Resolving encounters, in context, I presume for stringing a series of encounters together to make an adventure.
An encounter, even a hostile one, may not resolve in combat. . . .hard enough to judge combat results (almost impossible perhaps) due to the huge swing weight RM gives characters.
Toss in the broader range of ways to resolve encounters beyond combat and things like intelligence and perception become large factors.
Like, sneak by, con your way by, befriend the encounter, cast fly and avoid the encounter, cast invisibility and avoid the encounter.
I find it far harder to "write to a level" for RM than for say D&D. . .simply because there's so much variability, fairly dangerous odds in play, and a degree of randomness where generally 1/10 critical results put you down.
One of the reasons I like RM is that it discourages combat in favor of roleplay. . .simply because the odds catch up on you so fast. . . .odds are that a string of 10 encounters "evenly balanced" = dead party in RM. (In a party of 5 PCs, odds are you'll have at least 2 members "down" of which one is killed in every "fair" fight.)
YMMV but for me, RM is a system where if you don't intend to talk, you should show up with overwhelming odds, when they don't expect it, and they're not ready to fight, Never give them a chance to get ready, stab them with their backs turned, while they're sleeping, and stand up fighting is reserved for emergencies (usually resulting from having to defend yourself from an attack).
RM is realistic enough that real-world logic applies here. Take a look at people who deal with violence in our world, namely Police and Soldiers. . . .how little do THEY care about a "fair fight"? That's because fair means you might get dead, and you don't want to get dead. With a system where death can just pop out of any attack at all, you can't really afford to deal with issues like "fair" often, or you end up rolling up a new character.
