a mechwarrior being told to kill some pirates by their king, it's the same story with different aesthetics.

But this begs the question: Are there any TRPG settings that actually do fully utilize the vast resources and powerful technology associated with a space-faring civilization?

>>95996519 (OP)
How did this topic impact your lates table top gaming session?

>>95996519 (OP)
None of this matters for any games, so no game wastes time on running a spreadsheet, autismo.
And that's giving the benefit of doubt that this is actually hobby fucking related, and not just random spam thread

>>95996519 (OP)
Mindjammer if you want something from someone with vaguely a sense of scale
Strike Legion (the tabletop RPG) if you want over the top "the basic soldier from this faction is basically a superhero" stuff.
(Or so I've heard, I haven't played either of them)
Or my own setting

>>95998033
>>95998878
You two are the most insufferable useless waste of human skin on this board.
go and stay go

>>95998878
I'm sure you post this every time somebody posts the Medieval Demographics Made Easy pdf too, right, you useless bundle of meat?

>ackshually, fiction is scientifically wrong!
wow, no shit? I fucking hate nerds, man. you people deserve everything you get

>>96000214
I'm going to put a Nissan Versa in the next fantasy TTRPG you play in. You can't complain, since it's fiction, and fantasy too! What, you can accept dragons but not a Nissan Versa? Fucking nerd loser.

>>96000229
maybe you should try putting a woman in your life instead

>>96000251
Concession accepted.

>>96000229
>HURR DURR FANTASY MEANS THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS COHERENCY OR CONSISTENCY!!!
Okay retard.

>>95996519 (OP)
>Are there any TRPG settings that actually do fully utilize the vast resources and powerful technology associated with a space-faring civilization?
How many space-faring civilizations do you know to compare this shit to, OP?

>>95996519 (OP)
I'm not sure what you're trying to propose. Yes: places have resources. Infrastructure and industry must be developed to utilize them. Landing on a planet doesn't magically provide you a world's worth of natural resources and agricultural products.

>>96000256
>translation: I took the L

>>96000342
People who won don't have to resort to "lol no gf" and "lmao he admits he lost". They just win. You were expertly rhetorically outmaneuvered and then immediately resorted to ad hominem attacks.

>>96000357
how's online dating going

>>96000366
You will continue these intellectually vacuous responses until I stop interacting with you, at which point you will once more claim victory. But, actually, it is I who shall attain victory, as follows: filtered.

>>96000387
not good, huh?

>>95996519 (OP)
God /tg/ is awful these days

You'd be better off asking what settings in general utilize realistic space scale, since there just aren't that many scifi TTRPGs in the first place.
The only one I can think of that would hit what you want out of the box would be GURPS Transhuman Space, and maybe Eclipse Phase but both are more solar system focused than galactic scale.

>>96000214
Brother, asking "is there a setting that handles thing X realistically" is not even remotely the same as complaining about other settings not handling the same thing realistically.

For what it's worth, some 40k writers are better about the sense of scale than others. Some of the books go into some pretty interesting detail about the logistics of the Imperium. But then, of course you've got silly shit like armies of less than a million guardsmen being able to take and hold entire planets.

>>96000894
>But then, of course you've got silly shit like armies of less than a million guardsmen being able to take and hold entire planets.
what's so silly about that? seems like the kind of thing that would depend on landmass, population, and military context. it's harder to imagine that they would pack millions of soldiers onto spaceships just for them to act like cannon fodder on the ground.

>>96000894
Really depends on how much of the planet matters. If there's just one major population center and the rest of it is an irradiated desert of no value, then you could take that planet by just decapitating its leadership and telling the rest to fall in line or get shot. Who cares if you don't have boots out in the vast empty nothing.

>>95996519 (OP)
WEG era star wars did put some thought into it

>>95996519 (OP)
People vastly overestimate how much resources we need. At some point, there's a pretty easy reason space-faring civilization doesn't happen; it's just logistically retarded.
The resources it would take to send out ships to collect, mine, and transport back resources would probably take more resources than it produced, and that'd be with technology already vastly superior than our own.
It's just obviously not economical. It's probably vastly more common to just reach a stable population equilibrium and stay on one planet, like very other living being we've ever seen in the history of the universe.

>>96003071
>The resources it would take to send out ships to collect, mine, and transport back resources would probably take more resources than it produced
This is objectively ridiculous, the minerals from a single asteroid would crash the entire minerals market, and they are a finite resource on Earth. You don't even have to mine in space, a controlled crash onto a planet would be easier.

>>96003125
You're assuming that the shit on Earth is rare, or hard to find. It's really not. The main price comes from the manual labor involved in extraction. On our planet. Where it's easy. Hell, it'd probably be easier to mine underwater than to go steal an asteroid.
Yet you people act like it's a simple, cheap, easy thing to go scoop that shit the fuck out of the air. Comical levels of naivete.

>>96003071
> It's probably vastly more common to just reach a stable population equilibrium and stay on one planet, like very other living being we've ever seen in the history of the universe.
And then we stagnate and collapse. Competitive forces end up eliminating everything but the bare essentials and civilization collapses in on it'self as long term problems slowly eat it alive. Basically Universe 25 all over again.

>>96006265
Nah, we just restrict the birthrates to keep the population constant. Malthusian catastrophes only happen if you don't do this, which a solar system scale civilization is more than capable of managing.

>>96006265
Disagree.
There's plenty of animals that have existed for millions of years. Humans are better at surviving than them, not worse. Nukes also aren't as dangerous as you think they are, I promise you.
Even if our society collapsed, humanity survived the fucking ice age. I don't think we're existentially threatened.
We can survive just fine for tens of thousands more years vibing out on just Earth. The idea that resources are only scarce NOW but not 100,000k years ago is just the endless corporate greed talking. Ironically, your urge to get off the planet is motivated by the same incessant greed that you find so threatening.
A wiser species just stops being consumed like that, eventually.
We won't explore space until we're essentially post-scarcity, and people are doing it purely for recreation. There is nothing so valuable out there that it justifies the technological/logistical cost of collecting it over just mining it on Earth.
We'll only get serious about colonization after human society is basically perfected, not before. Your order of operations is backwards and fucked up.

>>96006452
Wrong. It's the 12000 year cyclical solar storm that causes advanced but earthbound civilizations to collapse. We are probably the most advanced iteration in terms of general available ability, but others definitely have some branches that we have missed.

>>95996519 (OP)
What's the name of the series in OP's pic again? Humans attempt to do a colonialism on a primitive planet, the galactic federation tells them to knock that shit off, and they respond by building AM?

>>96006452
The problem isn't going to be restricting births. We've seen increasing urbanization and technological availability naturally reduce birthrates in the real world. Our future is probably going to resemble Comorragh where the government contracts companies to mass-produce the next generation

>>96006943
>the government contracts companies to mass-produce the next generation
They could do this right now. They don't because it's actually stupid.

>>96006829
Its not resource scarcity that will push us into space.
Its wanting our own space. The same pressures that moved people to North America will move people to look to space colonization. People ultimately want smaller communities of likeminded people to live with. And the world as it is doesn't allow that. Small scale space colonies will. People are already chafing under the lack of self determination that modern "democracies" allow. As the technology to escape those societies gets cheaper and more available to the public, more and more people will seek to use it to move to new horizons.

We're obviously not even 50 years away from that, more like 100. But if you think human society will ever be "perfect" for even 50% of people living in it, you're fucking delusional. There is no perfect solution as long as we don't engineer ourselves to all agree on how things should be run. To make a perfect society, you have to fundamentally alter humans, not the society. And I, for one, think that is fucking evil.

>>96007415
>Its wanting our own space.
I keep mentioning to retards like you how it seems clear how the human population reaches a natural equilibrium with its environment (This is why birthrates are going down.) and yet you people keep insisting that the Earth will be overpopulated.
Why?
What I'm trying to tell you is that there is no pressing need for us to go into space, economic, societal, or otherwise. Ever. We don't NEED to go into space, ever, and can live just fine on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years without ever running out of space or resources.
You're just comically obsessed with the notion of perpetual exponential growth, for reasons I don't understand and you seem incapable of explaining.
I do think we'll be in space eventually, but only as an erudite civilization hobby after we've figured out shit out on this planet.
The idea that we have anything to GAIN out in space other than pride is retarded. It just is.

>>96007384
No, they don't do this right now because the requisite technology is in its infancy

>>95996519 (OP)
Jesus this thread devolved into faggotry quick.
But to give a honest answer to you op is that it stops to matter. Sure star Captain Biggus Dickus bought 100 000 Ascension class grand cruisers from the asteroid belt shipyards and told his new fleet to A-move on the target location. Now what? How do you depict that? You would have to zoom out so much that the fleet just looks like a a giant piece of moss(if they are closely grouped) or a nebula(units further away from each other) or just a black screen(where every member of the fleet is hundreds to thousands km/miles from each other).It's just going to devolve into a legends of the galactic heroes scenario where two clouds just bump into one another playing roshambo until some one decides to fuck off. Ending up with you playing DnD where everyone is using swarm of insects rules per combatant and less anything resembling any cool aspects of a space battle. Alternatively you zoom into your characters fighting in their own little corner of the battlefield where everything else just falls into the background making the "realistic resource" war look imperceptibly different from the more regular starwarsy type of deal.

>>96007725
>It's just going to devolve into a legends of the galactic heroes scenario where two clouds just bump into one another
Two semi-circles, if they're at all competent.

>>96007513
IVF was invented decades ago, bro. You can just pay women to have kids now (in the sense of surrogacy). The problem is raising the kids, which there is no sign we're getting any better at.

>>96006928
Humanity Lost

>>96000894
>noooooo you can't conquer planet with 5 mining complexes and 200k civies with milion men! Is just not possible because... Uh...ummm...reasons.
You are just dumb, that's the reason.

>>96007507
>it seems clear how the human population reaches a natural equilibrium with its environment (This is why birthrates are going down.
You're an actual fool.
But worse, you're a fool without reading comprehension. Read the whole fucking post.
People didn't leave Europe for North America because of lack of resources. They wanted self determination. You cannot have that on a planet dominated by existing societies that have largely ossified. You cannot go off and found your own weird cult or religious sect or found a colony based on radical new social ideas because all land already has claims to it. That sort of exodus has happened constantly throughout history and the only reason its not more prevalent today is because right now there is nowhere to go.
I never mentioned growth or a need for it. You seem to think the only reason people might flee Earth is resources. There are hundreds of reasons to do so. I can only conclude you're some sort of bug man with no sense of wonder or exploration, or who just fully accepts the status quo.