Okay, I've posted the following over at The Forge as well but (other than Andrew Kenrick who is a mate anyway) haven't garnered much response. As such I thought that I'd try cross posting over here to see if I can get some alternate input and feedback. My first thread on Anarchy can be found HERE. My second thread can be found HERE and it is my last post in that thread that I copy here. As a warning, reading those 2 threads (neither of them very long) is probably necessary to know wtf I'm on about.

Oppossed/Unoppossed Conflicts:

By definition there can't be a 'conflict' if it's unoppossed, however I do want it to be possible for the characters to fail at certain, difficult actions (successfully wiring a bomb, etc.) that have no direct opposition. So I'm making a distinction between checks and conflicts. Checks are made when a character is attempting a task with no, direct opposition. Conflicts occur when there is a dice pool to roll in opposition to the characters dice pool. A conflict should always be used in preference to a check when there is some ambiguity in the minds of the players/GM as to which is relevant.

Ties:

The potential for ties is an issue at the moment, especially as there are two ways to 'win' a conflict, successes and flavour.

I want checks to be simple. They are unopposed so there can never be a tie for successes, you wither succeed or you fail, plain and simple. There can, however, be a flavour tie. In that case it goes to the dominant flavour of the dice pool being rolled. There are 5 dice in the pool so there will always be either more Anarchy Dice present (player narrates) or more Order Dice present (GM narrates.)

Conflicts are a little more complicated. You could have a successes tie, a flavour tie or both could be tied.

* In the case of a success only tie the person who 'won' the flavour side of the conflict can choose to hand narration rights to his opponent in exchange for succeeding at the conflict. If not then the conflict is Escalated.
* In the case of a flavour only tie the person who 'won' the successes side of the conflict can choose to grant his opponent success in exchange for gaining narration rights for the conflict. If not then the conflict is Escalated.
* In the case that both successes and flavour are tied the conflict must be Escalated.

Escalating Conflicts:

When a conflict is escalated the opposing dice pools are rolled again and successes and flavour outcome are added to the previous rolls (so in the case of a tie that was only successes or flavour the original 'winner' of the other aspect of the conflict can end up losing that advantage, which is why they get the choice as to whether or not to escalate in those 2 cases.) Success and dominant flavour are worked out in the same manner as previously (and further ties lead to the same Escalation options). Also, each side in the conflict is allowed to add an additional stake to the conflict to 'up the ante.' It is only in this instance that character death can become an option for stakes (and then only if the players agree that it is appropriate.) The other twist is that if an escalation occurs (and ONLY if an escalation occurs) there is the player will gain traits, based upon the nature of the conflict. These traits will either be positive (adding an additional Anarchy Die) or negative (adding an additional Order Die) depending on the outcome of the conflict. In the case of the player succeeding the trait will be positive, in the event of the opponent succeeding it will be negative. The precise nature of the trait is defined be the winner of the flavour portion of the conflict. So if the player succeeds but Order Dice dominate the GM decides on an appropriate positive trait for the character. All traits should get the buy in of everyone at the table in terms of being thematically appropriate and being relevant to the conflict that has just occurred. In this manner gaining traits always makes a player more likely to succeed in relevant circumstances, however the success can be flavoured negatively, making Order more likely to dominate the conflict outcome.

Now, I know that just putting something 'out there' and asking for comment isn't the best way to illicit responses here (specific, focused questions are rather better) but I really would like to hear some comments on this idea. Does it seem workable? Are there any obvious, battleship-sized holes that I've missed that should be evident even without playtesting?

Once I have a mechanic worked out I'll start working more on the setting how to promote the kind of game I'm hoping to create using the system.