I've been working hard on writing up the first draft of the rules for torn. The Channeling mechanics are mostly set as they were before, but I've come up with a conflict resolution mechanic, and I'd love to get some feedback on it.

This game is card-based, played with regular playing 52 card decks, no jokers. After every conflict, cards are reshuffled. Each player uses a separate deck.

Players who get into a conflict draw a base hand of 3 cards. Now, the player who initiates the conflict states their goal. This can range from "My character pushes his way past yours" over "My character blows yours away with his gun" to "My character grabs your weapon and throws you to the ground" (that's two goals).

For each goal that the player sets and that is aimed at overcoming the other player's character's resistance, the resisting player receives 3 additional cards. Each goal is played as a separate trick. Players divide their cards among the several tricks before they turn them over to reveal the result. Tricks are decided according to regular poker ranks, with single cards ranking under pairs (i.e., if neither side has any pair at all, highest single card wins). The player on the other side can also add goals, which grant 3 cards each to the first player.

Additionally, each player can Up the Ante by introducing a possible negative effect for his/her own character, thereby gaining 3 cards for him/herself.

For example:

Player A decides that his character attacks character B. This would be one trick, with 3 cards for Player A and 6 for Player B (GM). This has no risk for Player A, so the chance of winning is low. Now, Player A ups the ante by saying that his character's action could potentially alert the guards in the next room. This ante gives him 3 additional cards, and now two tricks will be played: the first to determine whether A hits B, the second whether the guards will be alerted. Both players now split up their 6 cards each, depending on which of the two outcomes they perceive as more important.

Obviously, this will require some rulings on the part of the GM as to what constitutes a viable upping of the ante on the side of player characters. Some standard options should always be there, such as "My character gets hurt in the process," which basically acts like an attack from the other character.

Now, there will be some additional refinements, such as: having a gun automatically draws 3 extra cards for "My character hurts yours" that are usable only on that specific trick, not any other goals or complications. Also, attributes, situation, character background or good roleplaying could give an automatic extra card to tricks that relate to them.

Does this seem like too much card drawing (you could easily get to 18 cards in hand with 6 tricks to play, plus bonus cards)? Is there some part of the mechanic that I don't see that would be abusable or break it?

Feedback, as usual, is highly appreciated. I'm pretty sure this mechanic was influenced by things I've read here and on "anyway" recently, so thanks for the inspiration.

[Edited for a minor clarification]

Okay, additional clarification:

Maybe "trick" is the wrong word. Each goal gets assigned however many cards the player wants to assign to it. Then, the players compare what they assigned to a specific goal, and higher-counting poker-like combinations (pairs, three of a kind, full house) win. I guess it's best to leave out straights and flushes.

The player can assign one, or 5, or all cards to a single goal; it doesn't have to be poker size.