Narrativist scenario-scene system

Thought I'd run this through the collective brain trust here, to see if it's worth a reaction. It's the barebones of a system idea I'm working on now, that is something of a bastard child of various concepts I've been bumbling into around here. Here goes.

Every scenario, the GM starts with a "bank" of dice, and the players share a "bank." Banks are big pools of dice, like 50 or so. Players can't complete a scenario until the GM's bank is empty. Likewise, the players can't be killed until their own bank runs dry. This stops PCs from making a killing shot the first time they meet the villan, and likewise, pointless PC death.

Ok, so far, so good.

Scenarios are made up of "scenes," that players and GM alike must "buy-into" with an "account," a number of dice taken from their bank. Anyone can initiate (frame) a scene, by being the first to buy-in. Now, these accounts function just like the larger banks. When your account run dry, you've been defeated in the scene. You can't win a scene unless the other side's account is empty. For example, a scene could be the PCs attempting to wade through a horde of orcs. The PCs don't get through until the GMs account is empty. They may get overwhelmed, knocked unconscious, if their accounts dry up.

Now, finally, the mechanic.

It's an opposed dice pool roll. GM rolls number of dice up to the value in scenario trait (i.e. Theme 6, Plot 4). PCs roll up to their value in a trait + emotion (i.e. Strong 4 + Truth 3 = 7). More on emotions below. Now a round starts were one side announces a rolled number and the other side matches it with either a high, low, or even roll. A success is when your number is higher. This continues until one player runs out of dice, or one "calls" the outcome. The one with more successes wins the round, and the loser tosses the winner's success - the loser's successes back into their bank. The one who calls narrates the outcome.

Probably do better with an example:

PC's barbarian is attempting to save the toaster he loves from the evil wizard. He rushes the wizard. The GM rolls his scenario trait Antagonist 7 and gets 1, 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6. The PCs rolls his Love(Toasters) 4 + Desire 2 and gets a 2, 2, 3, 6, 6, 6. The PC announces his 6, and the GM matches it with his. No success, and both set those two dice aside. GM announces 5 and PC announces 6, PC announces 6 and GM announces 1, GM announces 4 and PC announces 3, then the PC calls. The PC had 2 successes, the GM 1, so 2 - 1 = 1 and the GM tosses 1 die from his account back to his bank. The player narrates that the barbarian has backed the wizard against a guardrail, and is whipped him good with his vicious rope of red licorice.

So, how do you lose dice from your bank then, if it all goes back? At the end of the scene the "winner" will have X amount of dice left over. He loses these permanently. They don't go back into the bank. If his character acted within the confines of the scenario traits, he may keep some, but basically at the end of every successful scene he's involved in, he'll lose some dice.

I see no limit on how many dice you want to take from a scene, but with the winner "loses" dice option, it should keep everyone from going in with a buttload of dice insurance.

I think it will encourage basic story structure: protaginists get defeated at first, but eventually come back at the end to defeat the bad-guys. Plus, having all players draw their accounts from the same bank will hopefully encourage more cooperative play.

Oh, and the emotions. I'm leaning heavily on making traits to roll against be a character relationship to the problem at hand, plus a defining emotion. For example, above the barbarian rolls Love (Toasters) instead of sword, plus an emotion that defines it, Desire (I'm thinking of dividing love into two camps: lust-style Desire for girlfriends, husbands, toasters...and familial-style Empathy, a particularly strong form of empathy). I've seen this in a few games since I've been here, namely Ghost Light and Wyrd.

I know I wrote a post on kitchen-sink settings earlier, but have decided to keep my sanity and focus on a kind of dystopic techno-fascist setting where emotions are discouraged and sometimes outright banned. The premise is to be, "Is love and freedom worth security and order?"

Thoughts? Thanks.