What I meant was, some kind of separate rules governing sorcery and science. For example, iron kingdoms; their mechanika was more than simply the sum of its parts.
Having done some work in that system for Privateer in years back, my opinion of the mechanika system was simply a more elaborate, difficult-to-use magic item crafting system that put charges on everything. I believe the current magic item system works quite well to represent most mechanikal items, as most of that gear ended up being "base item + single effect" with that effect being an alternative damage type or what have you. Paying Rep for these items replaces paying XP to do schematics, then building the plates, etc etc. The rest is the color of the paint - and our system is designed to take whatever color you want
If you wanted to make magic item creation seem more in depth, you could always treat Building as a Complex Downtime task - for example, instead of making 1 roll then multiplying by the amount of downtime period, you could roll for each portion of that period and apply setbacks and so on at each phase. For example, I have 5 weeks, I don't roll on the chart, compare to the W line, then multiply by 5 - instead I make 5 Crafting checks, 1 for each W, to see how much I create. Each challenge could represent a different task of mechanika building (#1 - draw schematics, #2, build plates, #3 - design battery, etc.) as well. While this introduces the chances of errors and makes for more rolling, it also gives you a chance of threats and increased speed in construction - you wouldn't be beholden to a single crummy roll this way. Does that spark some ideas?
Well, this is the point. If you are just going to say all you news to do is reskin magic for mechanika / steampunk and psionics, why have a separate system for divine power? After all, d&d actually had a closer relationship systematically between divine and arcane magic than FC does. By your argument, they should have just reskinned the arcane magic instead of making a different system.
OK. Hold on a sec.
1) I think psionics is different. I never told you magic=psionics, otherwise I wouldn't have been dabbling with a whole new rules system for them.
2) Divine magic is different in our system in how it is gained and used, not the spells. In D&D, aside from the declared source and classes which use it, divine magic as a system is identical
to arcane magic. Our system actually draws a stronger contrast between the two than D&D does.
3) Are we even talking magic as in spellcasting, or magic as in magic items? The lines in the last point are becoming blurred.
By the same.token, why even bother with a Spellbound book? And that's the point. If It's different enough to justify a different system for divine magic, I certainly think the same is true of psionics and steampunk magic items.
Spellbound is not redefining how magic (as in spells that you can cast, and the people who cast them) works in Fantasy Craft. It is expanding it. Nothing to do with magic items.
Ignore what everyone else has said on psionics - psionics, when they come out, will not be spells in a different color of paint. I am the only one in this conversation who can say that definitively, so you can set that one aside
I'm not saying I want mechanika or steampunk to be more complex; IK is too complex. I don't want it more or less powerful. I just want it different.
So the nugget of your point is, you think we need to do a seperate magic item system specifically for techno-magical items built in the Industrial era. Am I understanding you correctly?
If so, what, specifically, do you think that should contain? What does the basic magic item creation system not do
already that your ideal system would need to do for it to feel different enough? I have offered a solution of making the process of crafting seem more involved, with a way to call out individual tasks in the building process but I can't keep throwing ideas blindly at what your shooting for without a better idea of what you think would make something like this "feel different" in the way you expect.
My experience is "different just to be different" leads to a) angry players who don't want to learn another path to the exact same result, or worse b) confused players who can't rectify the best path for them to get to the solution they want. Anything I as a publisher produce will need to be justifiably, workably different with a good, attractive reason for players to bother to learn it.