Reading through the mass effect wiki is a decent way to get familiar with the lore and stuff.  But, a setting is more than just its lore, and if you really want to get familiar with things, playing the game is the best way.  If you don't want to play the games, then watching other people play them is the next best thing.  Just google for "let's play mass effect", there will be tons of them.

More questions: Should our characters know each other already, or are we meeting in game?

So here's what I'm thinking for my character.  A female Quarian with an interest in AI research.  Finding the limitations related to AI in the Migrant Fleet to restrictive to work within, she suspended her education in frustration and set out on her pilgrimage.  Considering that the Council is not much more lax regarding AI, she naturally wound up in the Terminus Systems, specifically Omega Station.

I'm ok with that. Please don't break my brain w/ your character

I don't plan to get to technical or anything like that.  Also, does your list of available classes exclude expert classes because they're not allowed?

Isn't it funny how it's easy to play a generic Fantasy game but near-impossible to pick a generic Future one?

That is unfortunate.

So here's what I'm thinking for my character.  A female Quarian with an interest in AI research.  Finding the limitations related to AI in the Migrant Fleet to restrictive to work within, she suspended her education in frustration and set out on her pilgrimage.  Considering that the Council is not much more lax regarding AI, she naturally wound up in the Terminus Systems, specifically Omega Station.

EDIT:
Mechanics wise, I'm inclined to go Hacker or Scientist and then Schemer.

Well, I was leaning toward playing Quarian myself, so preferably some time after the establishment of the Migrant Fleet, which is itself some time after the Geth War.  I would still prefer setting the game some time after Humans make first contact, but if we're not having Humans, I won't argue about it.

You know, if we are going to go Mass Effect, I think we should leave humans well out of it.

That is somewhat interesting.  I'm not sure how I feel about it.  Why would we want to do that, exactly?

Sounds good to me.  I think the whole thread should probably now be considered one big spoiler for people who care about that sort of thing.  I do have a question though, will the Geth be available as a PC race?  Not sure I would, even if I could, but I like to know what my options are.

I find myself wondering if this character got made and how it turned out.

[Just No:]

In the interest of moving things forward, I think picking an existing setting (possibly tweaked) is the way to go.  Here are my thoughts on some of those:

Just No: These are all fun to watch/read, not fun to play or don't really work for an RPG for various reasons.
Star Wars
Star Trek
Dr. Who

Sure: These offer a lot of avenues for a game to explore and aren't completely dominated by a single character or event (except mass effect).  They also offer a combination of technological capability and level of expansion that I appreciate.  Things are fairly well settled, but there's also plenty of space left to explore, and exploring doesn't take generations.  I don't think it's a coincidence that these are all games already.
Mass Effect
Traveler
EVE
Elite/Evochron/Freelancer/X series, etc

Yes, but:
Firefly.  I'm not a fan of how long it takes to get from place to place in Firefly.  I also don't like how contained it is.  However, these are not show stopping issues for me.  In particular, I prefer my space fiction to have some form of FTL travel in it.
Cowboy Bebop.  I'm not a fan of how contained everything is.  On the other hand, the ruined but still accessible Earth is somewhat appealing.  I'm also not sure if Bebop has FTL travel, or just very fast sublight with relativity handwaved away.
Farthest Star.  To my knowledge I don't think this exists enough to give us the common base of knowledge and assumptions that makes using an established setting worthwhile.  Otherwise I have no problems with it.

My thoughts regarding other issues that have been brought up:
System: I like FC more than 2.0, but I also think that 2.0 is generally better suited to this task and porting FC is probably more work than it's worth.  So I guess either is ok with me, but 2.0 is the smarter choice in my opinion.
Magic, or whatever you want to call it: Meh.  I can go either way.  This should probably be determined by the setting we choose, and whether said setting has this or not makes no difference to me.
Hardness of the Science: I prefer my science harder than not, but there are some things it's easier not to deal with.  For instance, if there is some FTL in the setting, I would prefer it be a method that is not definitely impossible or rely on what is essentially magic (hyperspace).  That said, relativity is a pain, causality is a bigger pain, and time travel is just completely unworkable in my experience.
Transmechs: Uh....  I hate to rain on people's parades, but I don't really feel good about transformers, or giant robots in general.  I'm just fine with regular robots, androids, cyborgs, AI in strong and weak varieties, and probably other things I'll think of later.  But, I tend to get put off by things that Michael Bay gets excited about.

... submarine movie style plots.

Hunt for Red October or Crimson Tide?

Why limit ourselves?  Also U-571, Run Silent Run Deep, and not strictly submarines like Out of Gas (Firefly), Toys in the Attic (Cowboy Bebop), The Abyss, or even 2001: A Space Odyssey.  The most important elements of a submarine movie are total isolation from the rest of the world, zero possibility of escape, and a small pocket of safety in an environment that would otherwise be instantly fatal

I like starships myself, if for no other reason than they allow for submarine movie style plots.

Is this still open to other players?  I know pbp isn't my preferred mode of play, but I'm tired of having to be the one running games and at this point I'll take what I can get.

I'm just going to toss this out for whatever it's worth.

I would love to play a game using most any of the styles on that list.  The thing is, pbp isn't something I enjoy.  I should, because the character and world building are the parts of a game that i like most, but I just can't enjoy pbp games.  Now, I would be more than happy to play using some other online medium.  Video chat, text chat, voice chat (no video) in that order, or possibly others I haven't thought of.  Those I have enjoyed in the past, and would do again given the opportunity.

I'm having trouble finding it in any of the erratas, but I'm inclined to agree that the PDF is the most current.

I certainly see the difference, but I'm not sure it's relevant in the situations that spycraft is trying to model.  Generally, you're attacking single targets, rather than areas or positions as would be the case in larger conflicts.  Although, I suppose if you wanted to take a stab at it anyway, you could allow guns with a full auto mode to attack a line of squares.  Similar to strafe, but without the stacking penalties, or at least with smaller penalties.  And of course only against targets or squares that don't benefit from cover.

I feel like the general outpacing of attack bonuses vs defense bonuses does most of the work in making not having cover roughly equate to flanked in the real world tactical sense.  The direct opposite situation that spycraft currently requires is just even worse, forcing the defender to split their attention 180 degrees and leaving them particularly vulnerable (aka sneak-attackable).